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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.