Six Flags Posts Strong 1st Quarter Results

SF Critic,

They haven't sold the land, their looking into joint venture with a HOME BUILDER. Once the joint venture is entered into the land will developed into plots, hearings will be held and if everything goes ok, SF will essentially sell the individual plots of land and a home builder will build homes on that land. No word as to what kinds of homes, all they said was homes. I suspect single family homes because SF is looking to maximize the value of the property. The whole process is expected to take 12-18 months and they didn't say how much land.

Exciting news,

I say Mr Six, cleaner parks, and customer service, rides up and running, are being noted by guest.

When they took on a new mind set last season I said it would take three years to really see the payoff. If they invest in the parks they did not this year, keep painting and painting and cleaning, and practicing good service skills, then next year will be the big payoff year.

Watch out next year! *** Edited 5/6/2005 1:54:32 PM UTC by Markieb***

Sounds like SF will improve its cash flow at the expense of possibly increased noise issues at SFA. I have to agree that commercial development would be preferable from the noise viewpoint, but I suspect that this is not practical from the view points of location and zoning.

It was very aparent yesterday that investment firms were interested in the land sale, however, they don't know the history behind this park and noise issues or they would be questioning them about that as well. I don't believe SFI would be stupid enough to sell that land without putting a disclaimer in the settlement paperwork for the home owner acknowleding their proximity to the park etc...

God I hope so too, a real detailed clause.

Otherwise in 2 years from now, someone will be psoting an article on homeowners suing SF over noise in their neighborhood.

Let's hope SFA doesn't become a Dorney Park situation [park has been there for years, then they build a bunch of new homes near the park and complain about the coaster noise]. That would suck. I would expect any new homes to follow in the trend of luxury homes already located near the park. With Rt. 50 and 495/95S being so close by, you can expect high demand.

SFI is talking about maximizing the value of the land they own. I would expect this means small lots with homes close enough you can have a conversation with your neighbor, possibly even townhomes, maybe condos. I'm sure the county council will play close attention to what the parks plans are.

There is really no nearby hotel in the Largo area. They can put a Marriot or Holiday Inn etc. on SFA land if they decide to sell some land.

As far as building houses near SFA they don't need anymore near the park. They are getting ready to build million dollar homes on Church Rd. and Route 301. Church Rd. has ALOT of land to build houses and thats what they are working on now.

---

coasterguts said:
SFI is talking about maximizing the value of the land they own. I would expect this means small lots with homes close enough you can have a conversation with your neighbor, possibly even townhomes, maybe condos. I'm sure the county council will play close attention to what the parks plans are.

---

That will be a bad idea if townhomes or condos were near SFA. If you haven't heard Lake Arbor (a neighborhood on 214 between SFA and Landover Mall) has thugs roming in that area. Why? Because they are buying their mothers these houses. When Landover Mall closed that area went downhill. Crime rate went up. And how do I know? I have relatives that live near and around SFA.

They are tearing down Landover Mall and building only work buildings (ex. federal no stores) to bring that area back up, and thats a good thing. Around SFA they are really just building HUGE houses or senior homes. So I really doubt they build condos or town houses unless they are REALLY expensive. They want to keep this area up, and it is well kept. I just don't want to see it go downhill.

Selling land around SFA is a bad idea as I've said before.

The park already has enough problems as it is with the current residential developments nearby complaining about noise from nearby attractions.....why do you think they've got a 200 ft height restriction?

---

Mamoosh said:
"I'll have the Moose Burger with fries, a coke, and 5 units of stock, please."

---

"Ummm, sir, if you purchase ten units of stock with your *value meal*, then we'll give you a voucher to take to guest relations, along with your ticket stub and this proof of purchase, to be turned in at the season pass window for a form you can fill out to take back to guest relations and get your season pass processed free of charge....of course, you'll need photo ID and the form is a scantron that requires a #2 pencil you'll want to stick IN YOUR EYE by the time you've actually gotten your season pass...."

How much is my TIME and aggravation worth to SF? Can I buy my way through THAT hassle like with a Q-Bot or something?

EVERY manager at any SF park should spend a month at one of the better run parks to see how things SHOULD be done....that in itself would raise their expectations, and hopefully the *performance* at their own parks...:)

As far as selling land goes I doubt that the new neighbors -- moving in with the park already there in its present form -- would be any more vocally opposed to expansion than the existing neighbors.

Six Flags is a company with a good deal of debt on its books so selling adjacent land is better than selling an entire park to be razed by developers.

I'd like to see more deals like what PKI is doing with Great Wolf, giving up 39 acres for a 15% minority interest in a $100 million resort that Great Wolf will fund in its entirety.

The hotel in New Jersey is a fantastic idea, given the popularity of the park and lack of nearby lodging, but if it has to shuffle its feet for years to make it happen it is better off going with a Great Wolf or a traditional hotel chain that will have it up and running within 2 park seasons.

The problem of putting a non-park owned hotel on the property, especially one with an indoor waterpark, is that it takes away slightly from the parks own waterpark. Especially in the case of SFGAdv where the waterpark is seperate admission. If the hotel isn't owned by Six Flags, which a Great Wolf hotel wouldn't be, than you lose money to the people who would usually go to Hurricane Harbor, but instead decide not to because the waterpark at the hotel (evem if it is smaller) is included with admission.

And so we should *assume* that either SFI will build its own hotel/waterpark (not likely, LOL), or that they'll negotiate the contracts to PREVENT the hotels from building their own waterparks...including early admission to GAdv, now THERE is where I think they will make an absolute *buttload* of cash...:)

Is it the right time to buy more SF stock? Methinks they MAY have found the *real* flagships, in Joisey and Chitown...the time to abandon the SoCal market was before X was built, LOL...LA will always be profitable for SFI, but I think that a huge cap-ex isn't necessary. Moving (?) Flashback to add something for the waterpark, that would help MM more than yet another Beemer with the HUGE (;)) lines that Scream is getting...:)

Texas and Georgia are certainly *special cases*, and I am looking forward to getting an RoS clone in Hotlanta, and soon...shoot, I'd take a Titan...with one MORE helix....Son of Titan?...Son of Freeze? Georgia's getting something good next year! :)
*** Edited 5/8/2005 9:13:44 PM UTC by rollergator***

---

Coaster Lover said:
The problem of putting a non-park owned hotel on the property, especially one with an indoor waterpark, is that it takes away slightly from the parks own waterpark.

---

I don't see it that way at all. I mean, yes, you're right. But we're talking about, at most, 400 families here. 1000 guests.

Yet, in PKI's case, we're talking about a resort that families/couples/etc. will be paying $200 a night per room and spending another $100 per room in everything else. Making $45 in revenues (15% minority interest for Paramount in this case) isn't too shabby a gamble especially if. . .

-- They are people who came to stay at the resort first and wouldn't be at the park if it weren't for Great Wolf.

-- They are folks who decide to extend their stay to see the park, the waterpark, and explore the indoor park at their resort.

A company like Disney may have come to regret the Swan and Dolphin when it could have built out its onsite resorts on its own but a company like Six Flags is never going to be in that kind of financial position.

I think if the hotel at The Great Escape does well, we'll see other SF Hotels like this one as a off season revenue stream for the company.

The problem with selling off the land is that as soon as SFI gets out of the red financially they'll wish they had that land back for expansion purposes.

To get money they need to stop putting all of their capital into just one or two parks & spread it out evenly throughout the entire chain....not by just selling off unused land.

That's right! It's quite obvious that putting a strata coaster at Wyandot Lake will help get their money back.