Six Flags to explore "strategic options" for six properties

Here's what I expect to happen with Six Flags

SFOT- Keep. A Six Flags original and the first park in the chain.. The additional flats help with the family oriented transformation. Minimal competition. One of the best SF properties.

SFFT - Keep. This park is less thrill oriented than some of the other SF parks, It could fit well into the new image.

SFOG - Keep. Another Six Flags original. Add more family rides and restore more of its original identity.

SFGA - Keep. Add more family attractions but keep the big coasters. Make this park one with broad appeal.

SFMM -- Sell for the land unless someone comes up with a big offer to convert it into a prime destination park. (Busch Gardens Asia, Anyone?)

SFGAm - Keep. One of the best SF properties. Continue making the park more family oriented.

SFSL - Keep. Another original Six Flags park. Continue making this park more family oriented.

SFA - Sell for the land. Giving this park a family image might be difficult and the park has image problems.

SFNE - Keep. Continue adding more family attractions but retain the thrills.

TGE- Tough call. Sell if a good buyer comes along since it is relatively small. Otherwise keep and expand. Try to make this park something like LC.

SFDL. Sell. This park should end up with a buyer that will continue to operate it as a park.

SFEG Sell. Interesting possibilities if someone buys both this park and Lakeside.

SFKK - The fate of this park depends upon the arrangement with the fair. Sell if the fair is interested in buying it or another decent proposition comes along.. Possibly pull out in future because of the stiff competition that this park faces.from other family oriented parks. .

SFNO - Another dilemma. Commitments require rebuilding so go for a family friendly park without expensive coasters. Park will benefit from lack of competition in the area.

EV - Sell. There should be a buyer given the scarcity of parks in the region.

SFMW - Keep. It is on leased land so it can't be sold off for land. Focus on families.

This is quite an interesting change of events for Six Flags. I remember the days when the news from SFMM was the addition of more and more coasters. And now the consideration to sell it? Bizzare.
As for my opinion/thoughts. When I visited SFMM (a year or two after X was built), though I enjoyed the park, it did not have the atmosphere that would ensure I came back year after year. It had the roller coasters, definitely, but there was some sort of spark that it was missing. Cedar Point, however, manages to have this "spark" while remaining a coaster park. It is my belief that if Cedar Point can manage this, Magic Mountain could as well. Not that I can put my finger on what exactly makes Cedar Point so incredibly versatile, but that isnt my job. To make the park a resort, of sorts, would be a start toward creating this. It draws families to the hotel and keeps them in the area. Naturally, they would hit Disney as well, but having a big-name resort near Disney would be sure to attract the attention of travel agents booking packages.
I also do not completely agree with Shapiro's anti-teen focus. While his assessment of their effect upon a park's ability to attract families is mostly correct, they are a source of income for the park, and although they often come alone, teens have a way of promoting to their families the idea of taking a day at the park. In fact, it is most likely that a family will buy a four-pack of season passes at the prompting of said teenager. So maybe it would be best if more guidelines were instated as to how one can dress and act in the park.

In most cases, the best way to have a successful major park is to have a park that can attract the teens while remeining family friendly. The issue is not whether to make teens (and young adults) feel welcome or not. It is to attract the right kind of people in this age group, those that will have fun and spend money at the park instead of those that use the park as a hangout while projecting a negative image or causing trouble.

Why is a park like KW so successful given its hard to find location, its urban surroundings, and its location in a no growth market? They found a way to appeal to both the teens and the families. If you go to KW, you will see lots of teens in the park along with lots of families. KW has the right mix of rides to attract both groups along with a pleasant park atmospnere. They also overcame the problem with unruly teens a number af years ago by setting appropriate rules and requiring the teens (and ultimately everyone) to buy a POP admission. The teen issue is also one of the reasons why KW does not have season tickets. Most families that buy season tickets usually do this to use a waterpark. KWs Waterpark is in another location and does have season tickets. Not having season tickets at the ride park prevents the teens from hanging out every evening and just causing problems.

It is a very interesting conference call. Another point briefly discussed is that companies that bid and lost on Paramount Parks that are now looking for other purchase opportunities. Looks like good timing for SF.

---

And, there is NO WAY that Shapiro is STUPID enough to sell of SFMM. It IS their flagship park.

---

When you consider the fact that SFGAm attracts the same amount of people as SFMM in half the operating days, it's easy to see why SFMM is really not the flagship the old management made it out to be. Just because it's a big park doesn't mean it's successful. It's not nearly the profitable park enthusiasts like to think it is.

-Nate

Don't know how SFMW got into this discussion, since SF only manages the park that The City of Vallejo still owns. Lease was entended a few years back, 2007 will be the year that SF has the option to extend the lease once again, purchase (highly unlikely now even though this is one of the best example in the chain of a quality family friendly park), and if all not, The City will seek another potential operator/buyer. Sure wish Busch was in the market to pick up another animal family park.

It would be awesome if Cedar Fair bought SFDL. SFDL, like someone above said, is very similar to other Cedar Fair properties, namely Dorney and WOA. If sold off, it will certainly not be used for land....if the land value in that area is high, it's merely because SFDL raises the land value, so of course redevelopment is out. It's odd that they're even planning selling the park anyway. It was what they wanted in their parks wasn't it? Family-friendly? The only thrill coaster there is Superman...everything else you could get on if you were ten.

Someone above asked why TGE wasn't on the block. Several times Shapiro has said that TGE was the model for what Six Flags should be....coupled with the investment of the Indoor Waterpark, it hardly seems like TGE's being sold off any time soon.

I wonder why Six Flags Mexico wasn't up there. First of all, its in a foreign country that speaks another language, so it'll be more of a hassle to communicate with the managers of it, and secondly, I thought it wasn't doing too well. The whole Superman fiasco and the fact that three quarters of the people in Mexico City can't afford it, and the lack of brand recognition, would make it ideal to sell off to an investor in Mexico.

Do you have any idea how many people live in Mexico City?

More than 10? ;)

I hope that SFEG doesn't end up with Lakeside.I took my kids there last summer and the park was dirty and the rides looked run down. One of the bars on the seat in front of my kids was broken and they were still putting people in that seat.I will never take my kids there.I would rather spend a little more and have them in a safe park that looks decent.SFEG may not be what some of the other SF parks are;but it is the best thing we have in this area.

I think its more than 10.

Mexico City is so big that even if only 10% of the population could afford a park like SFM, that would be enough to provide the necessary business. Also this park draws from other parts of Mexico as well.*** This post was edited by Arthur Bahl 6/25/2006 7:00:26 AM ***

^ So that IS more than ten then? :)