Shapiro gets 30% raise despite Six Flags' problems

---

- That $300,000 could be used for...

---

I guess one good idea out of six isn't bad. ;)

---

So my question is, was the board's expectation that things would get worse instead of better?

---

Ha! I know you mean that sarcastically, but you might be on to something. Technically if a company expected to lose X millions of dollars and X number of attendance and due to one's leadership lost less than that, it would be performance beyond expectations and certainly no different than anyone being given a rasie based on exceeding expectations.

You know what. All those investors expecting big changes need to get real. It's different management but the SAME OLD CRAP. The names do not matter. Six Flags is a sinking ship. I hope this raise makes more investors realize this. Shapiro should not be rewarded after all of his strategies were not as successful as he and investors had hoped.

*** This post was edited by Cameraman 10/4/2006 4:06:00 PM ***

^ Well, let me clarify. I can't justify it based on performance. (snip)

It's so easy to play the sob story - "Oh the rich get richer in the face of this or that". Cry me a river. What matters to me is that I don't think there has been any significant achievement to warrant a 30% raise.

But I think where we ARE agreeing (for once, LOL) is that when the company's LOSING money, quickly, and ALL the employees are told about tough times, belt-tightening, and the like....then the highest levels of management shouldn't be REWARDED for what basically amounts to sub-par performance.

I was one of those who, relatively early on, adapted to the new SF - I probably spend more time praising the costumed characters than anyone else COMBINED, hehe. And early on, it looked like the operations problems of the past, AND the cleanliness problems of the past, were just that...in the past. Fast forward to the midseason indicators, and performance had BEGUN to slip a little...cleanliness stuck, costumed characters stuck, and operations began to take a hit. Forward a bit more, costumed characters scaled WAY back, operations declining *rapidly*, and only the clean bathrooms remained....then came the cuts in operating hours....

THIS is the kind of stuff that warrants a THIRTY percent RAISE? I could see a 30% reduction in salary, or even a "we're withholding your raise until performance improves", or even "your raise happens when the company is in good enough shape to give raises to all the other belt-tighteners"....but NO WAY would Mark S. get a riase in the present circumstances...and a 30% raise, that's unconscionable...

Don't look at it from the accountant's perspective that 300K means nothing to SF's bottom line...look at it from the POV of that SFA mechanic whose inquiry was so roundly rejected....THAT is where I'm coming from... ;)

Technically if a company expected to lose X millions of dollars and X number of attendance and due to one's leadership lost less than that, it would be performance beyond expectations and certainly no different than anyone being given a rasie based on exceeding expectations.

That's all well and good, if prospective investors were told at the beginning of the year that the company intended to go another couple hundred million in debt, the stock would drop 25 percent in a single day, and would be downgraded by several analysts. So they should be rejoicing because they lost "only" 110 million.

I generally don't have a problem with someone getting a multi-figure bonus, as long as it's performance based and everyone else involved in the company (employees and stockholders) profits somewhat as well. Even if the person is given stock options, you figure at least it's in their best interest to increase the value of the stock. But to tell most of your people we can afford to give you a raise, and to tell others we can't afford you at all, or to tell someone if you're not doing the job you were hired to do you're fired on the spot, while getting a 300,000 raise and upwards of 2.6 million in bonus, that I have a problem with.

I can see some long waits for the Papa John's next year. Meanwhile, I'll wait for my quarterly dividend from CF.

Hold on just a second here...

What was Gary Story Making originally... wasen't it like $3 million at one time? (or was his job different)

In a related question.. does Richard Kinzel take raises and bonuses like that? I think his salary is some where over $1 million, but his company is doing so much better.

But what about the other executives in the company? Shapiro cannot be the only one who received a raise, what about the CFO?

It is highly suspect of course, but maybe there is a justification for this raise in the upcoming yearly results. Now that the season is almost over for most parks, maybe they did better than we thought?

Personally, I'm hoping another theme park operator - established or new - did buy out the 6 parks to put them under competent management. In that case, the influx of cash also could be a reason behind the raise.

Okay, since even the rock n roll republlican is too chicken $#!+ to take the corporate side, I guess it's left to me.

There is actually a train of thought that would suggest that because the company is doing poorly that they need to pay executives *more* to stay around. Hear me out. I think that we would all agree that SFI was left in an absolute mess by Storey-Burke. For whatever reason, Sny-Piro though that the turnaround would be relatively simple. But, as they quickly learned, the name had been so tarnished in the eyes of the public and the patience of the creditors had worn so thin that the first sign of weakness threw their stock value right in the toliet.

Now, I admit that lagging attencance, a seeming about face on improvement initiaives, and still crappy operations seem like a time for a demotion more than a raise, but look at it in the eyes of recuitment. What executive in thier right mind wants any part of this mess? Shapiro is a relatively young, apparently bright, up and coming exec. What is his motivation for staying on and seeing a troubled company through its darkest days? He is taking a serious risk to his personal career track by taking on this project. With his success over @ ESPN, he was in good shape to be a high paid exec in many different companies. However, you are only as good as your last job, and this current one, if you just take this insta-matic snapshot, aint going to well. The longer he is with SFI without a significant turnaround, the more the stench of Storey-Buke permeates Shapiro's career. On a personal note, it might be better for him to just cut his losses and bail.

So to keep someone who at least seems to have an interest in growing the bussiness and establish some sort of consistency, perhaps SFI (aka Snyder) felt they *had* to offfer additional compensation to keep a person of Shapiro's skill. Think about it. If he left, how would SFI fill that void? They'd have to spend time/money to find a replacement, preferably one of similar skill/pedigree. It's likely that they would have to pay this new person *more* than this raise to Shapiro. And most importantly, they would be behind schedule for *next* year. If they have learned anything, it would be that they want to start their inititives EARLY to have a chance of sustaining that momentum.

I know that it seems unfair, but perhaps there is indeed a solid 'business' reason for doing so.
lata, jeremy
--in honor of Chuck - "Throw the bums OUT!"

EDIT- typos*** This post was edited by 2Hostyl 10/4/2006 7:25:30 PM ***

Jeremy beat me to it. Gonch...you should be ashamed. Mea Culpa now before your reputation suffers irreparable harm...:)

But isn't that why the 2Hostyl's and the JRS's of the world exist. To have my back and pick up the slack when I drop the ball?

Even I'm not 100% impervious to getting caught up in the silliness.

I thank you, Jeremy, for bringing me back to the real world. :)

Everyone back up two posts and read what Jeremy had to say. It's the post I should've made way back at the top.

So do I get my 30% raise now?

Mark is worth every dollar and I fully support this raise. Things have to happen and/or change "off stage" before the on stage improvements will occur, Mark is laying the ground work for this. The man is young, full of energy, open-minded, passionate, works 24/7 and lives in one of the most expensive real estate markets in the USA. For all the work he does as CEO Six Flags has him for a bargain price.

Gonch: I forgot to put a smiley after the chicken(bleep) comment. I trust you knew that was in jest. :)

jeremy
--awaiting the economic respons from the swamp..after all, I'm not a business person...I'm just a lowly rocket scientist :)

He deserves to be paid an executive salary, and I'll agree that at this point it's still too early to tell if he's really going to turn things around or not. Honestly his impact can't be accurately measured until the end of the 2007 season.

That said, perception is a tricky thing, and I wouldn't want to be an employee on the front lines being told there's a pay freeze when the guy at the top gets a raise.

Hehe, I'm no rocket scientist, jeremy... ;)

And some would say as a *business major* I am probably a disappointing failure...heck, I'm tempted to agree sometimes... :)

I think (stress the word THINK here) that businesses should take a longer-term viewpoint, that our society, as well as our business leaders (wow, leadership is a WHOLE other topic, huh?) have gone WAY overboard on the "instantaneous results" Instant karma's gonna get you... ;)

Stuff moves fast, but the underlying *significant* changes in life, in business, in religion and politics and ALL those other verboten subject areas, those come slowly....Jeff's last sentence strikes SQUARELY at the main point I was trying to argue, that the perception of the employees CANNOT be helped by this....compare/contrast with the recent *Universal* management change in Orlando...at the park with the *universally*-recognized name... ;)

Since edits and news items don't mix:

Doing "less bad than expected", I can see where that could easily, and convincingly, be argued as a *success story* on some level (probably a level in an Escher painting, but hey, I'm flexible). I just can't see where, given the end-of-season debacles occurring Flags-wide, that I could give Marky Mark anything better than an "Incomplete".....early-season, he had a B+/A- grade....went to about a B-/C+ when operations started to go downhill, then the hours and operations and such REALLY started to deteriorate, the cost-cutting measures sent the whole new team's grades into the hopper. Since they're still in Year One, though, I'd say an "I" is deserved...

Raises, those come with grades of B or higher.... ;)

---

Doing "less bad than expected", I can see where that could easily, and convincingly, be argued as a *success story* on some level...

---

Well it is totally the same. If you're expected to do X and you do X+20, then you excelled. It doesn't matter if X equals 10 giving you a +30 in the end or if X equals negative 45 giving you a -25 in the end. In either situation you bested expectations. But whatever...it really wasn't even an point I believe is true in this case, it was just an example of how negative performance could be seen as besting expectations.

I'd agree with your grades, gator. But the thing is why such deterioration? I suspect Shapiro's hands were bound and it got tighter and tighter as the year went on.

He did exactly what he promised at the onset of the season. As time went on and things didn't exactly pan out we saw all the new goodies drop one-by-one.

There's no way of ever knowing, I suppose, but I think there's a distinct possibility that he had so many people to answer to and or please (see Uncle Danny and the investors...and the employees...and the creditors) that even if he wanted to stick it out, he couldn't have.

On top of that I really think these guys underestimated how badly the Burke years really f'd the comany for the long term.

Lots of little things that add up to just not being able to do what you want and need to do. It's hard to get that 'B' (and the raise) when you're given a broken pencil to take the test and there's no pencil sharpener available.

Now where I find myself just sighing is when I see crap like season passes on sale for the price of a single admission again this year. I think we've had plenty of seasons that have proven that putting them in the gate on the cheap and looking for the money to come later isn't working.

I really believe these guys have as good as chance as anyone (a better chance?) to fix the company. I even really would like to see it. It just gets a little harder and harder with each passing news story to keep rooting for them.

I'm even willing to be a little more lenient in the time-frame. I'd have said by the end of 2007 like everyone else, but I really think this season amounts to a do-over. They weren't ready for the constant uphill battle at every turn or at the very least underestimated how steep those hills were.

All things considered, they held relatively steady this year. Just fix some pricing issues, get back all those nifty improvements that we say early-season and get those friggin' operations up to some remote standard already and if there's enough to to hold off the creditors the boat should right itself.

And yes, it's awfully easy to play armchair CEO and say what needs to be done. Doing it is a whole different beast.

I haven't given up on these guys....yet.

At first I thought "WTH?!", I was kinda "eh.." about him getting a raise because I always thought he never deserved one and turned out bad for the company etc etc, but reading Gonch's and Jeremy's posts I now agree with them. The guy just completely underestimated how screwed up things really were. I think he really did try and had some good ideas, just everything was alot worse then he origionally thought when he came in and his ideas weren't "enough".

I agree with not giving up on them yet and it's best to wait until after next year being as this year was more of a trial/error period and him really seeing how things worked and figuring it out just how much a mess the company really has become before he stepped in. Like stepping in a puddle you only think is a few inches deep and it goes up to your waist...
*** This post was edited by P18 10/5/2006 2:08:11 PM ***

This is exactly why i don't go to six flags anymore. it's pathetic that someone is rewarded like this even before the company emerges from it's troubles or if it does emerge from it at all. that's my opinion.

"They weren't ready for the constant uphill battle at every turn or at the very least underestimated how steep those hills were."

Some might mention the "cute" way Gonch got the coaster lingo in there...just to embarrass him. But not me....I wouldn't do that to Gonch... ;)

IF Snyder really *needed* to give Shapiro the extra money, he should have gone about it by giving him equivalent value in STOCK...incentives...plus it looks better to the employees (who *might* not know when Mark SELLS said shares of stock)... :)

I think they should pay him in hissing Madagascar cockroaches.

I wonder how many cockroaches it takes to equal 300 grand?