Six Flags parks (opinion)

IIRC, SF does not own the land under WW/EV, they just leased the rides and the land; I imagine they do own what rides they put in after they arrived, however.

If they opt out, whatever the situation may be, anyone else think the park would be a good add to the portfolio of Great American Family Parks? Any thoughts on whether other chains might want a NW park in a major area with little competition? Silverwood is what, a 5-hr drive away...

With mention that Fun Forest, the "carnival" at the foot of the Space Needle, may soon be gone, you'd think someone would find a way to make a go of the park. Say, like adding an affordable spinning coaster, which could be marketed as the only ride of it's type on the entire west coast.

Six Flags completly owns Wild Waves/Enchanted Village (bought the park late in 2000).

What make these parks a loss if Six Flags can't manage them? Why will they be sold off the the next home builder that comes along?

Guess Six Flags would rather put a park into extinction, and not have it compete with them, then sell it off to someone else, and watch them do what Six Flags couldn't, Make a profit. *** Edited 4/22/2006 12:51:08 AM UTC by Coasterphan***

Or, simply, a developer would pay more for the land than would another park chain.

Or more than likely no other parks at "the moment" are interested in the SF park for sale. However, a land developer is. So, you either take take the profit (while at the same time cutting your losses now) and sell to the developer... or you wait for a buyer (chain or independent) to come along and buy the park at a later date... while at the same time taking a loss.

Six Flags, LIKE ANY PARK CHAIN, is a business, and sentimentality be damned. Sometimes its better to simply cut your losses, unload a poorly performing part of your business, and take the money and run. And if that means selling to the a land devloper (with the bulldozers idleing and at the ready), then so be it. If that means selling to a park chain who is there and ready and willing to pay at the moment, then so be it. Gotta go with where the money is.

(Note: No economist here... real estate mogul either... just my opinion and my smiple view of the world)

SFZIP:

From the Puget Sound Business Journal:

Six Flags purchased the 70-acre park in December 2000 from Federal Way residents Jeff and Leanne Stock for $19.25 million in stock. The Stocks retain ownership of the land, which is under a long-term lease to Six Flags.

The park's Enchanted Village and Wild Waves attractions typically have drawn about a half-million visitors a year. But Six Flags, an Oklahoma City-based public company with 38 properties, said in an SEC filing there is opportunity to increase park revenue, attendance and cash flow with additional marketing and "relatively modest capital expenditures." Freund declined to provide detailed figures.

They purchased the business, not the land. SF had been trying to buy the whole shebang for some time prior to the acquisition, but the sticking point was the out-right sale of the land. When plans were announced to build The Great Northwest Theme Park nearby, Six Flags, wanting a park in the region, settled on buying the park (just not the land underneath it). :)

Too bad plans for TGNTP were shelved...

At any rate, the Stocks were quoted as saying that if the (Six Flags) venture did not work, they still own 70 acres of land off of I-5. If SF purchased the land sometime after the initial purchase of the park, I never heard of it. Doesn't mean it didn't happen, just that I'm unaware of it. I have searched/ googled for that type of info, but nothing comes up. Being from that region until 2005, I've followed the park very closely, and never heard a word about the sale of the land. :)

I was looking at the Six Flags Annual Report to get the information about the park. It does not say anything about Wild Waves/Enchanted Village being operated under a lease, but it does for every other Six Flags park that is operated under a lease (so you could be right).

Imo, the only thing that can save the chain from it's current state is for a company to come in and completely buy out the chain and write off the debt in 1 yr. It's not like SF never earns money, it's their debt which is pushing them into making some long term potential serious mistakes and preventing them from investing in services that can take the chain to the next level. Just as an example, Microsoft could absorb a 2 billion dollar loss - it's not like they haven't done it before to launch a product. Anybody know Gate's email? :)