Six Flags parks (opinion)

Wednesday, April 19, 2006 5:46 PM
Ok, with Six Flags parks dropping left and right, I'd like to comment on whick parks I think they should keep, which ones we know are going, and which ones should go (IMO). Feel free to offer your own opinions, etc.

parks we know are going (or gone):

- Astroworld & Waterworld
- Wyandot Lake
- Frontier City
- White Water Bay

parks that should go (IMO):

- Wild Waves and Enchanted Village
- American Adventures

parks that should stay (IMO):

- Six Flags New England
- Six Flags Darien Lake
- Six Flags Great Adventure (& safari and HH)
- Six Flags America
- Six Flags Over Georgia
- Six Flags Kentucky Kingdom
- Six Flags Great America
- Six Flags St. Louis
- Six Flags Over Texas (& HH)
- Six Flags Fiesta Texas
- Six Flags Elitch Gardens
- Six Flags Mexico
- Six Flags Magic Mountain (& HH)
- Six Flags Marine World
- Six Flags New Orleans

parks that should be branded and/or upgraded or sold:

- Slashtown > upgrade & name HH
- Waterworld (both) > upgrade & name HH
- White Water > upgrade and name HH
- The Great Escape > upgrade and brand SF
- La Ronde > brand SF

This would bring more consitency across the board and eliminate the smaller parks that could be owned and managed by someone else, and may return some parks to a more family-run business.

+0
Wednesday, April 19, 2006 5:59 PM
In my opinion, ANY of the parks that are pulling a positive net income (after maintenence costs, taxes, electric bills, and all other bills associated with running that individual park) should be kept as long as possible. I mean, righht now the goal is to reduce the debt load, and any way of keeping positive cash flow would seem like a good idea.
+0
Wednesday, April 19, 2006 6:14 PM
Branding parks with SF or HH isn't going to do jack.
+0
Wednesday, April 19, 2006 8:10 PM
Wyandot isn't "going" it is being sold to the Columbus Zoo, which is going to continue to run is and, IIRC, expand it as well.
+0
Wednesday, April 19, 2006 9:11 PM
I hope they keep all of them.
+0
Wednesday, April 19, 2006 10:30 PM
:) they cant drop Great adventure,with Kingda Ka and all
+0
Wednesday, April 19, 2006 10:34 PM

Neuski said:
Branding parks with SF or HH isn't going to do jack.

I agree, its only going to cost more $ then its worth for now. *** Edited 4/20/2006 2:35:24 AM UTC by P18***

+0
Wednesday, April 19, 2006 10:45 PM

Mamoosh said:
Wyandot isn't "going" it is being sold to the Columbus Zoo, which is going to continue to run is and, IIRC, expand it as well.

I didn't mean that it was going to be torn down or whatever. I meant that it is going to no longer be under Six Flags control.

As for naming of HH not doing "jack", I didn't just say rename it, I said upgrade and rename. I think that might bring in more people, since it probably would involve 1 or more new attractions. The only one I said to just "brand" was La Ronde. It doesn't really need to have any major additions before switching to Six Flags. But as for the other parks, the upgrading and renaming probably would bring in more customers, at least initially, and it would standardize the naming more across the board, as well as make things less confusing in terms of season pass usage (though that's probably not a big issue now).

+0
Wednesday, April 19, 2006 10:52 PM
I think that renaming some might have adverse effects. I say leave well enough alone, unless you can give a good solid answer why it would be worth the money to change the name. I really don't consider uniformity to be a good reason to spend thousands of dollars. Especially given the financial state of Six Flags, Inc. Upgrading can happen without renaming.
+0
Thursday, April 20, 2006 5:50 PM
I would like to see them merge American Adventures and Whitewater into 1 park, maybe rename AA into L. Toons National Park. While AA will never be as grand as SFOG, it's a good idea to have a kid-friendly park. *** Edited 4/20/2006 9:51:21 PM UTC by DBJ***
+0
Thursday, April 20, 2006 6:57 PM

rablat5 said:

Mamoosh said:
Wyandot isn't "going" it is being sold to the Columbus Zoo, which is going to continue to run is and, IIRC, expand it as well.

As for naming of HH not doing "jack", I didn't just say rename it, I said upgrade and rename. I think that might bring in more people, since it probably would involve 1 or more new attractions. The only one I said to just "brand" was La Ronde. It doesn't really need to have any major additions before switching to Six Flags. But as for the other parks, the upgrading and renaming probably would bring in more customers, at least initially, and it would standardize the naming more across the board, as well as make things less confusing in terms of season pass usage (though that's probably not a big issue now).


Remember that Premier tried that already & look what happened.Simply changing the name of a park to six flags<insert name here> & throwing in a couple of new rides for the first season or two while overlooking guest services just isn't the way to go.

What worked for a few of Premier's older parks hasn't worked for all of them & as a result the chain overexpanded which resulted in the massive debt that the new owners are forced to deal with.Their early attempt at a "one size fits all" expansion model just didn't produce the desired results.

+0
Thursday, April 20, 2006 8:26 PM
SFoT, SFoG, SFGA, and SFGAdv will remain for sure.

SFA Is probably the one park that I could see as a candidate for a sale.

+0
Thursday, April 20, 2006 8:33 PM
SFEG, SFKK and SFA....all gone after this season...land sold and housing developments built within a year. The land they all sit on is more valuable than the cash flow the park generates.
+0
Thursday, April 20, 2006 10:11 PM
Do YOU know that for a Fact?
+0
Thursday, April 20, 2006 11:04 PM

Hanging n' Banging said:
SFEG, SFKK and SFA....all gone after this season...land sold and housing developments built within a year. The land they all sit on is more valuable than the cash flow the park generates.

And how exactly would you know this?

+0
Thursday, April 20, 2006 11:14 PM
I think you have to look long term. Can SFA generate $150 mil in "cash flow" over the long term for the company. I think they can, I don't think Shapiro thinks so.
+0
Thursday, April 20, 2006 11:20 PM

RubberDucky said:

Hanging n' Banging said:
SFEG, SFKK and SFA....all gone after this season...land sold and housing developments built within a year. The land they all sit on is more valuable than the cash flow the park generates.

And how exactly would you know this?


I don't...it's an "educated" opinion.... Isn't the title of this thread "opinion"???

Wall Street likes cash flow and low debt. SF has cash flow, but too much debt. It looks like one strategy that SF is taking is to sell some assets to reduce debt. Sounds like a good idea. I am not a Finance major and I only watch Cramer once a week.

As for land valuations, eneryone knows about the exponential land value appreciation that has occured in many areas of this country over the past few years. And when certain land values reach a certain level, it creates a situation whereas the land is more valuable than the business, or asset that sits on top of the land. It's why Astroworld and Wet 'n Wild Las Vegas are now gone....and why Wet 'n Wild in Orlando will be bye bye soon as well. It is just business..... At the end of the day, Snyder doesn't give a crap about the amusement industry....this is just like any other "investment" he has, and his "ROI" is directly related to the PKS share price. In order for PKS to go north, it needs to reduce debt. In order to pay off some debt, you need to sell off some assets. *** Edited 4/21/2006 3:22:27 AM UTC by Hanging n' Banging***

+0
Thursday, April 20, 2006 11:23 PM
I'm surprised SFA's land value is as high as it is... much of the unused land at the park is either protected wetlands, marshes, a stream, or right next to a high voltage powerline or highway... I guess all the prime land is where the rides are already located...
+0
Friday, April 21, 2006 11:10 AM
Quote: "SFoT, SFoG, SFGA, and SFGAdv will remain for sure."

-The flagship missing from that list is SFMM. Are you suggesting its on the choppingblock? Sure, its a park that has given SF some of the bigger headaches, but its also a park with some of the biggest potential. Should Magic Mountain be seen once again as a family destination, in conjunction with destination with most coasters in the world, I see profits easily doubling. Worst mistake SF could make it not cashing in on the Mountain's potential. *** Edited 4/21/2006 3:11:02 PM UTC by rc-madness***

+0
Friday, April 21, 2006 11:36 AM
I dont know much about attendance figures, and earned revenue, but I have this gut feeling American Adventures is here to stay. Its such a small, kid-oriented park right next to White Water, and its been around forever. I even grew up going there.

Its got a sweet little collection of flats, a kiddie coaster, and a foam factory and mini-golf with go-karts on the complex. I cant imagine operating costs are high, and with a place where kids really can go and have a place of their own, I think SF, inc will keep it around for awhile.

Some numbers could definitely prove me wrong but i would be really surprised if the small little park didnt generate at least some profit for the company.

+0

You must be logged in to post

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