Six Flags conference call

Thursday, March 10, 2005 11:03 AM
In the 4th quarter conference call, Six Flags said that they would try to sell excess land around Six Flags America. They also said that Six Flags Magic Mountain would get a "show product" and that if Viacom was selling Paramount Parks, they wouldn't be interested.

Edit: Archived webcast *** Edited 3/10/2005 6:09:59 PM UTC by LaMarcus***

Thursday, March 10, 2005 11:20 AM
That's a bit stupid to sell off SFA's unused land when they should focus on trying to actualy develop it instead even if it means a short term increase in their overall cash selling the additional land it effectively means they've given up on the park,if they want to do that then just sell the entire park to CF instead.

Smart move though on their part not to even think of getting involved in the paramount park sale,now it seems to be narrowed down to CF & Universal along with that investment group headed up by a Viacom executive.

Once again selling the additional land is a bad move because the park does have potential,but only if the capital & effort are put forth to make use of that potential

Thursday, March 10, 2005 11:26 AM
Notice it does not say sell all excess land and just says sell excess land. Maybe they got so much excess land they can afford to sell some of it to help make future expansions easier to pay for? This would be an easy way to quiet other people when SFA gets some new hot attraction and other parks get less. "We paid for that attraction with money raised from the sale of excess land from the park." said random SFI executive. Business logic may actually be something SFI is using here.
Thursday, March 10, 2005 11:28 AM
The problem with selling land is that once you sell it, you won't get it back.
Thursday, March 10, 2005 11:50 AM
No, the problem with parks selling land (as demonstrated by Wonderland, PKI, SFGAM etc etc etc) is that the land often gets developed into residential areas. This results in cries and protests from residents about attractions installs, traffic, noise etc etc etc.

If I were a park owner, I sit tight on my land. Otherwise I'd be battling a PR issue over and over each time I wanted to do change something in the park.

Shaggy *** Edited 3/10/2005 4:51:42 PM UTC by Shaggy***

Thursday, March 10, 2005 12:18 PM
^Precisely the probllem especially when they've got enough complaints from nearby residents about excessive noise,rides being too tall etc.

Just how much usable land does SFA have(land they can actually build on)? looking at arial pics there doesn't appear to be much land in between PBR,the picnic area & Hall Manor & that field behind Mind Eraser is off limits so I guess a bulk of their unused land lies to the west behind Batwing & Superman.

Thursday, March 10, 2005 12:37 PM
In the case of SFGAm selling off their excess land, it was bought and being turned into an industrial park so no issues with new residents.

I really don't see what the problem is with SFA selling off excess land. Were you expecting mass expansion?

Thursday, March 10, 2005 12:41 PM
How much money is that land near SFA worth? That region has some incredibly high land values, so they could be picking up quite a bit of money.
Thursday, March 10, 2005 12:52 PM
A possible sale could be for a shopping center that would front 214 and maybe a more likely scenario than homes. I don't see SFI making a stupid decision in selling the land to residential developers. Other possible recreation/business uses are more likely. Examples: shopping centers, private campground, golf course, resort hotel.

SFI knows the history of this park and about the fights amusement parks and residenital homes have regarding noise. I really doubt they will sell the land to a residential home/developer/builder.

I have no idea how much the land is worth, but new single family homes in the area are selling for $500,000+.

Let me add, I think a more likely land selling scenario might be, if, the park doesn't see the projected increase in attendance from the retheme of the water park. You will then probably see more land sold. *** Edited 3/10/2005 5:59:34 PM UTC by coasterguts***

Thursday, March 10, 2005 12:53 PM
There is their text release, for anyone who doesn't care to listen to the conference.

They claim that attendance went up 7%, which though we are talking about Six Flags, I would take their word probably a bit more for accuracy than AB.

Thursday, March 10, 2005 12:58 PM
But that was for the quarter. It was down 3.4% for the year.

Mexico's Morgan hyper had a lot to do with the jump.


Thursday, March 10, 2005 1:11 PM
I edited the first post to put a link up to the full webcast. 37 1/2 minutes into the call:

"We continue to look at the possibility of selling certain excess land in our Washington, D.C. market ... I would not expect to see a meaningful amount of land sales coming out over the next couple of years ... but they will be in that $15 million order of magnitude."

Thursday, March 10, 2005 2:12 PM might want to fix that link ;)
Thursday, March 10, 2005 5:24 PM
Not my fault CB screwed it up, so if you could just copy and past because I don't know how to make it "work", I'm sorry. It's also like the top link in the Investors section of the SF site if you care to look.

Playa, I stand corrected.

Thursday, March 10, 2005 6:49 PM
I can say that Attendance at SFOT's Holiday In The Park this year was up drastically.

The decision was made after a 25,000+ day, with more projected for the following weekends (and remember, a lot of the rides are closed for HIP so 25K is a lot) to move one of our shows to a larger theatre and open Judge Roy Scream.

Dramatic increase from last year..

Thursday, March 10, 2005 7:33 PM
Link above fixed here.
Thursday, March 10, 2005 7:34 PM
Wow Moosh, you are a magician. :)
Thursday, March 10, 2005 7:58 PM
They cannot build rides within 800 feet of central avenue, so why not sell off that land for retail or hotel?
Thursday, March 10, 2005 8:19 PM
Seems logical to sell the land along Central Ave. I mean, they can't build any rides there for starters, as Sam said, it's prime land right there along Central Ave, and what other land would they logically sell? The land on the western boarder is boardered by those high tension lines, the land on the eastern boarder is boardered by that State Park (well, it's some sort of state/national park/wildlife preserve or something), and the land on the northern boarder could only be sold to expand the development that is already up there. If they're going to sell any land, sell that land on along Central Ave, but keep it Commercial Use. Personally I'd like to see a SF owned hotel or shopping complex (ala Universal's City Walk or Disney's Downtown Disney) be built on that otherwise unuseable land, but if SF won't build it, next best thing would be to have someone else build it. Maybe a GreatWolf lodge (hotel with indoor waterpark), some sitdown resturants (Red Lobsters, Olive Garden, Outback Steakhouse),...I hardly remember what else is in the area or what else the area needs, but those would be a start. Personally it seems any sort of commercial development along that area of the road would only help the park!
Thursday, March 10, 2005 9:44 PM
Well if they've got up to the high tension lines that's quite a reasonable amount of land to expand on & aside from the overflow lot behind hurricane harbor all they've got is that field next to Mind eraser,which is a pretty large plot of land in it's own right so it'd make sense to sell that particular parcel.

You must be logged in to post

POP Forums - ©2019, POP World Media, LLC