Six Flags sale financials

You know, one of the things Snyder and Red Zone would like to do if they get control is rezone about 3700 undeveloped acres around the parks and sell it.

What about a combo dealy-o? First rezone and sell off land, then start pawning off the parks themselves.

That seems like it'd generate even more money in the long run.

(disclaimer - Post not based on inside or business knowledge of any kind. Just having fun throwing out possible scenarios and seeing what sticks. :) )

.. and with all that land, ALOT of which is undeveloped, they're getting hammered with property taxes.

---

Jeffrey Seifert said:

---

TeknoScorpion said:
Do you really think the creditors are just going to sit back and watch all the assets disappear just because they are receiving payments?

If I owed you 2bill and owned 17 houses, and I kept paying you, and then decided to sell off all of those houses, which would generate enough cash to pay you the 2bill I owe you, would you stop the sale?

---

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. I'm trying to tell everyone that the creditors have to approve the sale of any assets listed as collateral. If I felt you could generate enough cash to pay off the loan, then yes I would approve the sale. But my point is if the houses were listed as collateral on the loan, I would have to either approve the sale before you sell the houses or you would have to settle the debt. That is why you are required to go through expensive title searches before you can sell a house. They make certain there are no outstanding liens before the sale is completed.

*** Edited 10/13/2005 6:46:58 PM UTC by Jeffrey Seifert***

---

As a former small business owner, I can vouch for the statement that you can't simply sell off collateralized property without the lender's approval. When I sold off my equipment, I needed to provide the bank with details of the items' depreciation schedule, as well as documentation to support that I was selling them for a fair market price.

Thanks for the list, but my point has been that they don't own 28 properties and therefore cannot sell 28 properties. It gets even more confusing when you consider that in some cases they own everything in the park, but not the land that it sits on (like SFKK). In other cases they don't own the rides or the land--they just manage the park (like SFOG). Then there is SFOT where they own about 37% of the park (rides and property).

Better yet, Gonch, would be if they could subdivide the land, sell off the parcels and let the buyers foot the bill for the rezoning. They wouldn't get as much for the land as they would if it were already re-zoned, but re-zoning can be a lengthy, expensive process depending on the location and the amount of opposition.

Once someone else owns it, it's their problem if the neighbors are for or against it. SFI is out of the picture, and they can concentrate on the property they have left.

It's time vs. money argument. Need a lot of money now, or can you wait and get even more later?

Nice list of 28 entities in the SEC filing.. including *'s for the one on land SFI owns. Now go back through and count the *'s - you'll count precisely 17 (which is what others have said SFI actually owns)

Yeah, there are 17 of which Six Flags could completely sell both the land and the park without complication.

Doesn't Six Flags pay nearly $200m annually on the debt interest?

not really without complication if it's listed as collateral on the loans (which one would assume to be true)

That would then include everything originally aquired from Time Warner?

By complication, I meant the parks with other investors or just a management contract. Astroworld I consider being sold without complication because all they needed was creditor approval which they seemingly have.