Six Flags puts itself up for sale

Anyways... anyone find the eBay link for it? ;) Like they say, you can sell ANYTHING on eBay.

Paul, I think you're somewhat right, but plenty of other parks in my area charge an obscene amount for parking, food, etc. Usually the difference in pricing between say SFA and any of the other locals parks is neglible. The difference comes down to the quality of a visit. That can determine whether or not you want to stay the whole day and spend money, or get your credits and leave because you can't stand the operations of the park.

SFKK has pretty cheap parking. *** This post was edited by BSBMX 8/25/2005 10:12:38 PM ***

I kinda figured this might happen. But didnt they report a gain or was that just certain parks. I know that they were trying to get rid of most of the parks in Europe that they owned. That kinda sent up a white flag for the business end somwhat. I think that Geauga Lake also was signaling alot, that they werent going to put up with losses at parks. So maybe just selling the company will help out the image to some of these parks, and also will they still be known as six flags. The management has to improve the image, of whoever might buy them. So with that being said maybe we are really lucky that things have went this way!

Sorry to all six flags fans, cause this does cause some uncertainty with a few of the parks obviously!*** This post was edited by MagnunBarrel 8/25/2005 10:25:49 PM ***

Here's the line from the AP story that causes me some concern:

"Snyder's group has indicated it would get rid of properties that aren't critical to the management plan"

I can just see some of the smaller parks, including SFA, getting sold off to developers to help pay off some debt and concentrate on the larger "destination" parks like Great Adventure. I know that Snyder's group had said that they would sell off excess land, so maybe that is what the AP meant to say in the article.

On NPR it was suggested Disney maybe a possible buyer. If Disney had the money it would certainly make sense. Disney management would address all the things Six Flags lacks, such as theaming, attention to details, more family rides attracting a larger audience, and above all better service. If Disney knows how to improve the parks, stock values would increase and they could turn a big profit. It would mean roller coaster construction would pretty much stop at these locations.

Not suggesting these parks would become new Mickey kingdoms. They would simply make improvements to the currently existing parks. Disney is in the business of managing parks all over the world and attracting a wide variety of guests. Not sure who would be more qualified in turning things around for SF parks. No doubt they would offer a different management strategy then the one that has run Six Flags into the ground. Who ever takes over may need to consider if they want to keep the Six Flags name in consideration of the negative reputation it has established. Lets hope it will also mean retiring annoying Mr. Six.
*** This post was edited by rc-madness 8/26/2005 12:36:23 AM ***

Blasphemy...I love Mr. Six. An iconic mascot was one af the few helpful things the park has done for themselves.

This news blew me out of my chair earlier today. The suspense is killing me.

I don't really think a potential buyer would change the SF company name. Six Flags is a very recognizable name, good or bad.

I think the biggest mistake SF has made is season pass prices. I know a lot of others here agree. They should see that what they have to offer is valuable and charge accordingly.

Who's going to buy SF? Probably no one.

I agree. Who has the deep pockets willing to assume a 2 billion dollar debt that goes with the sale?

They are telling Snyder if he wants the company, he takes it all including the debt. I don't see buyers lining up.

With this action they have made Snyders stock offer worthless.

Anything planed should already be paid for so thats not a problem.

Can you imagine, Snyder and Gates teaming up? Both very good business men with a whole lot of money.

Who has the deep pockets willing to assume a 2 billion dollar debt that goes with the sale?

Bill Gates

Rescue... why would Snyder sell SFA? It's in his backyard. If anything I see him improving it. The parks I would be worried for are Kentucky Kingdom, Wyandot Lake, Frontier City, White Water Bay, and The Great Escape.

The Columbus Zoo actually owns Wyandot Lake...SF just has a long term lease agreement. Part of the zoo's master expansion plan was actually expanding the waterpark space from it's current 18 acres up to 35 acres. SF getting out of the picture at WL is probably the best thing that could happen...maybe the zoo could find another operator who'd be willing to make the investment.

I definitely agree that to some extent this is a "put up, or shut up" call out to Dan Snyder. By putting themselves in the ring for sale, it negates the "poison pill" provision which Snyder has stated as the reason for only wanting to obtain 35% ownership. Brad G and Jeff are right...this is text book to negate a tender offer and keep control of your company.

But, they've got to do something...six years of straight losses and a choking debt load is slowly but surely killing them. (The interest on their debt alone is $200 million a year! That's half the price Paramount paid for KECO in '92 that they're shelling out every year just in INTEREST.)

I'm surprised that no one mentioned the Blackstone Group as a potential bidder... Yes, they divested their stake in SF years ago, but their portfolio has changed quite a bit in recent years. With several of their investments/acquistions recently (ESA hotels, Universal Orlando, Legoland, Homestead Village hotels, and tons of individual hotel properties) they're quickly (yet somewhat quietly) becoming one of the biggest players in leisure travel in the world.

There was a really insightful article on the Motley Fool that I think really summarizes SF's issues well:

http://www.fool.com/news/commentary/2005/c...ogvisit=y&npu=y

Joel*** This post was edited by JZarley 8/26/2005 9:01:56 AM ***

Yeah, Bill gates has the money, but is he WILLING to assume that kind of hit? I just don't see it. though stranger things have happened.

Bill Gates is well known for his philanthropy. What could be better than bailing out a company which entertains 30 million people a year? And given his track record, he could potentially turn the operation around and make money off it too. If Gates were willing to keep the commitment to the parks and coasters, he would be the dream buyer in my opinion. He is just more trustworthy than Snyder.

If not Gates, I personally hope the company is not sold. SF should immediately raise all season pass prices at least 50%, that would buy enough time to maintain the status quo for a few more years, long enough to build the hotel and woodie at SFGAdv, the flyer at SFMM and whatever else they already have planned, and take another look at the financials in a year of two.

Well I didn't expect to see this when I came to coasterbuzz. I don't know if I like it or not. I think one way or another we'll see some parks go in the next couple of years. I don't really think whoever owns Six Flags will concentrate on just selling big or small parks though. They will sell the ones that they are offered the best values on. If someone offers $150 million for a park that they think is only worth $100 million, they'll sell it. What I worry about are any parks that consistently lose money. I hope none of the current parks simply vanish.

"It depends if they change their child labor laws. It could also mean a pay raise since they can't pay less than minimum wage. "

Labor laws aren't governed by Six Flags. They are governed by the state that the six flags park is located in.

As a employee of the six flags chain, it'll be a cold day in hell before I work for Bill Gates.

*** This post was edited by Steel158 8/26/2005 11:48:18 AM ***

Technically you do work for Bill Gates already. He or one of his holdings companies is a minority owner in Six Flags*** This post was edited by dragonoffrost 8/26/2005 12:11:59 PM ***

Personally,

Either way, I see them moving the headquarters away from Oklahoma City.

How about Michael Jackson? ;)

JDB said:

Bill Gates is well known for his philanthropy. What could be better than bailing out a company which entertains 30 million people a year?

If this isn't sarcasm, it just might be the silliest thing I've ever read on here. Bailing out a multi-billion dollar corporation that has mortgaged itself into debt up to its eyeballs is not what most people, especially people who have worked hard to make a lot of money, would consider philanthropy. That would be an investment.