The Geauga Lake story has made a Chicago paper.
Jeff said:
I can't believe they'd publish the asinine claim that the park was bought to be closed, so Cedar Point would make more money. .
Wether or not that was the purpose, the Boo Buzz event showed evidence that CP is getting extra money, if Geauga Lake was running and running their Haunt as in past CP wouldn't have been nearly as busy. CP wins and GL is closed. Let's hope the waterpark stays open to draw people to that town otherwise there will be alot more lost jobs...
Intimidator 305 the tallest most hated coaster nobody has ever ridden...
SFGAdv lover said:
went to Cedar Point 2 weeks ago, because they couldn't go to GL
Because if the park was going to be open in 2008, the 2007 season would not have ended September 16? Hopefully those guests who are part of Cedar Point's sudden attendance surge in 2008 will be able to use a calendar.
raser said:
if Geauga Lake was running and running their Haunt as in past CP wouldn't have been nearly as busy.
I didn't know the Geauga Lake Halloween event affected the weather in Sandusky.
CP wins and GL is closed.
Despite the emotional attachment, we're not talking about two sports teams.
Let's hope the waterpark stays open to draw people to that town otherwise there will be alot more lost jobs
Something tells me the community will be just fine.
Walt Schmidt - Co-Publisher, PointBuzz
Slade's comment about it "not being profitable enough" is pretty naive for a guy who is supposed to know the industry, and a pretty wild accusation for someone who doesn't know the numbers (not suggesting I do). If the company was making one dollar we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Jeff - Editor - CoasterBuzz.com - My Blog
"It's one that stings more than some of the other losses in recent years," he said, noting that most of the classic parks -- such as Riverview in Chicago -- have closed. " This is one of the oldest still in operation, and it had some life left in it. They should have been able to stay open with 700,000 people."
The main problem (and this applies to many arguments of this nature) is that the 700,000 number doesn't factor in the other side - expense.
Everyone is just seeing the attendance stat at 700,000 and thinking, "How can a business drawing three quarters of a million people not be viable?"
Because the business was set-up to serve 4 times that. :)
What SF did was tailor the park to serve 2 to 3 million people per year. The cost, expenses, staffing, infrastructure and such was designed to be profitable with attendance in the multi-millions. Anything less and you're hurting.
I don't see why that's so hard to grasp.
So what's the right fix? Obviously, restructuring to be successful with 700,000 people coming through the gate, right?
Well, CF started doing that last year...and people complained when things were downsized. CF forged on and were going to try again this year by removing more rides. Guess what? People complained even more.
They decided to quit applying band-aids (slowly downsizing) and go for full blown surgery (the move to waterpark only)...people are still complaining.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
The only way people would have been happy is if the park stayed overbuilt (thanks, Six Flags!).
Name one other park that draws 700,000 and features 10 coasters on hundreds of acres.
Yeah, neither can I.
And that's really what it comes down to. Argue all the silliness you want, but parks like that don't exist. Flat out...they don't exist. And they don't exist for a reason - the same reason GL no longer exists...
It's not profitable.
halltd said:I'm pretty sure it's as simple as the park wasn't profitable enough - like the article alludes to. If it wasn't run but a big company like Cedar Fair, it would have worked. Everyone claims it has never worked, but it wouldn't have been open for so many years if it never worked. Stacy Frole said the park was expensive. So, make it less expensive and you still have a customer-base of 700,000 people. Last time I checked, 700,000 people was a LOT. Cedar Fair is selling it for the same reasons the other groups sold it. They are able to make more profit from selling it than operating it. That doesn't mean they didn't make a profit operating it. It just means they made MORE by selling it.
You need to recant the second part of this.
CF never offered the park FOR SALE the are going to put the PROPERTY.
While I doubt they would have gotten their total investment back. Im sure there would have been some offers. The old owner of Funtime bought back Darien.
Chuck
I really don't think you can expect to downsize a park in one season. They took out two costly items which would help make the park more affordable to operate. They only gave it one season to see the effects. They hadn't even pulled out Dominator and Thunderhawk yet to see any results in decreased operating costs.
So, I really don't see where they "tried" to reduce operating costs all that much.
I agree that's the only way it would have worked. But, claiming Cedar Fair did all they could to make the park work isn't a true statement. Saying they started to, ok. But, that's all they did.
edit: Also, I'm sure Cedar Fair is making more money overall by using the removed rides in their other parks and selling the land to developers. That's what I meant by they are making more money off of selling it than operating it. *** Edited 10/25/2007 5:07:52 PM UTC by halltd***
halltd said:
I agree that's the only way it would have worked. But, claiming Cedar Fair did all they could to make the park work isn't a true statement. Saying they started to, ok. But, that's all they did.
I dunno.
If it were my park and I saw the negative reaction to the removal of X-Flight and SV, I'd be a little discouraged with the future prospects knowing I still had a long way to go and it was just the tip of the iceberg so to speak.
Then when I go to downsize some more and I get reactions like, "This sucks they need to be adding rides, not just removing them" or "I'll probably not go back" or "No one will return if they keep removing rides" I'd probaby just cut to the chase too.
For some reason people in general just didn't understand what needed to be done if they wanted their prcious GL to stay alive. Now that the plug has been pulled the consensus is complaining that they're not doing the very thing the same consensus complained about before.
It's quite funny, actually:
Late '06/early '07 - "I can't belive CF is removing rides. You don't increase attendance and/or become profitable by offering people less!"
Late '07 - "CF didn't do all they could have to save the park. They should have downsized and given it a go! They killed it on purpose!"
It'd be hard to not just throw your hands in the air and decide to cut your losses.
The only thing CF did wrong was buy the park in the first place. But sending the rides to other parks and selling off land is a hell of a "Plan B' if you think about it.
It could've played out two basic ways:
1. It works and the park is another successful property in the potfolio.
2. It doesn't work and they got a whole assload of rides and land for a ridiculous bargain-basement price.
So maybe it wasn't a bad decision after all.
The real 'bad decision' was when SF didn't do the same thing. Rather than walking away for $145 million they could have distributed the rides to their other parks (reducing capital expenses) and sold the land for a pretty penny (reducing their debt significantly).
CF (hell, anyone over the age of 6) isn't dumb enough to make that same mistake. :)
Jeff said:
If the company was making one dollar we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Even though you're obviously taking things to the extreme with that comment, it's completely wrong. Just as shareholders care about the amount of profit a company makes, they also care about the ratio of total sales to profit. If Geauga Lake was making a small profit with a ratio considerably lower than that of all the other parks in the chain, that would cause the ratio for the entire chain to drop. I don't believe Geauga Lake wasn't making a profit. I believe it wasn't making enough profit. Since Cedar Fair is unlikely to provide anything to prove that, it's a valid claim since we all admit we don't know the numbers and therefore don't know the real story.
Lord Gonchar said:
Well, CF started doing that last year...and people complained when things were downsized. CF forged on and were going to try again this year by removing more rides. Guess what? People complained even more.
Where were all these complaints? I heard rumblings among enthusiasts, that's about it. Going by what I've heard from semi-reliable sources, it is believed Geauga Lake attendance actually increased for the 2007 season. Since amusement park attendance figures get published over time, I'm curious to see what GL's attendance was for the 2007 season. If no figures are ever released, it's because Cedar Fair doesn't want people to see them, and the only reason they'd withhold them is because the figures contradict the reasons why they tell people they closed the park.
They decided to quit applying band-aids (slowly downsizing) and go for full blown surgery (the move to waterpark only)...people are still complaining.
The downsizing took place over the period of one season- it's not like years and years were spent backing that plan. The doctor was simply a little too eager to cut.
Actually when you look at in a rational manor they did what made the most sense considering all the factors that played into Geauga Lake's problems. It's not like they just bought the park with the intentions of dismantling it. They bought it with every intention of trying to make it another successful park in the chain.
Six Flags bought Geauga Lake and Sea World for the same reasons, but they were hoping to compete on the same level as Cedar Point. They were hoping that they could take some of their business away. When they seen the park floundering they didn't want to try to do any type of downsizing to maintain the park in their chain. Instead they seen that the operation failed, fluffed the numbers to make it enticing for someone else to buy.
That's why I think that Six Flags is really the one to blame for the downfall of the park. If they had come in and operated the park as it was originally it may have remained a good investment for them. It's when they added all that capital investment, bought the Sea World side, and tried to make it another Mega Park in their chain that they failed miserably.
I would tend to think that if any other company other than Six Flags came in and bought Geauga Lake originally it would probably still be holding it's own, and making a profit for that owner. I am sure that Sea World closing wouldn't have helped it's business, but it wouldn't have killed the park either. They may have benefited from more company picnic business that way. Who knows.
The whole blaming Cedar Fair as an evil corporation and wanting to destroy the park is completely unfounded. At least they are still operating it as a waterpark, and considering that is what was the major draw for people to come to the park in recent years that makes the most business sense.
Most people should just be happy that they got to visit the park as it was, and are able to share memories with the generations that will never know what it was like as an amusement park.
Like I said before though, Cedar Fair didn't do all they could. If people complained they ripped out rides, they have every right to. Not because the ride is gone, but because CF didn't replace it with anything. Not even landscaping or a fountain. Just a big wall/fence.
The park was already limping along because of its rundown appearance. You don't help that at all by tearing out rides and leaving a big fence in its place.
Rob Ascough said:
...the only reason they'd withhold them is because the figures contradict the reasons why they tell people they closed the park.
Really? Then what are they hiding by not releasing CP's attendance numbers?
Let's see what happens early next year when the numbers are usually published in Amusement Today. We'll see if Geauga Lake's numbers increased, decreased or vanished into thin air because they prove a point Cedar Fair doesn't want proved.
The park did not have a "rundown" appearance. Did you even go there this year? My first thought on my first visit this year was about how pretty the grounds really are. Both entrance areas were beautiful, and pretty much everything in the water park looked great because of the new stuff and SeaWorld legacy.
The negative reactions to the removal of the first two rides was all over the news here, of course made by people shopping at the Wal-Mart across the street.
Jeff - Editor - CoasterBuzz.com - My Blog
I don't live in Ohio so I have no idea how people reacted when two rides were removed. I imagine the reaction wasn't positive but like I said, people are indicating attendance increased so people couldn't have been that upset. Maybe news crews should stop interviewing Wal-Mart shoppers, most of which are completely ignorant to the state of the world around them.
*** Edited 10/25/2007 7:10:51 PM UTC by Rob Ascough***
halltd said:
On the message boards? Is that really what we're using to judge the success of a park now?
Aren't angry fans on message boards and online petitions being used to prove a backlash?
Walt Schmidt - Co-Publisher, PointBuzz
You must be logged in to post
