SF hidden agenda?

But dude, that's why it's a silly comparison. Six Flags was Premier for more than two years before they officially changed the name. The purchase happened in April, 1998, while the name change happened July, 2000. To suggest they were "destroying the brand" in those two years doesn't make sense since it's the same company before and after the name change.

---

CedarPoint82 said:
But as an accountant, I have seen many cases where net profit has been increased by dropping unprofitable product lines, or in this case, parks.

---

And the difference here is that the parks are profitable. I don't believe there's a single park that's actually losing money; they're just not performing as well as expected.

-Nate

Jeff, you lost me a bit.

I do know that you can trace many of the current problems at the original Six Flags parks (Magic Mountain for example) to Premier Parks (wasn't that their name) purchase of the chain.

I think Magic Mountain operated far better before Premier came into the picture than since.

---

coasterguts said:
In the end, I think Premier is going to need to use a formula they used before. When they bought Wild World, they found the name was so disparged they had to rename the park Adventure World. Now they may have to use the same technique again, not only with one park but several parks. They will need to "de-flag" several parks and rebrand them to give them a new identity with the public. I can't tell you how many times I have heard the general public criticize my local park, not only friends and family but I've heard it in lines at other parks as well. A rebranding of several parks might be the best way for SFI to go.

---

There's a problem with your argument. It was Tierco Group, Inc. that purchased Wild World in '91 and opened Adventure World in '92. Premier (Six Flags) purchased Adventure World in '98, and the park opened as Six Flags America in '99. If the park is 'de-flagged' as you suggest, that would require Six Flags to sell it to a company that will run it well. Although was the park truly in better shape as Adventure World than it is now? I personally don't think so...

My point is that they're one and the same. People saying "Premier this" and "Premier that" are making a distinction that doesn't exist, and hasn't for years. Furthermore, people don't seem to understand that Six Flags did not buy Premier, Premier bought Six Flags. Coasterguts said, "Premier was a up and coming theme park operator and Six Flags which is destroying a brand." This implies that Premier was bought by Six Flags, and that's not what happened.

And the difference here is that the parks are profitable. I don't believe there's a single park that's actually losing money; they're just not performing as well as expected.

-Nate

---

I did a study for an accounting class a couple of years ago comparing Six Flags and Cedar Fair. Six Flags actually had net loss, whereas Cedar Fair had net profit. (This was obviously before all the big sell offs).
Therefore, Six Flags was not making money.
There are many more factors that go into a parks profitability than just income and basic costs, etc. Any one here who knows anything about accounting knows that there are things such as overhead, direct and indirect, v/f, etc., that are all allocated over certain products (ie parks) based on variable criteria. if you take away a park that is not performing, it takes away those costs (very very basic explanation, I won't go any further here because its too complex).
Basically, Six Flags had a net loss (can look up their financials if you want), and it is better to sell off an unprofitable park and cut your losses.

But WERE the parks sold off really the *unprofitable* ones? I'll stipulate that SFOWoGLA was nowhere NEAR what it could (and should) have been, but I don't think it was a *dog* (pardon the small joke)....

Certainly the parks in Europe, as well as WoA, had more than enough potential to be some of the STAR performers (again, another bad joke). It seems to me that rather than selling off the parks with low profitability and little/no POTENTIAL to make money, SFI decided to sell off those parks where they felt they should've *done* better. To me, that sounds like wasting time crying over spilled milk rather than getting back to the task of milking the cow! ;)

CedarPoint82: And that's exactly what they did by selling SFWOA.
But did they make a nickel doing it? No!
SFI had already dropped tens of millions in coasters and over a hundred million buying Sea World.

Making a profit selling a park requires someone rich enough and stupid enough to buy it at an inflated price. And who would that be? Cedar Fair? Nuh uh. They'll drop out of a deal the minute something smells funny.

-'Playa

*** Edited 8/26/2004 2:39:13 PM UTC by CoastaPlaya***

'Playa....a la Visionland? ;)

Yeah! It had already been printed on some park guides that Visionland was part of the chain. Didn't KBF even have it printed on t-shirts or something?

But when they didn't get the info they were looking for...POOF went the deal.

CF doesn't wanna rule the world. They have nothing to gain from snapping up a dozen parks. They're in it for the money like every other sane businessperson.

So who else is gonna buy a bunch of money-losers from SFI? Michael Jackson?

-'Playa

Let's look at some straight facts. Here's what has happened in attendance through the years...Six Flags before Premier (now Six Flags) from 1992 to 1997. After the purchase of Six Flags by Premier, 1998 to 2003. I'm just using the core parks and not the "add ons" with the new branding.

1998 to 2003

Six Flags AstroWorld -11%

Six Flags Great Adventure -8%

Six Flags Great America -11%

Six Flags Magic Mountain -1%

Six Flags Over Georgia -10%

Six Flags Over Texas -8%

Six Flags St. Louis 8%

TOTAL -6%

---------------

1992 to 1997

Six Flags AstroWorld 5%

Six Flags Great Adventure 19%

Six Flags Great America -2%

Six Flags Magic Mountain 6%

Six Flags Over Georgia 8%

Six Flags Over Texas 3%

Six Flags St. Louis 0%

TOTAL 6%

------------------

Now for my comments and observations. Of course for the most part the parks that were rebranded to Six Flags show a great improvement in attendance than before they were branded. Six Flags cap ex spending was less (on the average) for the older parks than the newer, freshly "branded" properties. Parks need regular capital infusion to be competitive. Pricing increases, poor guest services, cleanliness and micro management from corporate have led to the decline. Does that mean there were no problems before Premier purchased the parks? No. But things are more challenging now with a company having so much debt and running so many parks. Something will suffer.

Can it be turned around as quickly? That remains to be seen. SF states "3 to 5" years. Probably not without capital and putting more decision making at the individual parks management.

Are the parks profitible? More than likely yes. But will selling additional parks reduce the current debt load while maintaining enough to cover the interest expense? That is tricky. Do you sell the smaller properties that only will get a small sales price and reduce the debt slightly, or sell off the larger, more valuable properties? That's a tough question.

My 2 cents. *** Edited 8/26/2004 2:58:24 PM UTC by Shawn*** *** Edited 8/26/2004 3:01:25 PM UTC by Shawn***

Vater, I'm pretty sure (all though not positive) that Tierco is the holding company for SFA and is one in the same as Permier Parks doing business as Six Flags. I think Tierco changed their name to Premier some poin in the process of purchasing parks. Deflaging the park wouldn't require selling it. Cedar Fair doesn't stamp their name in big bold letters like Six Flags does. Everything is Valleyfair, a Cedar Fair park, or Cedar Point a Cedar Fair Park. Before I met my wife, who is from Western WI, they never knew the park was ownded by Cedar Fair. Also, isn't Adventure World A better park than Wild World? Man you think waiting an hour to fix Batwing is a problem now, how about two years to fix Wild One and when I worked at the park they had one ride that was down an entire season. However, one of my memories of walking through the park is of the GM, Mark Mason, at the time of stopping me, pointing at a piece of trash on the ground and telling me we don't walk past trash on the ground.

Jeff, I see what you are saying, Six Flags has the same people involved as Premier in terms of management. I never thought of it that way. However, I think you have to look at Six Flags as two different management companies. The Time/Warner Six Flags and the Premier/Six Flags. The Premier/Six Flags Management team is what is destroying the Six Flags brand that has been around for 33 years.

Wrong,Teirco became Premier shortly after the wild world purchase in 91,they re-branded Wild World as Adventure world in 94 & by that time had already purchased other smaller parks such as Gueaga lake,Darien lake & Riverside.

Premier aqquired SF from time warner in 98(no doubt due in part to the SFOT/SFOG expenditure fiasco)& by the end of the 98 season announced that they would be re-branding some of their parks starting with KK in 98 & Adventure world effective the following season.

Now IIRC Teirco/Premier actually started out in real estate,our good friend MR. Burke was actually involved in that line of work first & when his company bought Wild World they did so only on condition that the rides built up to that point remain in the park & his company would try their hand it running the park first.

Now of course if that failed then the park would've been demolished & the land sold off to other interests to the highest bidder,fourtunately the park did survive & actually improved with the capital investments made between 93 & 98.

---

Shawn said:
Are the parks profitible? More than likely yes. But will selling additional parks reduce the current debt load while maintaining enough to cover the interest expense? That is tricky. Do you sell the smaller properties that only will get a small sales price and reduce the debt slightly, or sell off the larger, more valuable properties? That's a tough question.

My 2 cents. *** Edited 8/26/2004 2:58:24 PM UTC by Shawn*** *** Edited 8/26/2004 3:01:25 PM UTC by Shawn***

---

First my apologies for using SFA in all my examples. They are my home park and thus the one I'm the most familiar with.

Second, I don't know if you are talking about selling the parks to other theme park operators or shuttering operations, relocating the rides to other parks or not. But, I know in the case of SFA, they could sell the land to a developer and make more than what they put into improving the park thus far. The question is, who would be the highest bidder for the 384 acres the park sits on. Developers? Cedar Fair? Disney who wanted to build a park in the Washignton area? Even Marriott before they got out of the biz wanted to build a park in Maryland. Now, 384 acres in Prince George's County, MD not even 2 minutes from a new 3000+ home developement of which not one single family home will sell below $500,000 is pretty valuable land to a developer. How many other parks are in this position?

My point is, SFI could sell some of their prime parks to either developers or other companies and make money in the process because the land is more valuable than the park. Would they do that with a park like SFA? I don't think they would. I don't think the state would let them, I don't think they would sell to another amusement park company because then SFGAdv would have to compete with that park. They tried to compete head on with Cedar Fair once already and lost. I don't think they want to do that again. *** Edited 8/26/2004 3:24:06 PM UTC by coasterguts***

---

CoastaPlaya said:
CedarPoint82: And that's exactly what they did by selling SFWOA.
But did they make a nickel doing it? No!

Well of course you're not going to make money!!!! You just save costs!!! Never mind this is too complex for you, you must not be familiar with accounting.

---

---

BATWING FAN SFA said:
Wrong,Teirco became Premier shortly after the wild world purchase in 91,they re-branded Wild World as Adventure world in 94 & by that time had already purchased other smaller parks such as Gueaga lake,Darien lake & Riverside.

---

Hoever, if you look at past Zoning Board approvals for SFA, they list TIERCO as the owner.

---

CedarPoint82 said:
Well of course you're not going to make money!!!! You just save costs!!! Never mind this is too complex for you, you must not be familiar with accounting.

---

Hello? Said that myself a page or so ago?

But since dealing in common sense is too complex and you've only dealt with this in a textbook instead of Planet Earth, let's make it really simple. Let's deal simply with accounting which you're sooooo smart with.

ACCOUNTING 101: Pop Quiz

Question 1

If Company 'A' has 3 billion dollars in debt and can only sell their parks at a loss, what should they do?

A) Call Cedar Fair and say "Hey, buy my money-losing parks!" and listen to them laugh
B) Sell elsewhere, bleed assets and income potential off their balance sheet until they collapse under their own debt
C) A and B
D) All of the above
E) Tough it out and try to turn the remaining parks around

Ring, ring! Miss Cleo just called. She said 'sweetch ya Mayyyjah NOW honey-child...'

-CO

ROFL Playa!

Best 'Playa post evah!

Coasta Playa or whatever,
I work as an accountant (yes on "Planet Earth"), and I have a 4.0 in school. Darling, I know what I am talking about. I'm sorry that you are uneducated, and I will let that speak for itself.
It is time to go socialize with the intelligent species.
This is the last bit of time I will waste here.