Shanghai Disneyland will close in effort to contain coronavirus

They're holding cash they will likely have to give back. It's an accounting nightmare, depending on how they intend to recognize the revenue.

When you sell passes you debit cash and credit unearned revenue. You debit unearned revenue and credit revenue when you recognize it. Per their annual reports, Cedar Fair recognizes season pass revenue based on a formula based on historical usage which they say they review and adjust as necessary as the season progresses. Based on the number of operating hours this season (assuming there is a season this year), they may need to adjust the recognition formula but I wouldn't call it an accounting nightmare.

They may need to refund some season pass money this season. Legally I expect they have the ability to adjust operating days/hours without refunds. But from a business perspective they may need to allow for more refunds than they legally are required to pay.

But its money you wouldn't have had anyway without passes. You may be refunding single day tickets as well. And some people who bought passes already may find themselves otherwise skipping the parks this season for financial issues. Pass provides revenue you might not have had (assuming you are able to have a meaningful operating season which as this point isn't a given).

And conventional wisdom here no doubt is that at $99, nothing but cheapskates bought. But at $130 (I think that is what people here wanted but maybe it was up to $150) and only Daddy Warbucks buy). But underlying that is in large part an enthusiast bias of power going to parks. Many people have no interest in that and want to go maybe 2-3 times a season. So its not a matter of affording a higher price but not finding value in it. And the fewer times you are looking to go, the less significant missing a month or two in the season is. But all of that is a dead horse well beaten.

Pandemic will be trouble for seasonal operators. Not because of passes or no passes but because of the timing of it. Have it happen in mid October and the seasonal parks are less likely to be impacted. But as it happened, it looks like it may well cut substantially into their 120-150 day operating seasons.

I think the "accounting nightmare" was more in reference to the actual 'calculation of appropriate refund and mechanics, of refunding that many credits, to that many purchasers'; not necessarily the complexity of the related GAAP accounting.

Tekwardo said:

Instead of 40,000 deaths, with the same amount of infection, we could have Tripp’s that.

Offensive photo of Linda Tripp excluded. Apropos of almost nothing, I would point people to the fact that that the name of the virus in Stephen King's "The Stand" is called Captain Trips.

GoBucks89 said:

Good thing Indiana Beach won’t have this problem.

Too soon?

Seasonal parks can model now the various opening date possibilities (and possibly dates to extend the season based on whats reasonably possible based on park locations). Along with possibilities of other offerings that can be paired with passes with shorter operating season to compensate. Finite possibilities. And they run through similar analyses all the time with various offerings (passes, tickets, front of line access, food, etc.).

Losing a substantial part (or possibly all) of your season is the nightmare. Not having sold a lot of season passes. And if they get to the point of figuring out refunds and the logistics of processing them, there may well be some relief because that means that have something of a meaningful operating season (which if the current closures get extended -- which at this point seems likely -- is not a clear expectation right now).

This is in reference to CF parks.

If the season is cut short or God forbid, doesn't happen at all, could the parks just extend the expiration date of passes already sold instead of refunding money? Or at least make that an option to people. Sure they lose out on future revenue of passes sold, but in reality, extending the expiration till the end of 2021 would be the right thing to do, especially if the majority of the season, if not all, is scraped.

Now if they are able to re-open in mid May like they intend to, then all I'd say no refunds at the seasonal parks. (I'm a platinum pass holder and wouldn't expect a refund if that happens). Now Knott's is a little different because it's open year round so maybe a partial refund or offer free tickets, fast lanes, drinks, etc to make up for the months missed from the shut down. They are going to lose money one way or another, but offering some kind of compensation to customers will hopefully bring people back and keep them coming back.

Lord Gonchar said:

I don't think it's a bad question at all. I think it is THE question to be asking. (and exactly what I was alluding to with my posts a few pages back referring to an imaginary disruption/death slider)

There is absolutely a point where saving lives becomes not worth it...for the same 'greater good' that we use to justify saving them at this point.

I'm not saying we're there or even close or realistically will be.

But there has to be a point where upholding things is more important than savings lives.

Realistically, it's a balance.

Say what you will about my being out of touch. By all means, say what you will about the current administration.

But, how anyone didn't think that this would at least come up as a topic of discussion, I don't know. And here we are:

Many people can be wrong at once.

Governor Cuomo talked about a balance between saving lives and economic viability today in his daily press conference (had a power point slide with literally that balance on it). Does everyone stay home from work? Do we isolate/protect high risk people? Talk of another great depression. 30% unemployment. Not sure the best answer but seems to me its a conversation that should be had. And in the end, we may well say keep everything shutdown after that conversation.

Brian Noble said:

Many people can be wrong at once.

Obviously.

A lot of people didn't think this discussion would happen. 😉

The decision after 15 days is still #stfh. If you think it's bad now in New York or LA, just wait until these small rural hospitals with 30 beds get overwhelmed. People keep acting like this is all unknown, as if Europe doesn't exist. Does this look like we've turned a corner to you?

It's not about turning a corner, it's about saying those lives aren't worth stability in other places. No one is denying anything.

Kudlow's quote says it all:

"The cure can't be worse than the disease. And we're going to have to make some difficult tradeoffs."

I'm not making the judgement call here, I'm just pointing out that it went exactly where I suggested it eventually would (and was quickly waved off) - because I like accountability and I especially like being right.

I will admit we got here a lot quicker than I expected and I don't think they'll make the move this soon, but here's proof that, for better or worse, the tipping point has been considered.

VA just cancelled school for the rest of the school year. I'm sure other states will soon follow.

The "cure" is at best mitigation. I am in awe at how little people understand exponents. When you deal with exponential growth, there is no spectrum between a little and a lot. It's one extreme or the other. You overwhelm the healthcare system, you don't have people just dying of COVID-19, you have people dying of literally every possible condition that we can cure or treat.

This nonsense that the president is saying isn't just naive, it's outright stupid and willfully ignorant. It comes from an ugly, selfish place. Science, y'all.

Jeff said:

Science, y'all.

Dude.

It's not denying the science. It's saying that after observing the science of the situation and the potential downfalls elsewhere, that perhaps the risk, the death, that side of things is worth maintaining stability in other areas.

It's not that hard of a concept.

Flat out, it's being willing to trade lives for greater societal stability and determining where that point might be...and it very well might be at the point where you lock everyone down and wait it out - but even that's still making the decision.

Again, I'm not agreeing with it, but I'm not so stuck in my train of thought that I don't get the process. (Hence why I first suggested the Disruption/Death slider almost two full weeks ago - it was literally one of the first thoughts I had - "Where is the point when someone utters the phrase, 'Acceptable Loss'?")

In this case "Science y'all" is missing the point entirely.

Yep, science says massive amounts of death. So now, how much can we afford to pay (in monetary terms, in economy, in normality, in disruptions, etc) to mitigate those losses and when do we stop?

It's the trade off that happens for every war/military action we undertake. How many lives are worth a particular goal?

It's a valid discussion.

And yet there's no nationwide enforced mandate to stay at home. Mitigation is already in progress. That we can't even discuss weighing the effects of the current lockdown against the effects of a potential collapse of our economy is ludicrous. You seem like a smart guy (TM), but you're stuck in this mindset that the ONLY solution is to stay home and that anyone who thinks differently is an imbecile. Never mind that folks all around me are losing their jobs and way of life.

And yeah, everything Gonch said.

Maybe these will be better received here:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/22/opinion/coronavirus-economy.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/20/opinion/coronavirus-pandemic-soc...ncing.html

It's interesting to see that others are looking at this from multiple angles. But historically this country has a tendency of going through the crazy door without really attacking the root cause of the problem at hand. 9/11 is a perfect example of a knee jerk reaction.

Anyway, everyone is currently laser focused on a small facet of the overall bigger problem, which if continued will eventually cross the line of no return, and in x months everyone might be standing on the ration lines, losing their homes, and unable to find work. Few are still alive that lived through the crash and rebuilding last time there was an actual depression in this country. If those people were around and in charge to some degree I imagine this would be handled in a very different fashion.

Also, does anyone here really think that in this day and age that people are capable of actually being rational and not losing their minds if something of that scale actually happens again? Look at the stupidity that occurs in a small localized disaster region, now scale that up to a worldwide zone.

Jeff some time back mentioned that crippling the healthcare system would lead to the destabilization of society, built I think that it will occur unless the needle is thread very carefully, either due to medical reasons, or due to socioeconomic ones.

You cannot just say science yall, or economics yall, there is a middle ground that must be pursued. Or maybe I am just way off the mark and we can just pause the economy for a few months and it will resume right where it left off, but I doubt it.

Kudlow is one of a host of people ill qualified to be running public policy. That will be what the history books have to say about this administration, and people will wonder, how could it have been like that.

This is what happens when you have people who made their priority to gut government, now need that government to help in a crisis.

You cannot just say science yall, or economics yall,

Its interesting because I do see people saying "science y'all" here but don't see anyone saying "economics y'all." Those talking about economics are talking about a balance.