Six Flag' buying spree got them into trouble

"Also, in my region we have SFKK and Wyandot Lake (Columbus, OH) as our closest SF properties. Will either one of them be in immediate danger in your opinions?"

I would say that Wyandot is pretty safe, since it's actually owned by the Columbus Zoo--not SF. SF leases the property from the Zoo. Part of the Zoo's master expansion plan includes a increase of the waterpark from its current 18 acres up to 35 acres. However, according to an article I read in the Dispatch a year or so ago, SF had no interest in making any substantial investment in the park. Personally, I'd like to see the Zoo find another leasee/operator...maybe converting it into a Soak City or a stand-alone Wildwater Kingdom :-)

I'll probably be the only one DEFENDING the "buying spree"....at least when it comes to buying *regional parks*. There really IS one in every crowd ya know... ;)

Why do I think that wasn't necessarily a bad idea? Brand identification, economies of scale, increased work hours for the customers (meaning vacations are closer to home), increased leverage when purchasing rides, etc.

Where they FAILED? IMO, it wasn't buying the parks, it was the LAVISH spending on rides while neglecting *virtually* every single aspect of customer service.

You want people to visit your park once? Spend money on a flashy new coaster or flat. You want them to come BACK (and perhaps bring friends and relatives)? The new ride isn't gonna do that, not unless they had a good time. Too many times people have tried to have a good time at a SF park *despite* the operations/management...losing bet there... ;)

With the chances of SFNO re-opening very slim, and Astroworld closing, who do you think will be the next?

All signs point to SFNO never opening again. I'd place money on it. And while the sale of SFAW will help pay off some of the debt it pay all of it. I would not be surprised to see a few more parks on the chopping block as well. SF has to do something about their financial situation and unloading a few parks is the quickest way to do it. Hope I'm wrong!

*** This post was edited by Mamoosh 9/16/2005 1:58:50 PM ***

you can't possibly go on a buying spree and expect to have money left over to do anything else than build rides. No wonder they didn't have money to spend on customer service - that was caused by the ridiculous spending of buying the parks. Brand identification? Perhaps, but I know that the GP doesn't look for a name, they go where they feel a family atmosphere, where they can have a good time, where they are cared about by the employees, where they feel SAFE, and to the closest park to them that matches this criteria.
*** This post was edited by brscoast 9/16/2005 11:28:15 AM ***

SO, you can spend 20-25M on a new ride, and that's reasonable, but spending 2-3M on employees' training (and raises and promotions for the good ones), or an extra couple million on maintenance and operatins, THAT is excessive?

I *must* be confused...or my priorities are out of whack...or both! ;)

if that was directed toward me you totally missed what i was saying...spending so LITTLE on employees training, and improving operation, overall service (this includes: park cleanliness, all rides being open unless absolutely positively impossible, staffing the rides consistently according to their needs, providing enough employees so that at least one can stop what they're doing to help a guest, have more customer service employees staffing guest relations...the list goes on and on) What I meant was, clearly the money they spent on services wasn't nearly enough. This includes maintenance and operations as well. They simply did not do enough for those departments.

"you can't possibly go on a buying spree and expect to have money left over to do anything else than build rides"

when I said this - I meant that it's completely unrealistic to think they could buy these parks and think they would have mad money drop from the sky. People enthusiasts and GP alike expect a big new attraction every few years. By having so many parks and not the resources necessary to properly run them, they chose to add rides as much as possible, because of this - the service suffered BIG TIME. So because they always wanted to keep adding rides and would put like 4 in for one season alone, that's where the end of that comment comes from - all they had left over was money for rides - and they didn't care about much else apparently.

sorry for the confusion.

LOL, actually it was directed mostly at Kieran (aka Nimrod) Burke... ;)

it's all good...it made me realize a possible source of confusion in my own statement.

beastfan hit it on the nose...

same thing happened to Darien Lake in my mind. they got the SF name, they got SROS, then.... NOTHING! No more coasters after that... I haven't been to Darien Lake in about four years, and I live half an hour away from it. I'd rather drive the two hours to PCW.