SF Conference Call details - 6 parks may sell
Intamin Fan said:
SFA has always been a Tierco company, even under Six Flags. SFA has bigtime potential versus some of the other parks which may be either landlocked or would need to remove something to put something else in. There are so many empty parcels of land in the existing park it's not even funny. Let's say that do sell off SFMM. There is a lot of room where maybe you could accomodate say an "X", "Viper", or "Scream."We do have some terrain also (believe it or not). Look at the difference in height between Superman's station and the first drop for example. I also don't buy the argument that a terrain coaster can't be moved. I'm not saying this could happen in every case, but, you can create terrain. Take one part bulldozer, one part dirt out a dumptruck, and a little landscaping and you can create terrain.
True but SFA's already become the recipient of one of the coasters from the last park SF shut down<cough SFAW's ultra twister cough> & even though it's currently at the park there's a very strong probability that it's not even going to be installed at this point so I just don't see SF saving any of the coasters for redistribution should they sell SFMM or any of the other 5 parks that they've mentioned as being up for grabs.
"Shapiro said in the call with investors on Thursday that Magic Mountain is a sale candidate partly because of its rowdy teenage atmosphere."
One thing to consider in regards to SFMM's reputation,something that's out of SF's control would be the regional demographic of the area that the park is located in.It should come as no suprise that given the general clientle of the LA area the park serves could be considered as part of the problem with the park's reputation for being seen as a hangout for rowdy teens.
Then again the same can be said for many parks within the chain given the respective markets that parks such as SFGRADV,SFGRAM & yes even SFA are in..
2022 Trips: WDW, Sea World San Diego & Orlando, CP, KI, BGW, Bay Beach, Canobie Lake, Universal Orlando
1) Shapiro, Snyder, and the rest of the Red Zoners are in this to make money for Shapiro, Snyder and the rest of the Red Zoners. If that means getting rid of coasters, closing or selling parks, so be it. The only considerations they have are for the financial gain of the company.
Not saying what they're proposing is right or wrong, just that their only motivation is financial not emotional. So any emotional arguments you want to make will have little bearing in any decisions that are made.
2) Let's give up the "CF should buy this park or that park, or all the parks" talk. The company just paid 1.2 billion for the Paramount parks, and has taken on some major debt to do so. They have an impressive dividend they pay out each quarter, and would like to continue doing so. It's just not realistic to expect them to jeopardize their own company's financial health or that of their unitholders just so you guys could continue riding (and complaining about) the coasters at SFMM.
Here's another article I found on the net with input from Paul Ruben.
OMG what incredible insight, Paul!!! If I were the journalist writing this I would have been salivating to quote this in my story! What a dream source this guy is.
Serious question, though. I know a few people are of the mindset that the coasters shipped to SFA and SFDL are never going to be put up. My question is, then why bother shipping them? The cost to take them apart piece by piece, and then ship them across the country must have been pretty astounding. I just don't undesrtand going to through all the hassle myself if you're not going to put the rides up.
Swoosh said:IF Busch buys any park it will be SFStL as that is where the HQ for A-B is located.
I would have thought EVEN that wasn't possible....but times have changed in the last 3-5 years, and I think A-B would *consider* buying SFStL.
VG...developers will likely buy off the land for more than CF or A-B would pay. SFMM is, sadly, VERY likely history.
edited: Add SFMW into the mix of *potential* parks for A-B....although I'm not sure how they'd feel about LEASING land the park sits on....I know that wouldn't make ME too comfortable... ;)
*** Edited 6/25/2006 5:47:14 PM UTC by rollergator***
Arthur Bahl
SFMM, it seems, is going to be housing...
I honestly wonder what is keeping TGE, SFDL, and SFA from installing the coasters they received. The ones at SFDL and SFA are fairly old rides, but the one at TGE is a fairly new one. I think ST opened in 1998 at SFAW, so that's not TOO old.
I would like to see UT rebuilt at SFA. This is the only ride of its type in the country, and it looks like it'd be fun to ride. I hope we don't lose this ride forever.
After a long hard look Shapiro & Co could decide to reverse year upon year of mismanagament, drop tens of millions into and totally renovate SFMM from a thrill park to a family park in a market where families are already served -- in better fashion! by Univ, Dl, DCA, and KBF -- and then spend millions more trying to convince the LA-area marketplace that the rebranded park is now a great place to bring the family.
It seems to me that there is one more factor at play in the selection of SFMM. Shapiro has said several times that he wants to market the chain's parks as an "affordable Disney alternative." In other words, a place you can take a day-visit to and have an experience that isn't entirely incomparable with a much more expensive and time consuming visit to the Mouse.
For folks in New Jersey, DC, and even Atlanta or San Francisco, you can imagine that strategy. They'd all probably need to spend at least one night in a hotel to visit a Disney park, and would probably make it a long weekend or week-long trip.
For folks in the north LA suburbs, well, Disneyland just isn't that far, even accounting for the horrendous LA traffic.
As far as I can tell, SFMM just *can't be* marketed as a "more convenient and almost as entertaining" Disney. And, it will never be successfully marketed as a better family destination. Disney simply owns that market, lock stock and barrel.
Universal puts you "in the movies." Knott's has that old west/california-history thing going for it. (And, amusingly, DCA hasn't managed to wrest either of these markets completely away, even though it was clearly designed to do just that.) I'm not sure SFMM can be anything *but* a thrill park and still be successful. That would mean treating SFMM differently from the other properties in the chain, and so far, that's one thing current management has been loath to do. One single parking price, one single pizza deal, one single marketing image, etc.
Intamin Fan said:
Perhaps in trying to dismantle Astroworld as quickly as possible, they made some mistakes along the way and/or were careless. Except for the locals (for the most part), none of us really know the condition of the rides that were at AW before, and we don't know the after. But to say that none of the rides got reinstalled would be false, of course. Superman Tower of Power at SFSTl and the giant waterslide at SFDL are examples of relocated rides, as are, some of the flats at SFOT.
Of course the relocated flats were reinstalled but the three coasters that SF kept have not been,that was the point I was trying to make.
Like I said, none of us (unless you work for the parks) knows the true condition of these rides. What may look good on visual inpsection due to a relatively new paintjob, might be as worthwhile as a car that was flooded during Katrina. While the enthusiast in me would like to see Ultra Twister put up, the person who wants to see the best interest of the park served wants to see a spinning coaster or the like installed instead. If I could get both that would be great, but the family steel coaster has been missing out of SFA's lineup for too many years.
You must be logged in to post
