The Geauga Lake story has made a Chicago paper.

---

RatherGoodBear said:
Cement itself has gotten more expensive, and delivery can be very expensive if your batches aren't made within a few miles of where it's being poured...etc...etc...

---

---

thecoasterguy said:
From what I have been told from a relatively reliable source, the most expensive part of a new ride is the concrete footers.

---

Riggggght. Am I the only person to find this assertion as...well, for a lack of a better term...dumb as a lamp post?

Next?

---

RatherGoodBear said:
So if the idea is to close empty rides sections of parks in favor of crowded waterparks, how long will it be until CF decides to "Geauga" Dorney Park?

---

How's 'bout never? They didn't have to build a second wavepool at DP to attract more guests. They did it to keep up with the ones they were already drawing. Just like they had to at HW. Mt. O's Poseidon's Rage was a lil' different--they actually built theirs to draw more people, too.

You have that one totally back-assward. CF actually tried to 'Dorney' Geauga Lake. Only it didn't work out.

-CO

Not exactly. Geauga Lake was Dorney Park but without the crowds. Geauga Lake needed to be what Dorney Park was before Cedar Fair bought it.

So, how about that weird pricing for 2008? :)

No idea what GL did in terms of marketing other than some outdoor, because I don't consume any other local media. I do recall chatting with someone who would know that they spent a large six-figure amount on media buys.

I find the pricing a little "weird" too. The cost of a one day ticket in 2007 was $26.95, but next year it's only $3 less. But the season passes will only be $44.95.

Is the CP website still current? Any mention of Geauga?

I respect your views and input Jeff. Just realize I don't always agree, Even if Im wrong :)

Mark: The previous GL gate price was already at maximum discount. Next year's price will be discounted as all get-out.

Rob: Sure, GL had a waterpark--but they rebuilt it and added other top-tier waterpark attractions. So they did try the same play. But they were already saddled with the extra expense footprint they didn't have with DP. Not to mention the GP was already accustomed to having a waterpark.

-'Playa

What he meant was Dorney was small with no waterpark. Geauga was large with a existing WP.

If Geauga were in the same circumstances, Their plan would have probably worked like its doing at WOF and MIA.

Rob, I think you mis-read my post:

---

thecoasterguy said:
Had to stop back and read up on this thread. Yes, over a month and a half later, and this is the topic in the industry that I'm still most interested in. Why?

---

I will happily beat this dead horse for another year, and would enjoy reading about it that long as long as decent viewpoints are coming out about it. I sincerely doubt that there will be another topic for at least that period of time that interests me more.

--

As for the footers being one of the most expensive parts of the ride -- hey, whatever. I'm sure that you guys know a lot more about it than I do. However, I will just point out that steel coasters unlike wooden coasters tend to use a lot larger and deeper footers, and ones that do need the steel on the inside of them.

Why do steel coasters get moved more often then wood? I would answer that because with the sheer quantity of footers that a wooden ride has, it is much harder to conform the land to an existing ride, so it would be easier to make a new ride instead. That, and wooden coasters definitely age quicker than steel ones.

Again, I'm sure that you guys are all much bigger coaster relocation experts than I, and I am just a stupid lamp post or whatever, but it seems to me that when you combine everything that you need to relocate a ride that doing it for 25% of the original cost of the ride seems very optimistic.

Here's another thought. One of the arguments made against CF's buying GL to close it has been that if Cedar Fair were going to close Geauga Lake, they would have done so immediately.

But what if CF chose to keep GL open as a loss leader for, say, 3 to 5 years, while they built up the waterpark and tried to move brand recognition in that direction? (And this is, of course, going on the assumption that GL was actually running at a loss, which there has been no financial data published to support.)

Loss leaders, as most people know, are cases where a business decides to sell one product below cost -- the "loss" -- in order to get customers to buy other, more profitable products sold by the business. For example, many gas stations will sell gas at zero or even negative profit, if it gets customers into the attached convenience stores where they might be enticed to buy the dramatically marked up goods therein.

This way the name "Geauga Lake" could still be used, many patrons would identify with the new waterpark as being one and the same as the old ride park. Admit it: if Cedar Fair simply closed Geauga Lake, and the next year opened a waterpark on the Sea World side which they called "Geauga Lake", not a lot of feet would be going through those turnstiles.

Just speculation. Probably correct, but still just speculation. ;)

---

Ensign Smith said:
But what if CF chose to keep GL open as a loss leader for, say, 3 to 5 years, while they built up the waterpark and tried to move brand recognition in that direction?

---

Who builds a brand just so you can tarnish it by closing half of the product? That makes no sense.

^ It's because you're not as smart as some others here Jeff. :)

-Tambo

Why would they have paid $125 million for the park if all they were going to operate in 3-5 years after the purchase was a $30 million waterpark? That makes absolutely NO sense whatsoever. And why would they have bought the park to sell the property on the side of the lake that has the highest land value? There is never a guarantee the land value will stay high enough to cover the costs of the park. The park could have been turned around possibly but I honestly think after all of this has settled only Busch could have done so as that would retained the animals, the Busch/Sea World name, and could have had rides. Sure the ride side still would need help but I wonder if it would be closing now or on it's way to prime time.

Playa, quick look up-- you'll see my previous post going right over your head.

Actually, I do know something about construction costs, Playa. Does the foundation add millions and millions to the cost of a coaster? No. But neither is it negligible or cost just a few hundred dollars like some have suggested.

You think the foundation for a coaster costs the same to design and construct as a lamp post? That's laughable. But why should I expect any different from someone with chronic anal-cranial inversion?

To explain to everyone who might have trouble understanding English, my Dorney Park comment referred to the numerous comments that the rides side of Geauga was always empty (including yours Playa) and that people only went to the waterpark. Similar comments have come up in many Dorney Park TRs-- walk on rides while the waterpark is crowded. So my question was, how long until CF decides it would be a "good business decision" to close the "empty" rides side of Dorney and run a waterpark only?

(There is another thread in here that introduced the word "geauga" as a verb-- meaning to abandon without notice.)

Dorney, if successful, draws people from the GAdv "market". CF has to like that. MiA, WoF, even CGA, don't cannibalize other CF parks...ever. KD, Carowinds, same deal for the most part.

GL, if successful, probably drew too many people from CP. CF might not have thought that was so peachy...

This might be the proper time for BFSFA to mention the *proximity* of SFA to GAdv... cause that's why he's getting the shaft...;)

As a short but perhaps related note, this thread and others keep talking about how much the land is worth. That was supposedly a big reason for the closure of AstroWorld too -- the land was worth a lot more than the park. Remember the estimates for the AstroWorld land? Somewhere between the high $90 millions to $150 million?

Remember what Six Flags got -- $77 million.

Also, according to a few web sites but no totally reliable sources I could find, the demolition costs of the land was $20 million. This should be relatively similar to the costs for demo work on GL, which had one less coaster at closure, but similar amounts of rides and other stuff.

So... what if the land turns out to be not worth as much is speculated? The price that Astroworld got contributed to Burke's departure.

I could see CF running GL at a loss if they could have written it off. Otherwise, it's just bringing down the bottom line. So no, Ensign, I can't go along with that logic at all. The only real way to know if you are right is if suddenly, CP gains 700,000 in guests next year because that IS what you are suggesting.

It is????????????????????

All rightie, then.

---

RatherGoodBear said:

Actually, I do know something about construction costs, Playa.

---

And a footing has to bear weight X and stress factor Y with ground condition Z. So it might have to cover a lot of area because depth alone won't keep it from shifting over time or you may just be able to go narrow and deep instead. There's your 'something.' Voila. You're no one special.

---

So my question was, how long until CF decides it would be a "good business decision" to close the "empty" rides side of Dorney and run a waterpark only?

---

And the answer is still the same. They WON'T. The waterpark is a draw that keeps people coming. Because they do, they have the budget to keep building other stuff.

If they haven't even found it a smart 'business decision' to cut a portable Schwarzkopf from the lineup, from how deep in the crack of your...fragrant imagination do you have to dig to imagine they'd close the whole ride park?

You didn't have a point then. You don't have one now. You still have it as backward as you did on page 1.

At least come up with something new (and floridly delusional) to whine about next time, eh?

-CO

Edit: Added the letter 'r'

*** Edited 11/1/2007 7:03:50 PM UTC by CoastaPlaya***

Wow, does somebody have issues.

First of all, last time I checked, every state required any person who designed foundations for any structure larger than a single-family residence to have a professional license. Right off, that eliminates most people who refer to themselves as "Playas." So I totally disregard anything you have to say about the construction or engineering disciplines.

Second, I don't give a Flying Falcon that you don't think I'm special. Did you think I would read that and run home crying? Basically, all it proves is you have some major self-respect problems since you have to hurl personal insults at people who simply disagree with your opinion of a theme park. In that respect I'm not special since I've seen you do the same to at least a dozen other people in here. And the multi-syllable words you use-- how witty. Just proves you found the thesaurus pull-down in Word. Voila!

Did anyone seriously think I was suggesting that CF consider closing the rides section of Dorney Park? Of course it's a dumb idea. Yet throughout this thread it's been suggested that the GL ride area never had people while the waterpark was full; therefore, CF was justified in totally closing down the rides side and turning GL into a water park only.

Quoting from page 7:

There are many parks that make a tidy profit with that kind of attendance.

"Just not the ones with eight to ten coasters and a full waterpark...especially when the rides AND coasters sit waiting while the waterpark is full," (said Coasta Playa.)

Sounds to me like an argument for closing an empty rides area and converting a park into a waterpark only. BTW, Dorney currently has 9 coasters (including kiddie and family coasters), and there are any number of TRs here stating that the coasters on most summer days are practically a walk-on while WWK is packed.

"And the answer is still the same. They WON'T. The waterpark is a draw that keeps people coming. Because they do, they have the budget to keep building other stuff."

So you're saying that a waterpark in Allentown is enough of a draw to maintain 9 (soon to be 10) coasters plus several dozen flat rides that nobody ever rides. But the waterpark in Aurora is only enough of a draw to maintain itself and not one other single attraction.

Hmmm, contradict yourself in consecutive posts, then tell everyone else they're a** backwards. Now THAT'S delusional.