SF next move.

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.

Meangene, not to be a stickler, but the debt isn't why EBITDA is so bad right now. EBITDA excludes the interest payment on debt (hence, the "I"). EBITDA is down because the parks are struggling this season -- and last season was no picnic.

And Nate's right in that the company is making enough in cash flow to make its regular debt payments and that it hasn't made any public statements about selling off any properties.

However, last month S&P noted that it might downgrade the company's credit rating. It may not seem like much now, but the next time that Six Flags needs to pay off debt by issuing new debt, if it's at a lower credit rating the company will have to pay higher rates than before (assuming constant interest rates -- obviously, hypothetical).

So Six Flags has no intention of selling any of its parks but isn't a lot of the company's properties -- even its smaller parks -- sitting on some sweet real estate? I've never been to SFKK but supposedly it's right next to the airport. That's got to be worth a lot more money to a real estate developer than it is to Six Flags as an amusement park. So if the company does sell it won't be whether or not one park is the top performer or not as much as the difference between the discounted cash flows and net present values of what the park could make by selling the property now over the stream of potential park profits.

Selling a park or two in the offseason to generate cash WOULD make Moody's and S&P consider upgrading the company's credit rating. I seriously doubt that if a developer came up with a great offer for any property, especially one that is not much of a factor for the company, that Six Flags wouldn't consider it. By distributing the rides to the existing stateside parks it would be able to give most parks something new at a fraction of the cap ex it would normally sum up.

My side comment about EBITDA was about how the use of EBITDA HIDES the fact that the chain is losing money after you take into all of the interest being paid.

There has been talk about dumping parks for a few years now within the company, and the pathetic performances by some parks with big expectations only intensifies it. For full time park employees to think that their park may be on the market says a lot about the situation.

I don't think people realize how messed up this chain is internally.

The only talk about dumping parks has gone on in enthusiast circles and such, *not* within the company itself. In fact, the company has gone out of its way to make it clear that the chain has absolutely *no* interest in selling off any parks. Yes, some things are messed up internally (it happens when you run an amusement park chain as a public business). However, the plan intact still has nothing to do with selling off parks.

-Nate (who thanks GP for the support :) )

Talk to full timers at the parks and then tell me there isn't any talk internally. Of course the company denies it, they deny everything before they do it.

meanGene if you dont mind me asking what state are you currently residing in? At what SF park do you work at. I am assuming you work at a SF park. And I do agree with you. I am startign to see people sweat.

Thanks,

That one guy

------------------
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!

See people sweat? It's true.. the only talk of SF selling parks has been done by enthusiasts.

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

From what I've heard the three Texas parks are "holding their own" this season so I wouldn't see any of those parks getting sold.
------------------
Arrow, even the straight parts of our coasters hurt.

Have you not read anything in this thread?

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

Um why would you believe SF inc. Just b/c they've said they have no intention on selling off any parks, doesn't mean they want. This is a company that tells it's paying customers that the park is fully operational, but after they get your money you find out that most of the crap in the park is closed. All SF Inc. is good for is lying and if you believe any words they say then your bigger fools then one can imagine.

Also why wouldn't someone worry about SF folding when their stocks is worth dam near nothing, their attendence is dropping, and their parks are utter hell holes. I can believe the weather is a cause of attendence drops at parks like CP, BGW, and parks like that, but I'm willing to bet money that if the US was having the best weather ever recorded, attendence would still be down at SF parks. The GP the Enthuiast and everyone else is getting fed up with SF crap and it's finnaly starting to catch up to them. If SF doesn't change the way it's parks are run they are going down !

Anyways maybe they will go down maybe they wont. All I know is who ever is spending their hard earned cash with SF inc. needs thier heads checked quickly. No coaster is good enough for me to keep enduring the crap SF dish out, half the time the main coaster(s) are closed anyway so theres just no point in spending my money at those SF hell holes.

^ A lot of people say that, and if that did happen, you'd all be whining about how you miss Six Flags, now you have one less park near you, boo hoo hoo. Save it.

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

Ahhh, another person joining the "Six Flags bashing club".

Hmmmm, went to SFGAm (again), this last Friday. Park was crowded, park was clean, every coaster was open. Yep, a complete hellhole! I dont know why I keep going back. I cant understand why the backlot was filled with cars. What are these fools thinking? Just shut the Chicago area park down because SF is running it into the ground.

Sarcasm was presented in this statement

------------------
Arena football has arrived in the Windy City. Go "Chicago Rush"
*** This post was edited by Chitown 8/11/2003 10:43:12 PM ***

---

Chitown said:

Sarcasm was presented in this statement

---

I don't get it. OMFG d00dz SF SUX!!!!11

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

Yea, Six Flags sUxOrZZ!11!
Come on people, companies have issues of debt, some have debts totalling near the 1billion dollar mark. It's nothing new, their parks are actually getting better as far as cleanliness goes (stacking and ride ops depends from ride to ride). As long as they can pay the yearly debt payments, they will continue to keep all parks, and hopefully add a ride or two a year. You also can't forget the 2001 mega coaster load that they unleashed on their parks. How many coasters opened that year?
------------------
The teacher called me "young man"

A total of 18 new coasters opened in 01 for the SF chain,that's probably one of the contributing factors to their huge debt & current financial problems.

Well of course SF has said again and again that they don't intend on selling any parks. Even if they planned on selling off a park tomorrow, they would still be saying the same thing today. Are they planning on selling off any parks? I have no idea! And guess what, nobody else here does either. I would wager though, that if good 'ol Gary starts getting pressure from the 5 people who hold stock in the company to sell off a few assets, he will. This is just how publicly traded companies work.

------------------
NICK

Drop it like it's hot and be my bloody wonderwall, baby

I'm not surprised in park spending is down. SF needs to look at their pricing structure, they are pissing people off. On a recent visit to SFWoA, large Dipin Dots cost $7.95! A large at CP is only $5.50, the price at SF made me feel like I'm being ripped off and I didn't buy the product. If the price was lower, I probably would have ended up buying two throughout the course of the day.

------------------
I'd rather be in my boat with a drink on the rocks,
than in the drink with a boat on the rocks.

Blech!!! I wouldnt pay a dime for Dippin Dots.

Nasty, rabbit pellet, wanna-be ice cream that absolutely su---: Ooops, sorry, got carried away. ;)

------------------
Arena football has arrived in the Windy City. Go "Chicago Rush"

Word. . .

Especially if it is being sold at Six Flags.;) What a horrible horrible company. I hear that their management eats babies for fun.
------------------
As Mitch always said, "A severed foot is the ultimate stocking stuffer."
-Tomas

^ Enthusiassts.

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

I think too many people get caught up in the hype of "people talk about bad experiences at SF parks, so I hate SF". There are many parks in the chain, people are bound to have bad days sometimes. Maybe Cedar Fair runs their parks better than SF, but that doesn't mean we can't have a good time at SF too.

Great Adventure is the SF park I visit most, and I have a good visit every time. All of the coasters are pretty much always open, and actually I think the park operations have improved the past few years. While I do agree about the prices being high, I don't see SF prices being any higher overall, then Cedar Fair parks, or any other chain. Prices are high at any amusement park.