Posted Thursday, August 25, 2005 9:31 AM | Contributed by coasterguts
Six Flags Inc. on Thursday said its board of directors has unanimously decided to sell the company through an auction process, one week after a dissident shareholder offered to raise his stake in the amusement-park operator and replace its management.
Wow....that's a big, no....HUGE suprise....I am not sure if it is a good one or not, though....
As I think about it, it is their last ditch attempt to block Snyder by trying to make him buy the whole company outright rather than just a controlling interest. It will be harder for someone to come up with rnough cash to do a complete buyout versus a "controlled takeover."
*** This post was edited by redman822 8/25/2005 9:47:09 AM ***
It's not a park by park sale... and I doubt new owners would sell the parks.
I think we got three possible new owners unless a dark horse shows up. They are Snyder, Gates and someone with ties to Burke.
I hope Snyder gets is of the three. At least he won't bring in Windows: The Ride. Sorry we are experiencing technical difficulties please wait while the operator hits control-alt-del and reboots the ride. Or keep the current management in place like a friend of Burke would do. It's time for new blood at Six Flags.
IMHO there is a big difference. Snyder through takeover would pay off the debt eventually.Through auction you gotta find someone not only to pay the price for the company but to take on 2 billion in debt.Chuck, who wouldn't be surprised to see NO SALE at the end of all this and a dozen parks sold at rock bottom prices just to pay interest. *** This post was edited by Charles Nungester 8/25/2005 11:00:57 AM ***
Well anything's better than Burke & I guess they finally realized that they made some mistakes in running the company,just as TW did when they sold to Premier back in 98.
Maybe now all of the parks will get fair & equal treatment when it comes to new cap ex decisions........keep in mind that under Burke's management the company exhausted most of it's cap ex budget which resulted in fewer ride built chainwide beginning in 02,new owners could come in,pay off some of the outstanding debt & infuse some much needed capital to pay for the new coasters & other additions lacking at most of their parks in the chain.
There’s a problem selling off individual parks in this situation. I don’t have the exact debt figure, but I don’t think that you would have a whole lot left after selling off any of the larger parks that generate substantial revenue for the company, or if it financially would be worth clearing up 150-200M of debt by selling one of your larger income parks.
The little parks do add to the bottom line, and lots of little parks adds more to the bottom line, but for this corporation, the larger revenue parks pull the giant cash flow to keep things going.
You have to remember the current debt that the company has. If I remember right, it’s a big bunch. You’re not going to pay off long term debt by getting rid of your substantial cash flow generators, the little parks I would think would be the first to go.
But then again, I could be wrong.
You also have to look at what this buyout is going to do, additional debt financing for the new company, assumption of new debt, I don’t think it’s going to be pretty, unless Six Flags goes for a song…. And folks… that’s not going to happen.
Whatever happens is going to be a long and drawn out process. I wouldn't expect anything big to happen in many of the Six Flags parks that wasn't already planned for the upcoming construction season.
I think that Snyder would be the best viable option for the growth of Six Flags as we now know it. The man knows how to run a business. He has the cash (and assets) to buy Six Flags, and just might be the saviour (obviously to early to term him our great savior).
Whatever happens I just hope that it works out for the best of each park.
BATWING FAN SFA said: Maybe now all of the parks will get fair & equal treatment when it comes to new cap ex decisions.
In the real world, business decisions are not made with fairness, justice, or equity in mind. The only thing that counts is the financial impact. There is no conspiracy out there to deny small parks capital expenditures. Whether or not it is successful at making more money is a different story altogether.
" Wow....that's a big, no....HUGE suprise"Here's my personal take on the deal: Snyder expressed interest in buying enough stock to take over the company, and certainly had the might to do so, right? Well, these execs, as money-driven as they are, decided that they would try to get someone else to come in and offer them even more money for the same product. Sort of like when an athlete tests free agency: if another team will give me more money, I'll go play for them.. if not, I'll stick with my team. It didn't really suprise me at all once I thought about it, but maybe I'm just out there.
*** This post was edited by Jophish 8/25/2005 12:28:12 PM ***