Snyder named chair of Six Flags board, directors still looking to sell company

---

Rescue131 said: "I think what it does translate into though is a team that is waiting in the wings to sell off parks and/or excess property for development into housing/retail/entertainment venues."

---

The more and more I read, the more and more I am starting to agree with that theory.

Pure speculation/opinion/possibilities/looking for answers:

Would it not be good business sense...to take control of a struggling theme park chain whose primary assets are valuable land in many a market? Due to costly debt and poor management decisions of the park chain, one might be able to gain control of this valuable land much cheaper and easier through taking over the company (if one was in the right place at the right time and had the means), than one might be able to afford on the open market.

Is it possible that Snyder could care a less about the amusement park business, but care a lot about turning a quick and easy profit through land sales? Given the real estate boom over the past 10 years, there are many idiot companies that failed miserably, yet still came out ahead in the end by simply selling the dirt/space they own.

The value of Six Flags land may be enough to cover the entire debt and still turn an easy profit…

To those of you who follow this stuff closely…is this possible? I’m not asking for this to be viewed through enthusiast ego. I realize my opinion does not bode well for the coaster lover in me. But…from a strict business standpoint…is there a quick buck to be earned?

P.S. If you were really planning on gaining control of the company and THEN selling off the land. Would you start publicly talking about your plans? Or would you say something like…”I’m not sure” or “I have no plan” at this time?

P.P.S. I smell a sneak…but maybe I have a cold…

Is it possible that Snyder could care a less about the amusement park business, but care a lot about turning a quick and easy profit through land sales?

I think you're on to something and it would not surprise me to see more parks follow in Astroworld's footsteps.

snyder's success with the redskins is more of a result of the previous owners (jack kent cook) being less greedy. they loved the team, they loved the fans and they didn't charge 50 bucks for parking or 9 bucks for a beer. and they didn't charge Nextel a million to be the exclusive wireless sponsor of fed ex field. they made money before, but snyder raised all the prices and gouged the fan and the advertisers for more money. not exactly innovative. an nfl franchise is a liscence to print money. as for his previous business, he owned a company who sent that horrible direct mail to your house. credit card offers, big, ugly postcards with FREE all over them. you know, the stuff you throw away before you read it. he has no history of smart, new thinking. just look at the redskins record and the players and coaches he brings in. he is re-living his childhood because he can afford to. he thinks he can use direct marketing to drive attendance on a day to day basis? with moms? sounds like a lot of coupons in your mailbox.

I posted this over in the general forums but it fits here too. Here's the problem I see with selling off unused land if it is sold for residential communities and commercial developments: you'll have parks surrounded with activist homeowners and business owners who will stifle any prospects of the parks trying to have more live concerts, nightlife venues, or gargantuan thrill rides. These new neighbors will fight them every step of the way and then won't Snyder and company feel silly for giving them the keys? Unless of course, that was their plan all along.*** This post was edited by Rescue131 12/2/2005 12:02:14 PM ***

The value of Six Flags land may be enough to cover the entire debt and still turn an easy profit…

i don't think so. i think some of the land is valuable, some they don't own, and some is very valuable. the parks that have the best shot at turning profits as parks are the ones with the most valuable land. do you really want a 2 bedroom condo on a golf course in Kentucky?

Personally, no, I don't want a 2 bedroom condo on a golf course in Kentucky, but I'm sure there are plenty of yuppies out there that do. I can tell you that the housing market here in Maryland is big and especially in the PG County area where SFA is located. Homes are selling at prices that 20 years ago, you could have bought the entire neighborhood for. You can bet that real estate developers will be licking their chops if SF decides to sell any of their land off. But as I posted above, they will only be driving the last nails in the coffin because you can pretty much bet any plans for additions or expansion will be met with stiff community opposition.

well, with snyder at the helm you can forget about new coasters and loud concerts anyways, he has pretty much said that. in fact, you can count on the dismantling of rides in parks to make way for more family attractions.

I know it's cold-blooded, but I can already hear Batwing complaining that the former SFAW is getting bigger, better condos than the former SFA.

Seriously, I could easily see SFA, SFDL and Wyandot all disappearing soon. If I remember right, the newer additions to SFKK and SFEG are pretty portable too.

I highly doubt that there would be any disassembling of any existing attractions unless it's old, busted, and/or not being fully utilized by the public for various reasons. Taking down attractions cost money and certain things cost more than others, so my take is that I absolutely believe that there will be no construction of spectacular coasters nor thrilling flat rides that alot of folks seem to want.
I've always been against the Snyder take over because of the fact that his agenda was about increasing share value and not how to IMPROVE the parks for the visitor paying to enter. From the buisness stand point of things: selling off properties, reducing new attraction expenditures, and adding name brand companies to the plan at harrassing visitors into buying their products, is an excellent way of making money without the main focus being on the visitor.
I'm not very familiar with how a board of directors truely work but I'm willing to bet that Snyder cannot make drastic decissions without all of them.
*** This post was edited by Magicmike 12/2/2005 1:30:15 PM ***

i also think that SFMM would be an ideal spot for a new NFL stadium for the much-anticipated 33rd franchise.

Not likely!

really? a guy from espn and a guy who owns the redskins who want a family-themed park and want to charge more for admission? with a park with nothing going for it besides thrill rides and a dangerous crowd in an area with the most competition in the country? sounds like a park that could easily be leveraged for its land.

---

snyder's success with the redskins is more of a result of the previous owners (jack kent cook) being less greedy. they loved the team, they loved the fans and they didn't charge 50 bucks for parking or 9 bucks for a beer. and they didn't charge Nextel a million to be the exclusive wireless sponsor of fed ex field.

---

First, You can't say Snyder is greedy. He's brought back Joe Gibbs, isn't demanding Mark Brunell play since he's paying a pretty penny. The guy wants to win a Super Bowl Championship and he will do whatever he needs to ensure they are a winning team. Also, he just donated $15,000 to a Hyattsville Little League Football Team so they can have the money to play for a National Championship in Florida. The man has forked out big bucks for players like La Var Arrington, Sean Taylor and Santana Moss.

Second, He's able to charge $25 bucks for parking and $7 for a beer because that's what fans are willing to pay. Concessions at the stadium are reasonably priced. I paid $4 for a tub of popcorn. Cheaper than I pay at a Movie Theatre. Drinks are the same way, not to mention, I can sign up for a Good Driver Program and get a free 16oz Soda. Hot Dogs aren't that much more expensive than what you pay at a amusement park anyways. Let's be honest, it's not just Dan Snyder or the Redskins that charge that kind of money for food. It's that way in just about every major league sporting event.

Third, Is Nextel the official wireless sponsor of Fedex Field? Obviously the ads aren't that effective if I can't remember them.

Everyone's attacking Dan Snyder like they know him personally. When all you know about him is what you know about the bad press he's received. The guy doesn't want to loose. What's wrong with that. None of us do. He didn't buy the Redskins or Fedex Field and tear it down for houses. He could've moved the team back to RFK, tore Fedex Field down and built houses on that property. BTW, Jack Kent Cook was extremely frugal with his money. He built a cheap stadium, the only way to the top concourse it by ramp or one set of escalators and there is one Jumbotron in the whole stadium. Not to mention a lousy sound system.

Is Dan Snyder the answer to Six Flags's problems? I don't know. I just know he's getting bad rap based on a little bad press.

I guess I'm not talking about selling unused land...I'm talking about selling the entire park, one-by-one, and getting out of the theme park business all together. Or at least narrowing down to a couple top grossing parks. Who wants to run a non-profitable amusement park chain, when you could just sell the land, pay off the debt, AND keep the rest for profit?

I've always avoided Six Flags stock (and their parks), but what has the stock been doing? Has it run up recently? I may have to do some research...

IF we (I/anybody) can determine Snyder indeed has a devious plan to sell off the parks and make the money through real estate sales, we might as well get in on the action by getting some of the stock before he launches the plan. It is a gamble, BUT I have more faith that land sales can turn a profit that I do believing ANY park with the Six Flags name and reputation can maintain profitability as is...

Rather than whine, maybe the coaster enthusiasts ought to hop on board and use the profits from the stock sales to hit Disney nexy year... :-)

I don't think Snyder is being attacked, at least not personally. I think most of us are just taking notice of circumstances and events and some things just don't seem right.

Coasterguts, you are correct, almost every entertainment venue rapes the public when it comes to consessions, be it sports, movies, amusement parks or a trip to the zoo. But the amusement park crowd, especially those that visit the local or regional parks, are a different breed and I don't think that they will tolerate huge price increases for parking, food or extras. I know I won't.

And do you really think Snyder would buy Fed Ex Field and raze it to build homes? Of course not, since it was a newer stadium, no matter how frill-free it was built under J.K.C. I'm not all that familiar with the area around Fed Ex Field, but isn't it more commercial/retail than the area around SFA?

And i don't think anyone doubts that Snyder wants to succeed, and none of us are blind to the fact that he is a business man and wants to increase his position. But I really don't think this guy has any interest in or the first clue of how to fix what ails the SF chain. I think he sees a cash cow and will milk it any way he thinks he can. That's just my opinion/take on this whole deal. And if in the end I'm wrong, I will be happy to admit it. And honestly, I hope I am wrong about the guy.

I can just see it now... 2008 will see the newest housing development in Prince Georges county MD.... "Park View Estates".

"Um... where is the park?"

"Oh, we had to tear that down to make room for the houses

*** This post was edited by SLFAKE 12/2/2005 4:11:29 PM ***

The area around Fedex Field Rescue131 has homes to the south, Landover Mall (for the most part now closed) to the north, Blvd at Cap Center to the east and a community center (built as part of an agreement with the county to build stadium) to the west. Yes, I do think he would raze Fedex Field and build more houses. Lerner Corporation (one of the potential owners for the Nationals) wants to raise Landover Mall and build a mixed use retail/entertainment/residential project on the site.

Let's not forget. Part of the $25 parking fee comes in the form of leasing the lots, the bus ride to the stadium and paying for the employees collecting the money, traffic control, security and insurance.

SLFAKE, you may not be to far off.

snyder may want a winner, but he has so far shown himself incapable of buying one. the only person who has won with the redskins is snyder himself. the fans have a sub-par product on the field and are paying more for the privledge of watching it. if i remember correctly the previous regime may have been less profitable, but they produced. that's because they knew what they were doing. they had experience and a plan. it was a lot less ego and a lot more professional.

as far as snyder's bad press, where there's smoke...

dcb1008 if you want to discuss the Skins record private message me. I'm trying to tell you, there is a BIG difference between the Redskins Business and the Redskins on the field. You can't compare the two.

Ugh... I hate having to defend Dan Snyder.
*** This post was edited by coasterguts 12/2/2005 5:35:50 PM ***