Six Flags takes final bids, urges investors to allow sale

Posted Wednesday, November 9, 2005 1:22 AM | Contributed by Jeff

Amusement park operator Six Flags Inc. said on Tuesday it expects to receive final takeover offers from financial and strategic suitors by early December, with a final decision made by year-end. CEO Kieran Burke again urged investors not to support a group seeking to take over the board and instead wait for Six Flags to finish the process of selling the company.

Read more from AP via and Reuters.

Wednesday, November 9, 2005 5:49 PM
But if there are other groups strong enough to take on the debt AND manage, let them step forward. Say what you will about Burke and least they had the guts to step up and do it.

Why would any shareholder in their right mind trust a guy who did his utmost to tank the stock a few short months ago with his lil' public rant that he was gonna dump it? How crazy is that?


Wednesday, November 9, 2005 5:57 PM
To be fair to SF:

Burke and Co. are beginning to sound more and more desperate and demanding in their e-mail messages.

I just want to add, even though I've defended Red Zone in this thread, it doesn't mean I want Snyder either. As a Redskins season ticket holder I know what kind of tricks Snyder is capable of pulling. I'm for a change at SF and I want to make sure Burke doesn't get one penny out of a sale. If that leaves only the Snyder option, so be it.*** This post was edited by coasterguts 11/9/2005 5:58:40 PM ***

Wednesday, November 9, 2005 6:08 PM
That doesn't sound desperate. That simply says, "Don't know 'em, never heard of 'em."

I say Tigris is actually the CPO. Fancy webpage to follow real soon-like!


*** This post was edited by CoastaPlaya 11/9/2005 6:08:43 PM ***

Wednesday, November 9, 2005 6:46 PM
"Why weren't these changes being made two or three years ago when they were blaming things on sunny weather. To little to late if you ask me."

Why do peeps keep using this line as an dis to SFI. Was I the only one that noticed all the bad weather all around the U.S for the past 2 years. Surely I'm not the only that live in Southern California that saw a more than average amount of rain that ruined attendance at all parks not just Six Flags and all of the numerous hurricanes that ravaged the gulf and eastern seaboard. Remember what happened to SFOG, a great amount of the park was completely under water. Surely you can see how this would affect attendance.

Someone also commented on the various things other than coasters that SFI needs. Well, also in the filings they also mention that included in the budget they will be doing a lot of landscaping and repainting of rides. I know at Six Flags Magic Mountain they are preping Viper and Deja Vu for repainting before this season ends. SFI are actively fixing past mistakes and I commend them on their current efforts.

Wednesday, November 9, 2005 7:16 PM
Magicmike it's hard to explain the reason for a decline in attendance when just about all the other amusement park companies claim an increase in attendance but SF. They repeatedly used the same excuse until their stockholders weren't buying it anymore. This goes back three or four years not just 2004 & 2005. To go even further, we had 20+ hurricanes this year and SF claims an increase in attendance. This only shows their previous weather related decline in attendance excuse was not a good excuse. It's ironic that that things didn't start improving until Dan Snyder spoke up and said something.

Playa, this is what I think makes Burke and Co. sound desperate and demanding:

Stockholders should not sign Red Zone's white consent card. If stockholders have previously signed a white consent card, they may revoke that consent by immediately signing, dating and mailing the BLUE Consent Revocation Card being sent to them. Stockholders may support their current Board by signing, dating and mailing the BLUE Consent Revocation Card as soon as they receive it.

Also, Playa, I'm not familiar with the initals CPO, please explain?
*** This post was edited by coasterguts 11/9/2005 7:27:17 PM ***

Wednesday, November 9, 2005 8:13 PM
New marketing schemes, new attractions, new owners mean nothing. The ability to provide clean, safe, friendly, efficient, and working parks where guests can invest time and money is all that matters.......period.
Wednesday, November 9, 2005 8:35 PM
Couldn't have said it better industry force.

But the question do they get to that place, and who's most qualified to take them there? The things you mention don't just happen by magic. Someone's got to have the patron's best interest at heart. All these business heads don't impress me. Snyder (at least so far) is the only one to come forth with language that makes sense to me. Everyone else is just spouting numbers and playing the blame game.

Wednesday, November 9, 2005 10:45 PM
The one thing positive that I can see coming out of Snyder taking over is that he seems to want to get rid of the debt that the chain has incurred. A very excellent idea! The most obvious problem to me is that thrill ride production will stop, because he said in his filings that Six Flags spends to much money on over expensive attractions. I honestly believe Snyder could turn the parks into probably the most beautiful place you'd ever see, but at what price? From what I gathered from his brain storming idea's, would be very expensive in the department of admissions including Season passes, Food and everything else that you'd have to buy since everything would be outsorced. In my opinin, The most popular demographic (teens - to late 20's) would be turned off by the sudden hike in everything and likely to not visit as much. Looking at that from a positive prospective, there would significantly be less unsupervised children running about, and potentially less security problems. With all that said, there still goes the admissions revenue, you need peeps to come through the gates not shock them into chosing something else. Maybe I'm looking to hard at this, but I think certain properties could potentially get axed for not generating enough revenue to keep snyders board (if he wins) happy. So all of the non iconic / Flagship parks, like SFMM, SFOG, SFGA, SFGADV, and the ones in Texas I'm concerned about.
Wednesday, November 9, 2005 11:01 PM
All I can say is I never have a problem finding an employee at a Redskins game. If a cash register is open, it's running with someone standing behind it. The kitchens don't look bare. There is more than enough people staffing souvenier shops. Dan Snyder doesn't seem to hold back on staffing Fedex Field.
Thursday, November 10, 2005 12:24 AM
"Perhaps someone who can afford to finance their ideas and put their own neck on the line? Burke's team isn't the first person to stagger under the weight of Six Flag's debt. They didn't make it. It was already there. "

Actually, the Premier Parks team of Gary Story and Kieran Burke DID make this debt primarily through the acquisition and rebranding of parks. In 1996 before PKS bought the chain, Six Flags had only 12 parks in 8 locations. Now they've got over double that.

Thursday, November 10, 2005 2:50 AM
A combination of proper financial wizzardy (may not be a word) and a focus on giving guests a reason to invest time and money is the solution. Who can do this, I don't have the answers if I did, I wouldn't be posting my opinions on an online message board =).

As far as the debt is concerned there is information that Six Flags owns large amounts of land in other states that in undeveloped. I once heard a tall tale of the company buying a ridiculous amount of land in Michigan where the heigh varience is 75 feet, making the land useless for development! Again I call this a tall tale, but who knows.

I really think the end result will be a feeding frenzy where many different parks go to many different owners. This after a new owner is announced...who then sells off other parks. Cedar Fair making a bid seems more of a posistion move to see the Six Flags books. If Cedar Fair did buy the chain I would be concerned. Does Cedar Fair have the human resources to put in place at that many parks to raise standards?

Again I don't know, but I think we are looking at one of the most exciting off-seasons of all time.

Thursday, November 10, 2005 3:09 PM

Actually, the Premier Parks team of Gary Story and Kieran Burke DID make this debt primarily through the acquisition and rebranding of parks.

No, Premier already owned most of the parks they rebranded. The $2 billion in debt was there for whoever chose to purchase the chain from BV and Time Warner.



You must be logged in to post

POP Forums - ©2020, POP World Media, LLC