SF next move.

Sunday, August 3, 2003 8:51 PM
Attendance is falling and the dead line for SF debt is growing ever closer. The chains size at current is to large for the current market. The question is, not if you will see parks being sold, but rather which parks and when. It is coming in the next three years you will see, flagged parks fall to the wrecking ball or the highest bidder.

As of right now my home park SFSTL, has talk floating around from high up that the park my be closing in the next 4 years. Chances are if this were to happen AB would come in an buy it out. That is if a housing developer doesn’t bid higher.
------------------
Nurse - Mr. Hill I have diagnosed Bobby with ADD.
Mr. Hill - Then why has no one ever noticed this before?
Nurse - Mr. Hill very few people have access to the pamphlets I have.
Nurse - Here take one.
King of the Hill

+0
Sunday, August 3, 2003 8:54 PM
Questions: Discuss.

What exactly is the "deadline" for their debt? How is the chain too large for the market, even though all the parks existed before SF bought them? Hasn't this been talked about before?

------------------
Is that a Q-bot in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?

+0
Sunday, August 3, 2003 9:18 PM
They have to pay off a little bit of the debt each year. Only in like 08 or 10 there is a large sum they have to pay compared to the other years. As far as when the debt will be paid off by i have no idea. That is true they all exsisted. However markets change and the changing of managment can hurt or help a park.

And your right I am sure it has been mentioned. In light of new evedence it appears this is a great possibility.

------------------
Nurse - Mr. Hill I have diagnosed Bobby with ADD.
Mr. Hill - Then why has no one ever noticed this before?
Nurse - Mr. Hill very few people have access to the pamphlets I have.
Nurse - Here take one.
King of the Hill

+0
Sunday, August 3, 2003 11:07 PM
*If* SF does, at some point, need to get rid of parks they're not going to "fall to the wrecking ball." As far as I know, each and every single park is profitable, which brings me to my next point. I'd be very surprised if SF ever got rid of any parks, simply because of the fact that they're all profitable. They may not be bringing in the money as fast as SF anticipated, but it's still flowing in steadily. According to the company itself, Six Flags has no interest in selling off any of its parks.

-Nate

+0
Monday, August 4, 2003 4:50 AM
As far as I know coasterdude318 is correct. The parks have good cash flows. SF's financial problem is it's large debt burden. The parks should be able to continue in operation either in the Six Flags chain, as part of another chain or as independent parks. It is of course possible that an individual park could have a financial or legal issue that causes it to cease operation, but I don't know of any of these in the Six Flags chain.
+0
Monday, August 4, 2003 6:51 AM
How can every park be profitable if the company hasn't turned a profit in at least a year? Mostly BECAUSE of the large cash debt! (Which is why EBITDA is so bad for this company right now.) On top of that you have parks like WOA like a boulder running in the red for the past two years just after pumping 250 mil into the park in 2000-2001!

Parks like Wyandot that are small and unflagged will go first. Except maybe Frontier City which was their first aquisition. But there is already talk of the Columbus Zoo getting a hold of its neighbor.

Something has to give in this company. And i can't see them sit around and file bankrupcy if the numbers don't turn around. Sell off some asset to reduce debt and then the parks that are doing well can support and not be bogged down by the interest payments.

+0
Monday, August 4, 2003 7:27 AM
Another thing is that if they had to get sell parks, it doesnt automatically mean the smaller parks like SFSTL, SFA, SFFT, ect... SFGAm is now selling two for one tickets because of the low attendance. I didnt hear this for any other park...

Although its highly unlikely that a top 3 park would be sold, look what happened to SFWOA. HORRIBLE attendance and I believe its a top 5 SF park. Now we have rumors of that getting sold.

------------------
I have yet to see a sig. that actually follows the rule: tell something about yourself. In fact, this one doesn't even do that.
*** This post was edited by SFGAMan 8/4/2003 11:28:18 AM ***
*** This post was edited by SFGAMan 8/4/2003 11:29:30 AM ***
*** This post was edited by SFGAMan 8/4/2003 11:30:10 AM ***

+0
Monday, August 4, 2003 8:27 AM
What's the deal lately with everyone thinking that Six Flags is going to start selling off parks? They never said or even hinted at this that I know of...

------------------
I lied.

+0
Monday, August 4, 2003 11:05 AM
People see a news article about a chain in some financial trouble and everyone overreacts. As I explained above, SF *is* making money (to pay off the debt), just not as quickly as they anticipated. The reason the chain has never turned a profit is because it is so far in debt due to purchasing so many parks in a short amount of time. But that doesn't mean the chain is losing money - because it isn't.

Six Flags has stated again and again that they have no interest in selling off any parks. What they will do is continue to cut expenses, and also (hopefully) try to work on the issues behind low attendance at parks like SFWoA.

Attendance is down across the country due to crappy weather all season. Hopefully we'll see attendance pick up this month (if the weather stays clear, that is!).

-Nate
*** This post was edited by coasterdude318 8/4/2003 3:08:31 PM ***

+0
Monday, August 4, 2003 11:07 AM
^ Wow, someone got it right.

------------------
Is that a Q-bot in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?

+0
Monday, August 4, 2003 3:42 PM
What if SF can not generate enough revenue to pay there debt and fix attendence problems. By say adding new rides and attractions. Then what would they do. They would simply sell a park or two to save the rest.

And SF is probly making money but alot of parks are way down. For example my companys operation at SFSTL is down $250,000 from this time last year. Thats no small chunk of chang. And our per cap is down some .20$. There will be large losses this year. And I can see SF sweating bullets. The SF parks togeather in the US will not break to far above what it cost to operate them this year.

This is not only do to the weather but due to people spending less. Per cap should not change, if the weather is the same. If an 95 degree day last year made 1.50$ per cap then this year a 95 degree day should make about the same per cap. But its not.

And yes there maybe some parks that fall to the wrecking ball. It doesnt nessicarly matter if they make money. 500 acers of prime land in the middle of suburby is worth more then the theme park on only 200 of it. I gureenty the highest bidder would not be a theme park chain, it would go to a residental or commercial builder.

Any way I had a lot to say but have a limited grasp of the english language. So if something doesnt make since I am sorry and jsut ask or send me an e-mail.

------------------
my signature was more than three lines so it got edited by a moderator! my signature was more than three lines so it got edited by a moderator! my signature was more than three lines so it got edited by a moderator! my signature was more than three lines so it got edited by a moderator! my signature was more than three lines so it got edited by a moderator! my signature was more than three lines so it got edited by a moderator!

+0
Monday, August 4, 2003 4:28 PM
That stinks (about your sig that is) because I happen to be a big king of the hill fan these days.

As for SF & their money problems it might be within their best interest to close some parks (SFEG or SFKK for example) because they just aren't making enough money & that's in part due to the lack of attractions they regularly recieve.

SF just went overboard on their long term expansion plans by buying up park after park & now there's just not enough cash flow to support them all.

+0
Monday, August 4, 2003 4:36 PM

Bossstl said:
What if SF can not generate enough revenue to pay there debt and fix attendence problems.

I don't know but that's not for us to worry about.

------------------
I lied.

+0
Monday, August 4, 2003 6:18 PM
It is if you work there and your job could be in danger if there would be a buy out.

------------------
my signature was more than three lines so it got edited by a moderator!

+0
Monday, August 4, 2003 6:21 PM
But there's not going to be... who would buy a company with that much debt?

------------------
I lied.

+0
Monday, August 4, 2003 6:28 PM
Chances are if my home park (SFSTL) were to be put on the auction block, AB (Anheuser Busch) would probly step in and buy it. And the company I currently work for would probly be kicked out.

------------------
my signature was more than three lines so it got edited by a moderator!my signature was more than three lines so it got edited by a moderator!my signature was more than three lines so it got edited by a moderator!

+0
Monday, August 4, 2003 6:33 PM
Again, SF has no interest in selling any parks. You're all crying wolf because you have no idea what's actually going on.

-Nate

+0
Monday, August 4, 2003 6:41 PM
^ Whoa this guy's always on.

Seriously, someone read that SF owed someone a lot of money. Can someone please tell me what's unusual about that situation? Nothing. Virtually all companies owe debts large and small at all points in time. Maybe their ability to pay it down is hindered because of falling revenues. Think this is unusual in a recession? It's not ideal, but a solution can be worked out, and I'm sure SFI will be fine. Let them worry about it.

Frankly I find it nonsense that they will sell off parks.

------------------
Is that a Q-bot in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?

+0
Monday, August 4, 2003 6:50 PM
Don't worry about SFSTL it isn't even owned by premire parks
+0
Monday, August 4, 2003 7:00 PM
There is no Premier Parks. They changed their name to Six Flags a few years ago. Besides, SFOT and SFOG are the only parks that I know of that aren't completely owned by Six Flags. SFOMA came after the sell-off of those parks.

------------------
I lied.

+0

You must be logged in to post

POP Forums - ©2018, POP World Media, LLC
Loading...