Should Six Flags sell some parks?

Saturday, September 14, 2002 10:22 AM

There has been a lot of controversy over the internet on whether Sixflags should sell some of their parks. SFEG, SFKK, Froniter City, and SFAW (of course). They say that the parks have no potentiel what so ever. Not to say that they should sell the coasters (except for ones like Batman: The escape because of Warner Bros trademark) and destroy the entire park. But sell the parks to Paramount Parks, or Cedar Fair, companies that will make the parks great as they were when they first came out. But parks like SFA and SFFT that have great potential need the money. What do you think?

From every park i've heard of so far:

Frontier City
Six Flags Astroworld
Six Flags Darien Lake
Six Flags Elitch Gardens
Six Flags Kentucky Kingdom
The Great Escape

-----------------
Check out this new coaster forum.http://coasterkrazy.proboards.com

+0
Saturday, September 14, 2002 10:25 AM
I would hope that they would sell off some parks, but I doubt it will ever happen. I think it would be ideal to sell off one of the smaller parks that will never amount to anything, maybe to a company that cares, like Cedar Fair or Busch.

-----------------
"The fish are eating the guest, sir

*** This post was edited by Dukeis#1 on 9/14/2002. ***

+0
Saturday, September 14, 2002 10:31 AM
Who ever said that these parks have no potential to make money? And, if that is the case, why would any other operator want to purchase them?
+0
Saturday, September 14, 2002 10:34 AM
I wish they'd sell The Great Escape. Its my homepark. The park has so much real potential to be great, but has been neglected by Six Flags for many years now. Since SF has bought it, the park did recieve a few new rides at first, but they were rejects from other parks. They also removed some of the good flats, such as the Rotor and Skylab, and have left the Rainbow SBNO for the past 2 years now. The park hasnt even really gotten a new ride in a few years now, unless you count the Eurobungy and SkyCoaster, or the kiddie flat which I really dont. If they'd sell the park to someone who's willing to put the park on the map it would be great because it seems like they will never expand this park. (ie: just the new entrance plaza has been held off for 2 years now)

-----------------
John
Albany Entertainment:
http://home.nycap.rr.com/albanyent

+0
Saturday, September 14, 2002 11:42 AM

Youi know The Great Escape has no potential from CalvinJ23's speech and Frontier City, I won't even go there.

SFKK made SixFlags loose alot of money from buying Chang. On Chang's opening season, the attendance in the park went down 1%.

SFEG may have gotten TFC, but it wasn't a hit and no one was pressed to ride it. I know that SFEG has no surrounding competition, but it still needs rides desperately.

SFAW is SixFlags trashcan, all the rejected rides go there. Yes, they did get Texas Tornado, but it is still a very outdated ride.This park would do great if Paramount's Parks would buy it.

SFDL to me has a tiny bit of potential, but if it doesn't get anything in the next 2 yrs it will end up like AW or TGE.

-----------------
Check out this new coaster forum.http://coasterkrazy.proboards.com

+0
Saturday, September 14, 2002 12:51 PM

Great Escape will NEVER be a mega SF park. La Ronde will be SF mega park for New-York state. Why? Think of this, what whould a flagging bring to the park?

1- Increased food prices

2- no more free parking

3- a few new rides

So, you really want 1 and 2? Really? There is more than rides at amusement parks. Sorry. If you want the latest rollercoaster, you'll have to drive to either SFNE or La Ronde. Great Escape manage to stay a traditional park, under SF management! Now, what other big company can say they have a traditional park?

+0
Saturday, September 14, 2002 12:53 PM
I think that they should to rid themselves of the huge debt hole that they are in.

-----------------
Jesus is the answer
MWM World LLC
FEC'S for Indy

+0
Saturday, September 14, 2002 12:54 PM
Not possible...

-----------------
"Escuse me, can you tell me where the heck the Mystery Lodge is"?

+0
Saturday, September 14, 2002 2:37 PM
I would be glad if Six Flags sold off my homepark SFAW. What good has the company done the park so far? Sure it's only 80 acres, but instead of trying to pack in 10 little trashy coasters, practicing quantity instead of quality, there could be better, bigger rides...just fewer. Of course, the Texas Cyclone would have to stay as it is my number one favorite coaster simply because it was my first. I would be glad if Cedar Fair or Paramount bought the park...they can make some money here in the south. SFOT from Houston is 5 hours away, and SFFT is 4.

-----------------
Long live Six Flags Astroworld!! Ok, you can all laugh now...

+0
Saturday, September 14, 2002 2:58 PM

Six Flags (then Premier Parks) didn't own Kentucky Kingdom when Chang was installed.

Also, they won't sell Frontier City. It was the first Premier Park and is close to their headquarters (it's Gary Story's homepark).

Also, remember there is still Lakeside in Denver.

-----------------
My fellow Americans; Let's Roll!
Woodencoaster.com
The World of Thrills

+0
Saturday, September 14, 2002 3:36 PM

Why would someone want to buy a park from Six Flags unless it was really cheap? There must be something wrong with it if SF doesn't want it.

Further more, these parks may be considered a "hassle" and may not bring in as much money, but that doesn't mean they aren't. As long as Six Flags is making any money on them they will continue to operate them. People under-estimate the power of smaller parks way to much.

Coaster_boi-The situation with SFEG is rather complicated. It does NOT NEED a new ride. They could survive another 20+ years without adding another ride, but the earnings would go down, and that is the only reason SF does add rides. Look at their competition, Lakeside, who hasn't added a coaster since 1955, and that was a wild mouse, and it is still around and yes, running STRONG. As long as there are people who want entertainment for cheap, Lakeside will be around. But back to SFEG, they will add another coaster in a few years. Only when SF sees a large decrease in attendence.

+0
Saturday, September 14, 2002 5:14 PM
I still don't get why people complain about Great Escape so much? It's a family park, and basically the equivalent of Canobie Lake with some two extra coaster that we would only dream of in Canobie. Yet, I here no complaining about Canobie. Have you ever thought that Great Escape was meant to be a family park? You guys have a pretty good woodie, a classic Schwarzkopf design, and the rariety of a bobsled, which can be considered tame, but is quite fun for family. Yeah, you guys haven't gotten a lot of brand spanking new thrills, but mabye they weren't meant to be. All we've gotten new up(in the last 5 years) at Canobie are a chute-the-chute, a S&S space shot, some kiddie rides, and the reopening of Galaxi.

-----------------
Lake Compounce-So Fresh and So Clean Clean

+0
Saturday, September 14, 2002 5:15 PM
One important thing to remember about all of the parks that have been mentioned above (to be dumped by SF) are small, regional parks that draw most of their visitors from their surrounding areas or their own state. None of them are tourist destinations on their own and none are really that close to tourist destinations. That would not change, even if Paramount or CF owned them.

-----------------
"Look, we all go way back, and uh, I owe you from the thing with the guy in the place and I'll never forget it." "That was our pleasure." "I'd never been to Belize."

+0
Saturday, September 14, 2002 5:20 PM

Paramount already said that they're not interested in buying anymore American parks and that they're fine with the oens they have but would like to expand they're market over seas.

-----------------
Lake Compounce-So Fresh and So Clean Clean

+0
Saturday, September 14, 2002 5:27 PM

Some of you seem to think that when a big corporate company buys a small scale park that automatically they should bring it up to "mega" status. For the life of me, I dont understand this.

Whats wrong with Six Flags owning and operating small scale parks? Personally, I think they should leave some of them that way.

If you live near a small park owned by Six Flags, you should actually be happy that they aquired it. Alot of these "ma and pa" parks that struggle end up shutting their doors. SF has the capability to keep struggling parks open.

-----------------
Ric Flair was hitting on the female host, he told her - "Space Mountain may be the oldest ride in the park, but it has the longest line." WOOOOO!

*** This post was edited by Chitown on 9/14/2002. ***

+0
Saturday, September 14, 2002 6:29 PM

SF may have the capability too expand and keep these parks alive,the question is does SF have the desire to do so?

If SF has no real interest in further expansion or at least a new ride here & there for some of these parks then why bother owning them in the first place?,the simple reason is that the smaller parks are the cash cows that help bring in the big bucks to pay for the expenditures of SF's "favored" parks and we all know which parks those are don't we?

+0
Saturday, September 14, 2002 6:59 PM
So Batwing, what you are saying is, you would rather have a small park close forever than have SF take it over and keep it operational?

-----------------
Ric Flair was hitting on the female host, he told her - "Space Mountain may be the oldest ride in the park, but it has the longest line." WOOOOO!

+0
Saturday, September 14, 2002 7:58 PM

I live near a small, if not the smallest SF park, SFEG. At least with the SF name anyways. I don't mind it much, I used to, but if what I have researched about the park is true, it wouldn't be in existence today if it wasn't for SF. Not to mention, this is one of the cleaniest SF parks you will find.

SF should not build up every park. Not every state has the population to have a large park like SFMM or CP. If they build up a park too much they will simply go bank rupt.

+0
Saturday, September 14, 2002 8:47 PM

Six Flags Darien Lake is kind of a different story, actually...

When Premiere owned it with Wyndot Lake & Gueaga Lake (sp?), among a couple others... Darien Lake was actually considered the flagship park of the 4 or 5 parks in the chain. It was always getting the latest Huss rides, and well kept. It was starting to recieve major coasters, and yearly upgrades throughout the park. Their attendance was always very good for the area it's located in.

Then came the Six Flags take-over... things changed for the worse, and after the initial change and addition of Superman, things just went downhill. They lost most of their water attractions, and hasn't added a major attraction since 1999 (shoot-the-chutes & top spin don't count).

It's been basically neglected... and with the addition of a new coaster for Martin's Fantasy Island for 2003, the completion of a $160 million expansion project for Marineland Canada, & whatever Seabreeze decides to add for '03, it actually has some competition in the area.

+0
Saturday, September 14, 2002 8:53 PM

On a totally seperate note... the Premiere acquisition from Charlie Woods of The Great Escape is a totally different story. From there, only The Comet & Steamin' Deamon were the coasters located at The Great Escape.

It wasn't until Premiere bought the park from Charlie Wood, and added the Alpine Bobsleds, Boomerang, & Nightmare (which is a nightmare capacity, pun intended)... but at least they added new rides!

It may have been since 1999 that a new ride (real ride) has gone into the park, but now is the time for change. They had the approval from the Queensbury town board back in May of 2001, and they have plans for new rides & coasters among many other new additions: on-site hotel, water treatment, parking expansion, pedestrian bridge, entrance plaza, & convention center.

The only problem they have now is corporate funding. Ever since the 9/11 incident, funding was cut way down... among other reasons. If corporate ever decides to give the funding to The Great Escape, they can continue with their plans for further expansion.

It's not that they don't want to expand, they have major plans... it's a matter of getting the proper funding from corporate, and it's all corporate's decision to decide who gets what money from a big pot of money... no matter who's being the most profitable park.

+0

You must be logged in to post

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