"Six Flags says it will keep Magic Mountain rolling"

Wednesday, December 13, 2006 9:34 AM
I am happy about this. The park is in bad shape, but I like to think it can be rescued and returned to its former glory if the right people get ahold of it.
+0
Wednesday, December 13, 2006 9:50 AM
I don't see anything there that says they have ruled out selling the park. They will keep it open since that will at least make them some money, but if someone came along and offered them the right price, they would sell.
+0
Wednesday, December 13, 2006 9:53 AM
I fear you are correct about that.
+0
Wednesday, December 13, 2006 9:58 AM
Rowtyd, you should contribute this if you haven't already.
+0
Wednesday, December 13, 2006 10:00 AM
The article, and Screamscape's recap of the conference call, mention that yes SF could sell the parks on the list but that they will remain theme parks and not be sold off for land. So I assume that if sales do take place, the parks are going to wind up as part of another chain's portfolio. I think it's great that they learned a lesson in public relations this summer.
+0
Wednesday, December 13, 2006 11:19 AM
Rolling downhill maybe...
+0
Wednesday, December 13, 2006 11:23 AM

DBJ said:
I think it's great that they learned a lesson in public relations this summer.

If by "public relations" you mean, "the parks are worth more than the land" - then sure. :)

+0
Wednesday, December 13, 2006 11:36 AM

Doubts about the future of Magic Mountain contributed to a 12% decrease in attendance in the key June-to-December period from a year earlier, and Shapiro said he wanted to eliminate that uncertainty.

Wasn't there speculation that the whole news about the possible sale being a ploy to get people into the park "one last time?"

So that's a pretty big decrease. Anyone want to speculate as to what caused it? After all, they did introduce a large new coaster. Shouldn't the numbers have gone the opposite way?

+0
Wednesday, December 13, 2006 11:44 AM

Lord Gonchar said:If by "public relations" you mean, "the parks are worth more than the land" - then sure.

Well, considering that many/most of the rides don't really HAVE a place to go, I'm sure that made up a significant amount that HELPED to push the "park-operator" bids higher...

Land developers have little/no use for Tatsu or Revvy... ;)

+0
Wednesday, December 13, 2006 12:08 PM
^Don't forget Ninja, Billy. :)
+0
Wednesday, December 13, 2006 12:10 PM
The LATimes article seems to contain some truth, finally.
It's good to know they won't sell off the park as housing development - I think that can wait some more years until more of the coasters have become too rough to ride.
*g*

So "Santa Clarita Auto Center Parkway" to replace "Magic Mountain Parkway"?
I'd say they should first rename "Valencia Boulevard" into "Santa Clarita Mall Parkway".
:)

+0
Wednesday, December 13, 2006 12:42 PM
I highly doubt that a decrease in attendence was a result of people thinking it was going away. Seriously...do you think this is a realistic scenerio:

"Let's go to Magic Mountain!"

"You know...I heard this may be it's last year"

"Oh...well....let's not go then"

Seriously....if anything...I bet they picked up a few people vs. if no announcement had been made. I wouldn't have gone when I wasout there in June for business...but I went to grab Tatsu in case it was going away. The 12% loss has better explainations if you ask me.

Can anyone think of a reason it could be true?

+0
Wednesday, December 13, 2006 12:47 PM
"The company's emphasis on season passes is also paying off, Shapiro said. Aided by heavy discounting, about 109,000 season passes have been sold this year..."

Agggghhhhh!!!!! Will they never learn? I'm surprised I didn't hear Jeff's head explode all the way in Cleveland when he read that line.

+0
Wednesday, December 13, 2006 1:57 PM
IIRC, they received 3 bids for the properties they were trying to sell. Two were from real estate developers, and the third was from HFEC, who didn't include SFMM in their proposal. So to whom could they be selling the park who would keep it operating as a park?

The skeptic in me says this news is more for Heinz and the Wiggles to hear than anybody else.

Next year's press release: "Uh, attendance at Magic Mountain was down 12 percent. But we attribute that to the changing of the name of the road in front of the park. On a positive note, ketchup use increased 14 percent."

+0
Wednesday, December 13, 2006 2:53 PM
Peabody - Yup. I agree. Kinda strange reason. I think the real reason for the decrease was the increase in gangstas. ;)
+0
Wednesday, December 13, 2006 3:05 PM
^ Yep, bet if they just kept track of how many thugs and gangstas came to ride the new flying megacoaster, they'd find their attendance increase. ;)

*** Edited 12/13/2006 8:06:41 PM UTC by jomo***

+0
Wednesday, December 13, 2006 3:06 PM
Honestly, the few times I visited the park this year, it had the look of a park about to raise the white flag (so to speak). It was depressing. As if no money were being invested into running the place. I can imagine that a lot of people decided it wasn't worth going to a park that the owners had given up on.

That's the thing about California that differs from other places. No one wants to ride on a sinking ship. Cali is full of fair weather AND fair weather people.

+0
Wednesday, December 13, 2006 3:18 PM
^ Location also plays a big part, SoCal families have a choice between what's arguably the most incredible immersive best run family park on the planet, plus a few inbetween parks, and then there's SFMM.
+0
Wednesday, December 13, 2006 3:20 PM
^^That's it! I was wondering why all my friends out here seem to disappear when I need them the most. I should move to Ohio for some *real* friendship (and coasters). ;)
+0

You must be logged in to post

POP Forums - ©2018, POP World Media, LLC
Loading...