Six Flags stock up on news of Snyder's power play

Posted Friday, August 19, 2005 8:41 AM | Contributed by Jeff

Six Flags Inc. stock rose Thursday after the amusement-park company's largest shareholder, Dan Snyder, moved to increase its stake, oust top management and make a series of changes. Shares of Six Flags rose $1, or 18 percent, to close at $6.49 on the New York Stock Market, above the 52-week high of $6.15 set Sept. 1.

Read more from AP via ABCnews.

Friday, August 19, 2005 9:14 AM
Yay! Go SF Go!
Friday, August 19, 2005 9:57 AM
Hooray! I just made money
Friday, August 19, 2005 10:23 AM
Come on now,we've all seen SF stock rise only slightly whenever something like this is announced only to see the deal fall through & the stock values drop once again.

I'm hopeful that Snyder can oust Burke but let's be realistic here....the chances of it happening right now are not really in Snyder's favor,after all Burke refused to listen to some of Snyder's proposals about a year ago so what makes any of us think he'd be any more willing to do so now?

Friday, August 19, 2005 10:42 AM
Especially now that Six Flags has finally started to make a profit, yes it's small, but it's better than yet another year of losses.
Friday, August 19, 2005 10:58 AM
It basically just rose to Snyder's offer of $6.50.
Friday, August 19, 2005 11:06 AM
Let me see if I understand this correctly. The deal has not been made yet, but stock prices are up in response to the idea that Six Flags management may be changed? That makes sense to me. Or did it rise because the business community respects Syder's opinion that the amusement company has value? Or are stock prices up in response to Six Flags suddenly selling a lot of stock?
Friday, August 19, 2005 11:26 AM
Takeover attempts usually inspire an increase in the price of the stock. Disney's stock increased quite a bit when Comcast launched it's takeover bid last year.
Friday, August 19, 2005 12:25 PM
If he runs SF like he does the Washington Redskins, then I think you guys may want to re-consider him being in charge of the SF chain.
Friday, August 19, 2005 12:43 PM
Why coasterbuzzer? His team is competetive and are making money hand over fist (the 'skins are the most profitable NFL franchise).

While "he" has control (of sorts) of what players they have, he does not directly control how well they play or if they get injured or not. Just like RCT is not true to life in managing an amusement park, Madden 2005 is not true to life in managing a football team. If it was, the Chicago Bears would have won the last three Superbowls based on their perfomance on my computer.

Friday, August 19, 2005 1:07 PM
They're still losing money... they just happened to turn in a profit for one quarter, doesn't mean that profit will cover the losses from other quarters!
Friday, August 19, 2005 1:28 PM
Normally this next quarter always turns a profit.

Yay i actually made 8 dollars since i have 8 shares of sf stock lol.

If this happens i just dont know if i should vote for it or not lol

Friday, August 19, 2005 1:34 PM
Football team does not equal large amusement park chain. They have nothing in common. While the thought of a takeover or a change in management isn't a bad thing, I think it would be if Snyder had anything to do with it. I think it would be like jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire. Some of his ideas are just plain out stupid.
Friday, August 19, 2005 1:41 PM
I guess if one wants to pay $25 to park they should be for snyder or see the parks whored out even more to sponsership deals where they will look like nascar cars.

While i am not a big fan of management they is nothing in snyder's resume that shows he has any idea how to run theme parks.

Friday, August 19, 2005 1:49 PM
A lot of CEO's don't have industry related experience pertaining to the companies they run. Dan Snyder was a marketing guy before he purchased the Redskins. But he took the knowlege he had in marketing and made the Redskins one of the most succesfull NFL Franchises in the country.
Friday, August 19, 2005 2:07 PM
Better hope the stock doesn't go up much more, or the stockholders will lose money when Snyder pays them $6.50 per share. Funny, but now stockholders get no premium just because Dan Snyder wants to buy their stock. You can sell it to anyone for that price now.
Friday, August 19, 2005 3:40 PM
No, I just read recently that the Philadelphia Eagles are the biggest money-making franchise. So, what if the businesses are not related? If he does poorly managing one, what makes you think he'll be successful running the other?
Friday, August 19, 2005 9:59 PM
A team in the NFL that hasnt made the playoffs 5 years in a row isnt a successful team!!!
Saturday, August 20, 2005 4:41 AM
So what would be so bad about Snyder Running SF like the Redskins? He spends a lot of money and makes a lot money.
Saturday, August 20, 2005 6:50 AM
The Redskins and their ownership are two different entities. Sure, the Redskins might not have made the playoffs. But, just like SF, you don't judge a business if they fail to make the playoffs. You judge a business based on the profit they're making. The Redskins might have been a flop on the football field, but the Redskins as a business have been one of the most profitable in the NFL.

We don't judge a roller coaster unless we've rode it. Why are we judging Snyder based on a bunch of media reports.


You must be logged in to post

POP Forums - ©2018, POP World Media, LLC