Six Flags endangered list. Think its possible?

Friday, May 7, 2004 3:36 PM
I was reading screamscape and I came across his article about Six Flags endangered parks. I want to know what you all think of this.

Here is the link for the story.

http://www.screamscape.com/html/industry_news.html

I personally think the only park in trouble is DL. Its the only park I've been to that I've had a problem at and wasn't really happy about.

What do you all think?

+0
Friday, May 7, 2004 3:40 PM
I think the person who wrote that has a bit too much time on their hands.
+0
Friday, May 7, 2004 3:42 PM
They didn't mention SFA.
+0
Friday, May 7, 2004 3:43 PM
I guess we will all find out if they ever sell more parks, now wont we. ;)
+0
Friday, May 7, 2004 3:43 PM
^ Moosh, I think the person with over 5000 posts on CBuzz has too much time on their hands. ;)
+0
Friday, May 7, 2004 3:56 PM
Anything's possible, but I think we won't see any parks changing hands anytime soon. Besides, who would realistically buy them? I don't see CF wanting to shoulder the burden of a new park anytime soon...they have their hands full!
+0
Friday, May 7, 2004 4:33 PM
Some parks can be in trouble, but keep an open mind. This is Six Flags anything can happen.
+0
Friday, May 7, 2004 6:33 PM

SixFlagsAmericaFan said:
They didn't mention SFA.

Or SFNE for that matter. I dunno, seems out of SFNE and SFA, SFNE is the more secure. I mean, SFNE gets about 325,000 more guests a year than SFA and SFNE has added quite a lot since the year they were flagged (including Batman: Knight Flight and the water park expansion), but I guess the writter of that article on Screamscape figured that SFA has added quite a lot since flagging year as well (including Batwing, Superman, Krypton Comit, and PBR) and SFA's extreamly close distance to DC and relatively close distance to Baltimore along with a ton of land left to expand upon make it a "safe" park...

+0
Friday, May 7, 2004 6:42 PM
That article was SPECULATORY and not based in fact. I can't believe some of you bought it!
+0
Friday, May 7, 2004 7:14 PM
Viacom was aproached about possibly merging with Time Warner, Viacom told them their companies value wasn't half what they were reporting and to get lost.

Chuck, who possibly sees some company absorbing the competition when it becomes devalued

+0
Friday, May 7, 2004 7:21 PM

Crashmando said:
I personally think the only park in trouble is DL. Its the only park I've been to that I've had a problem at and wasn't really happy about.

What do you all think?


I think it's ridiculous to think Darien Lake might be in trouble based on the fact that your problem went unresolved.

Please.

+0
Friday, May 7, 2004 7:57 PM
They say that places like SFEG, SFDL and SFAW are in danger because they rarely get new rides.

They neglect to realize that SF is actually decently smart for doing this (no matter what the fanboys say).

So they choose to add no new rides at SFAW. I guess Houston locals will visit, SFoT... or SFNO...or SFFT. Get it? SF dominates the market and has little to no competition to steal their customers.

Lets look at SFMM. If they don't build a new ride, you can bet that thier visitors will go to USH, KBF or even the Disneyland Resort instead. If they don't keep adding things to keep people interested, attendance will suffer.

That is why SFMM gets the new rides and not SFAW. Its all a matter of business, and the same can be said for the other parks on their so-called "endangered list."

+0
Friday, May 7, 2004 8:09 PM
It all boils down to profit. Worlds of Adventure didn't turn a profit since it was bought by Six Flags. They dumped millions into it the short time they had it. If the kept it they may have made their money back. They opted for a quick money fix, if we get out now it is less we can loose in the future and we can work on our other more profitable parks more.

WOA was basicly a Roller Coaster Tycoon mistake to me. Build a ton of stuff the first year until your low on cash, then try to get ahead basicly trying to pay off your debt not making much money to put back into your park. At least thats my take on it.

If a park is making money without dumping alot of money into it Six Flags won't sell it.

+0
Friday, May 7, 2004 9:14 PM
CoasterFanMatt, your exactly right. It is all about the markets. Of course parks that serve such densly(sp?) populated areas such as well southern California(SFMM), NYC/NJ(SFGAdv) or Chicago(SFGAm) are going to be very important to SF. Obviously they are going to get the most visitors so then more money,ect.
+0
Friday, May 7, 2004 10:06 PM
Well, parks under Six Flags control that have big plans for their future, but are under the constrictions of corporate are basically being left behind as their dreams get more & more delayed.

Darien Lake being one of those, for example. They are trying to market themselves as a "resort", and doing what they can to bring in more than just regional visitors, but more from out of the area to stay a a night or two at their campground or hotel.

One of Darien Lake's future plans is to build an 18-hole professional golf course to compliment their "resort", as well as "world-class attractions", as was noted by an interview a couple years ago.
I'd like to know how Six Flags would be willing to give Darien Lake 30+ million dollars to build a golf course when they are under a tight-budget as is.

I could see Six Flags selling off a few properties... not just the under-performing ones, but possibly the ones that were under Premier control (ie: Wyondat Lake, Darien Lake, Great Escape).
Question is... who'd really buy any parks that are for sale? Would Cedar Fair start over-saturating the market, or would Paramount start gobbling up a couple new parks? Maybe there's an indie owner that wants to get their hands on a park or two?

+0
Saturday, May 8, 2004 11:00 AM
"Worlds of Adventure didn't turn a profit since it was bought by Six Flags."

Not true. The park formerly known as Geauga Lake, now known again as Geauga Lake made money through its flagging year of 2000 (known at that time as Six Flags Ohio). In fact 2000 was the park best year EVER. It was the purchase and merger of SFO that marked the begining of the end of Six Flags (ie Premier) in Ohio. Finally remember it was Premier who bought the SF brand name from Time Warner. At that time GLP was already a part of the Premier holdings for two years.

It doesn't matter who will by the parks. If SFI gets enough to justify it in their minds they will sell it land developers or business speculators or other park companies. I think they would want to sell to other park companies because they would get more for their money and unload other assets quick and easy. I really don't think there are many parks that SFI wouldn't part with if the price was right.

+0
Monday, May 10, 2004 2:46 AM
I'm sorry, but those are just some downright bad guesses. First off, who would purchase the parks? If you have a park valued at 25 million dollars (very small park) you aren't going to have a group take it over to sell off the rides and make apartments out of it -- the land is simply too expensive. Secondly, stating that SFKK is working to pay off it's debt is stupid. The entire chain is in debt, not each park. If SFMM makes 50 million dollars but SFKK loses 100 million dollars, the park is out 50 million dollars.

So anywho, we're faced with other parks purchasing the other sold off Six Flags parks. If I am Cedar Fair or Paramont (the only two chains that might be at all interested), I am not going to be stupid enough to purchase a park that is not turning a profit and has nothing to make it look like it will in the near future. Why would I want to add that to my chain? The only parks that would be of interest to me are parks in markets I am not in that make money. SFMM could be sold to Paramont I suppose, but other than that what parks would receive attention? Geauga [sp?] makes Cedar Fair a million times more powerful and is the only reason it was sold. Six Flags won't sell off any more property that is making money, and they won't be able to rid themselves of any turd parks either.

+0
Monday, May 10, 2004 7:18 AM
FYI, a lot of people don't realize SFNE's market size. Its right in between Hartford and Springfield, draws huge numbers from the Boston area, and also serves the rest of New England, while, not a lot on its own, places like Vermont, Maine, New Hampshire...they add up.

Silliness.

+0
Monday, May 10, 2004 9:36 AM
For those of you thinking they will get rid of SFDL i doubt it the place still gets really good attendence #'s for it's size and marketplace.

Just because SFI doesn't add new rides does not mean that the place is still not doing great because it is, so please stop it with the corny speculation and just because you had a bad expierence at SFDL doesn't mean that they care about your one opinion and shut the place down that's crazy and silly. *** Edited 5/10/2004 1:36:27 PM UTC by darienlakefan*** *** Edited 5/10/2004 1:37:20 PM UTC by darienlakefan***

+0
Monday, May 10, 2004 10:52 AM
The reason SFDL doesn't add more is because for its location, it is doing about the best it can and adding more attractions wouldn't create the same surge in attendance that it would at other parks. The majority of guests visiting a park come from within 100 miles of the park. SFDL pulled in about 1.46 million guests in 2003 and there are slightly under 3 million people within 100 miles of the park. That's a lot of people for a park to pull in by comparison to the number of people in the area. To really increase attendance at the park, they would need to do something to draw people from a much larger region, and to do that, they would need to add a coaster that would get national recognition. Unfortunatly, SF is just not in a position to take that risk right now, so the park will remain the size it is addind a small attraction every once and a while to give the current guests reason to come back to the park.

By comparison, SFGAdv pulled in 3.15 million guests in 2003 with about 20 million people within 100 miles, SFMM pulled in 3.05 million guests with about 17 million people within 100 miles, and SFA pulled in about 1.43 million people with 13 million people within 100 miles. From a finincial point of view, it just makes more sense to add to parks like this where you'll see a larger return of investment.

+0

You must be logged in to post

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