Six Flags considers selling more parks.

No, much of it was Usable, They deemed it not worthy of reopening reguardless what the insurance will or won't pay.

COrporations and contracts go about as far as how much $$ is comming in. If SFKK wasn't turing a profit, they'd high tail it and the lawsuit would be cheap in comparison.

Say SF is selling-- who's going to be the buyer(s)? Another park chain-- How likely is that? Real estate developer? Residential isn't looking too promising right now, though commercial is still pretty steady.

Notable quote for me: "Six Flags officials, who want to cut loose one of the company's three advertising agencies, plan to reduce radio spending and concentrate more on Internet-driven opportunities that will attract more teens."

So family-friendly only lasted 2 years, and it's back to those undesirable teens who don't spend money?

---

Charles Nungester said:

Bankruptcy? After you screw B&M and all the other manufactures out of millions owed them. Who you ever gonna buy from again?

Chuck

---

Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't SF borrow money from banks to pay off the cost of capital assets? I really don't think B&M and other manufacturers accept payment plans.

---

Charles Nungester said:
They were contractually required to operate SFNO too, Like that matters?

---

Of course it matters. They are still paying the city $1.4 million per year in accordance with the terms of the 75-year lease, even though the park is not operating.

most parks borrow money (debt) to purchase new assets. Most ride manufacturers do not seller finance their prooducts, but some do. I think that Vekoma did this, Chance did at one time also. I've never heard of B&M doing this.

Some companies will enter into leasing agreements with financing /leasing companies. FITRALCO (sp??) comes to mind, as they were the actual owners of the S&S tower complex at Jazzland , they leased it to the park. The ride even had a plaque on it stating that fact, (like in case the park goes ro Sh@t, this is ours, you can't sell it.) *** Edited 1/29/2008 5:02:40 PM UTC by CreditWh0re***

I believe that most coaster manufacturers have a minor financial plan. By that I mean that parks will pay portions of the total cost at various points through the process of obtaining a new ride. From the early design stages through a couple to a few months after the ride opens.

This helps give security that the rides will be functional and such at opening and for some time after. If theres a lot of issues still, the company can hold the final payments until it is worked out.

ah, the old CCI buisness plan.

I read an article recently about Prince Georges County (where SFA is located) having a high amount of mortgage defaults from the subprime fallout. I don't see there being much of a market for more real estate in that area until things calm down.

If they were to sell the park, I could see a lot of the rides being moved elsewhere or sold, as SFA doesn't have a lot of terrain.

"Six Flags officials, who want to cut loose one of the company's three advertising agencies, plan to reduce radio spending and concentrate more on Internet-driven opportunities that will attract more teens."

Their plan now appears to be to attract more teens. This company is doomed.

^A lot of the rides at Six Flags are teen rides!! The plan for family was to get more "family-friendly" advertising sponsors, and they did that. Are you going to drive all the teens that come to the park away? That's a lot of people.

If you do that, than you have to tear down a lot of Six Flags rides, and build a lot more rides just for families. That's just stupid. Teens have money someway, and somehow. They can get a Wii that costs $300 or something like that. Why can't they buy a $125 season pass? Oh, yah I forgot that most of them are around $70. They are at the mall on Saturdays. It's crazy in those malls, and they don't look like they are dressed down. They are spending money!!

I think people confuse Six Flags with vacation. A day-cation is a whole lot different than a vacation. On a vacation, families are really willing to fork over the big bucks. If you just want to go to a Six Flags park for one day, it might not be an all spending money buffet. "How dare Six Flags put that Thomas train store after my kids ride the ride so they want me (the particular mom) to spend money."

I think SFFT is pretty safe...

Sea World is there but many people in San Antonio have no problem going to both. Sea World offers a different experience... additionally SFFT has broad appeal because of its well-rounded showcase of rides, great theming, and award winning shows. FT is the best show park SF owns, and one of the best show parks in the country.

SFFT has been dealing with Sea World, even Schlitterbahn competition ever since it's been around and has been doing well. Shapiro likes the park too (Might not mean too much if they boot him)...

One interesting thing, though. When Fiesta Texas was built in the early 90's it was a joint venture between USAA and Gaylord Entertainment, back when Gaylord owned Opryland. FT was themed as a "destination market musical-show park." USAA was built the property in an old rock quarry (la cantera) as part of the development of 1,000 acres they owned in Northwest San Antonio. USAA never meant to operate the park for too long... it was just an investment.

Gaylord and USAA would be out of the park by 1996, when Premier took it over (Six Flags). In 1998, bought the park and added some flats. In 1999 Fiesta Texas set a world record for industry growth, and added upwards of 15 rides including two coasters, an S & S combo triple shot tower, and many others.

In January, 2008, Gaylord purchased the Westin La Cantera resort, located just over the cliffs looking over Fiesta Texas. The La Cantera resort is something like 600 acres. Gaylord bought the property for 250,000,000 dollars. They are investing an additional 250,000,000 on improvements on an already 4 diamond resort.

Now, to my point... If Gaylord made an offer for Fiesta Texas, pledging to run it as is (no removal of rides, just take over management basically), I think Six Flags should accept the offer. The resulting 800 acre complex, would revile Sea World, and anything else seen, amusement wise, in the entire Southwest.

The infrastructure is already there... maybe its just in the wrong hands. *** Edited 1/30/2008 6:26:04 AM UTC by coasterghost***

If people are getting Six Flags confused with a vacation and people spend a lot of money on vacation then they should be spending a lot of money at Six Flags because they are confused and think they are on vacation.

---

rct247 said:

Six Flags New England (sell)

---

SFNE is consistently a top-performer in the chain (and Mark Shapiro's favorite park).

This is just speculation and inference on my part but I would also guess SFNE is relatively safe. The growth of the waterpark, from a pretty small facility to what I would consider one of the biggest and best in the chain in the time span of a few years, is quite remarkable, especially given just how packed the waterpark still is on many days. I think the market isn't anywhere close to being saturated and that's very rare situation for an SF park these days.

Coasterghost, I agree with you that SFFT is a top performing park and would be safe for a while, but I think eventually, like you mentioned, another group may take interest in the park and offer some money to buy it. If so, I think Six Flags should take that money. It's a great park, let it be run by great people, and as much as Six Flags really needs a great park like that, you would also hate for it to get caught up in bankrupcy.

As for Six Flags New England...I withdraw my comment to sell. I admit I am not very familiar with that park.

Basically its going to come down to parks that have a good balance of population market, roller coasters, family attractions, shows, expansion space, reputation, etc.

Just something to ponder - As far as "making money off the sale of some speicified parks"....didn't SF just lower the sale price (further) by announcing this decision in this fashion. If I were, say, PARC-7F, and in the marketplace for a park or two, I'd be licking my chops at the thought of low-balling an offer in Snyder/Shapiro's direction. Remember the "steal" CF got on GL? Same kind of thing. SF just raised the *perception* that the supply of parks outstrips demand....

Just the viewpoint of an enthusiastic economist... ;)

The estimated land resale value of all of Six Flag's parks comes nowhere close to their debt. Throw in the coasters and such, and you're still far short of their total debt. All they're doing is buying a few years time before bankruptcy. :(

I'll reiterate my point: It's not the resale value of the actual parks and rides that make selling parks worthwhile. It's the longterm operating expenses of the underperforming parks that the company would save.

The only parks I see getting sold are:

Six Flags America
Great Escape
American Adventures
Six Flags St. Louis
With La Ronde, Kentucky Kingdom, and New Orleans not being able to be sold, the top ones are what I believe the least attended especially Great Escape. SFStL, and SFA have tons of land available for sale if they sold them.

Of Shapiro might do something stupid, and sell only the bigger parks because he figures they are worth a lot more money.

Why is there an assumption that the underperforming parks will be the first to go? Sure, they might end up on the block, but who's going to buy them?

Magic Mountain is a case in point. Six Flags could never convince anyone to pay what they wanted for such a dud of a park and everyone knew it was a dud and wouldn't come near Six Flags' offer.

On the other hand if you take a real winner like GAm of FT, there might actually be a buyer willing to part with some meaningful cash from the sale.