The Geauga Lake story has made a Chicago paper.

All good things must come to an end.

Still, Six Flags was beyond foolish attempting to create a competitor for Cedar Point, and the nail was driven in the day Sea World left, which is the opinion I have gathered from reading all of the posts in all 3 threads to this point.

At least everyone agrees that the closing of an amusement park is indeed a dark day.

I asked this before, and didnt get an answer, so I'll ask it again:

I'm not in the camp of believing that CF did indeed, from day one, intend on driving GL into the ground and selling its parts. Some of who obviously are. What, then does that mean for you? You are consumers...your power is in your pocketbooks and where you choose to open them...does this mean you are not supporting CF any longer? I'm just curious...because my guess is that you will. And if, indeed, you do, what is thje point of this exhausting circular argument? It stopped being a discussion long ago.

---

Gemini said:

To be fair, it's also been argued that devoted fans are too attached to be truly objective.

---

It was? By who? I guess I missed that one.

^^ I won't be boycotting Cedar Fair. Even the first day I heard about the closing, I knew that wouldn't be happening. I have a five year, almost six year old, daughter, and I certainly wouldn't want to punish her for the suspect actions of a corporation I formerly admired. Not to mention that the two biggest parks in my state are CF parks.

But even if neither of those statements were true, I still wouldn't boycott CF. I don't want to see CP fail. I still love that park, just as I love all amusement parks. What I've come to realize is that an amusement park is not the same thing as the company that runs or owns it. These places transcend generations, some of them even centuries. I may not appreciate what a corporation is currently doing with a park, but that doesn't mean I'm going to punish the park for the actions of its guardian.

That being said, I will be making a conscious effort not to *reward* Cedar Fair next year by taking the visits I would have spent at GL and transferring them to CP in the form of extra visits. (I already get to CP about 10 times a year anyway, more than enough visits to the same park in one season.) I'll work to visit other parks instead, going to Waldameer (yay RF2!) 3 or 4 times, and Kennywood the same, maybe slipping in extra trips to Idlewild and Knoebels and Lakemont.

*** Edited 10/26/2007 2:43:38 AM UTC by Ensign Smith***

In answer to the above question asked...Although as being a single individual it won't matter much to a corporation like CF, I plan on not attending any CF parks in the future. I will not spend my money on parking, admission, food, or souvenirs (and I DO collect large amounts of souvenirs).

To those that say "good that is one less in line for me" remember that with smaller parks folding the lines most likely will get bigger at the CF parks (not that I have been a contender for any lines in any CF parks since the late 80's).

I enjoy the small park experience and most theme parks are no longer enjoyable to me. The food is usually better, the wood coasters better maintained and the assortment of flats are more enjoyable in places like Knoebels, Kennywood, Idlewild, Lake Compounce, Lakemont, Waldameer, etc. Besides I save a lot of money going to these smaller but very enjoyable places.

Attitudes in the themers from both employees and customers are usually (notice I did not say always) not positive and sometimes that is caused by extremely long lines, out in the sun, with rides not in operation or continuously breaking down. This is not just a CF thing but Six Flags as well.

To each his own but if CF wanted to put any type of positive spin on this GL situation they would try and save a classic Miller wood coaster by relocating a proven popular design to another CF park, or at least offering it for sale and not letting it be demolished without effort. *** Edited 10/26/2007 2:51:05 AM UTC by OlympicParkFan***

---

Ensign Smith said:
I concede (not for the first time) that there is a significant chance that you, and others that back your point of view, are correct on a great many points about this matter. That is far more than you have given anyone with countering perspectives about Geauga Lake's closing.

---

So you want me to withhold my opinion and say that other opinions I don't agree with might be right? What would the point be in that?

Mistakes made at Geauga
1 SF overbuilding in a region already saturated with parks and not having the capital to keep it going thus going on a selling spree.

2. CF's decision to remove the animal park completely. Not all their fault but it was what made the park different.

3. Building the new waterpark in a different tax zone instead of just selling of the whole sea world side.

3. DOING ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO IMPROVE THE PARK.

CF admits these things, You can blame SF all you want. CF did not do a damn thing to improve, seek out or any other thing than their original plan (DORNEY's Plan)

They could of held concerts in one of the stadiums. They could have had more picnic buisness but like PP they cut the PR and Marketing budget hugely when they took over.

Chuck, saying both parties are to bleme. There isn't a darn thing I can do about it now. And yes, I visited several times with friends.

---

Jeff said:
You mean besides the $50 million in new rides Six Flags put in there? How'd that work out for them?

---

You keep talking about Six Flags' investment in the ride side when everyone else is talking about Cedar Fair's investment. Aren't you the one that always talks about throwing the topic of debate off with smoke and mirrors? This is what you're doing.

I haven't read many people (if any) say that Cedar Fair should have just kept adding more multi-million dollar coasters like Six Flags did. The general consensus is that Cedar Fair needed to return Geauga Lake to it's roots to be successful. But, that doesn't meant rip out and/or close half the rides and just leave nothing in their place. I've said (as have others) many times that CF should have invested in something where the rides were removed. Sure, X-Flight was in the parking lot. But, the closed water park, Monorail, Mr Hydes, Steel Venom and Raging Wolf Bobs WERE in the park. So, why not do some clean up? That's an investment. You always just brush over the fact that CF did next to nothing to enhance the ride side.

It doesn't take a genius to realize the shiny new water park is going to entice more people than the rundown half dormant ride side. You said yourself there was no need to visit half of the ride side. Hmmmm. Does that tell you something? First you say the park is beautiful and then you say there's no need to visit half of it because it's closed. Sounds a little contradictory to me.

I'm not saying CF bought the park to shut it down. But, their actions speak louder than their words in this case. The part they actually invested in survived. The part they basically did nothing with died. Seems like a pretty cut and dry formula to me. Was it intentional? Probably not. Was it pretty easy to see what was happening? Uh yeah.

---

Jeff said:
So you want me to withhold my opinion and say that other opinions I don't agree with might be right? What would the point be in that?

---

As far as I'm concerned, lines like that are the real dead horse getting beaten around here. Whoever said you couldn't have your own opinion on "your own site?" And yes, we know this is your site, you've told us that about as many times as it was mentioned that CF didn't make enough of an effort to save Geauga.

You can't say that opinions you don't agree with might be right? Yet that's exactly what you're expecting from everyone else on this site. I've seen you respond to many people's posts in here with arrogance, sarcasm, and condecension.

In your own words, every opinion about Geauga Lake's closing that didn't agree with yours was "summarily dismissed." Basically that means you didn't even want to hear(read) it-- you weren't interested in what anyone else who isn't gushing about your connections to CF has to say.

As far as business discussions go, I'd like to know what credentials people have-- and there are quite a few of them here-- that qualify them to talk as the business experts they portray themselves as.

From the getgo, at least in 2004, Cedar Fair flat out said that this park would be made back into a family friendly park hence why they brought the name Geauga Lake back.

So , yes, it made sense to start removing the Six Flags added coasters that made no sense for a park with 700,000 in attendance annually.

Why did CF jump the gun and start building a brand spanking new waterpark on the other side of the lake? They could have easily sold off the whole old Sea World side and made a decent profit. They already had a somewhat new waterpark on the ride side. Even the old waterpark during the SF era was by far better then that joke of a waterpark at Cedar Point.

How hard would that have been to maintain 700,000 people with the old waterpark, some flats, and the Big Dipper along with maybe a few other small scale coasters already established there?

CF IMO just went the wrong way from the beginning. If SF took one of their parks that already had a waterpark in place, and just decided to build a from scratch waterpark totally distant from the current one, they would have looked crazy.

Shapiro is looking like a god right now compared to Kinzel.

Jeff, I have known you on this site since 2000, met you once in person, and I am a mod thanks to you giving me that title, and I am even getting disturbed at how you are approaching this. *** Edited 10/26/2007 6:11:06 AM UTC by Chitown***

---

RatherGoodBear said:As far as business discussions go, I'd like to know what credentials people have-- and there are quite a few of them here-- that qualify them to talk as the business experts they portray themselves as.

---

Aww, man. This is getting so hard. Now I need credentials to post!

*pulls out official issue common sense card*

Will this get me in?

(I also have my "this is how the real world works" and "official bikini inspector" cards if either of those will work ;) )

Real world works Gonch?

So since it's a business decision technically, it's real world 100% of the time?

I don't even have any attachment to this park and I sure as heck don't sweat the small details of how parks run their show with ride names, clones, etc.

But this situation just reaks of B.S.

Name another company that took over a park and even came remotely close to how Cedar Fair handled GL with their timeline of additions, leaving areas to rot, etc. *** Edited 10/26/2007 6:18:01 AM UTC by Chitown***

Name another company dumb enough to buy a park so set up for failure.

I still say CF is simply the ones stuck doing the inevitable.

Had they never bought the park, we'd be having these same conversations about SF - except they'd be more justified as SF are the ones who overbuilt the park.

Had SF never bought the park(s), we'd probably still be having this same conversation because of Busch pulling Sea World.

Hindsight is always 20/20 and it's obvious in hindsight that there is a chain of events that lead nowhere but exactly where we are right now.

The only place CF messed up was in buying the park...but like I said earlier in this thread, even that wasn't a total mistake because they scored tons of assets for other parks and should turn quite a deal on the property.

Even if I suspend all my instinct and believe that was their intentions all along - then great. It's a terrific move. No idea why SF didn't do the same thing 4 years ago instead of handing it all over to CF for chump change.

Sooooo, CF were the number one suckers dumb enough to do this?

But , even that brings up another point, were they really the main dumbasses to do this? Or did they see a do or die situation and rolled with it regardless?

Building a new waterpark on the other side of the lake when they already had a viable one doesn't raise a red flag to you? If they wanted to reduce the ride's part of the park, why didn't they start clearing out the area near the old waterpark of dry rides, and just start expanding water attractions on that side?

That is where I am having a problem being convinced that CF had any plan of running this park for the far future.

---

Jeff said:
It doesn't mean enough people cared to visit the park when it was open.

---

Exactly what I said all along. How many people who have done the most complaining about GL even visited the park this season? How many of them opted to go to GL instead of CP or even some other park? How many of them recommended GL to people when asked which Ohio amusement park they recommend they visit?
CF is a business and the only bottom line goal a business has is $$ and making their stockholders happy.
The enthusiasts opinion of GL meant and means NOTHING to CF. The public's opinion (or lack there of) of GL meant everything and that is what was the final death of GL.

If you own a race horse how many more races do you pay to put them into, knowing they will lose, before you sell the horse?

Jo

---

RatherGoodBear said:
As far as business discussions go, I'd like to know what credentials people have-- and there are quite a few of them here-- that qualify them to talk as the business experts they portray themselves as.

---

It's this kind of thing that could kill everything good about this board if actually taken seriously.

Luckily I know that's not going to happen.

Seriously, we need qualifications to have opinions now? What's the system here, do we all post our resumes and RatherGoodBear gets to determine what we're qualified to discuss and what we're not? *** Edited 10/26/2007 12:47:39 PM UTC by matt.***

Personally, I would have to say that Six Flags only did good things with the park, which, when it was under they're control, was receiving over 3 million guests per year. Back in the day, it had the potential to be another SFDK, and that would have been great, offering everything Cedar Point has, but at a cheaper price, plus the free water park, and animal park. It seemed like a great idea, and it was a great idea, and it would have worked had Six Flags put a few more years of promoting and such onto it.

That leads me to the problems.
1. Six Flags shouldn't have let the park go just yet.
2. Cedar Fair should have at least invested a few new rides, and kept the animals, which was a big draw.
3. Cedar Fair should have kept the original water park, and just expanded onto it, it would have been cheaper, and more stuff to offer.

Had Cedar Fair planned on keeping the park, don't you think they'd have just done that, rather than removing the animals, and building an entirely new water park on the opposite side of the lake. Personally, I believe they did that rather than keep the new water park because there isn't as much commercial development on that side of the lake, versus where the rides are, there is a bunch of commercial development, which makes it prime real estate, being closer to all of the operating commercial establishments, on that side of the lake. It was all out of the competition, and obviously Cedar Fair felt threatened. I think that the plan from the get go, when Six Flags took it over, was that they were going to build it up, put Cedar Fair into a panic of sorts, and then offer to sell it, and make a profit, to help them get out of debt.

Haha, now I sound like Mr. Conspiracy or something.

Haha. Alright, now who's first in line to bite my head off?

It's not about having credentials to post, it's about the mentality. RGB hit the nail on the head... actually, numerous nails.

I don't get the whole "it was a business decision" argument because the people that use it seem to think that's the silver bullet that ends the debate. As Chitown recently mentioned- and as many of us have mentioned in the past- qualifying something as a business decision doesn't mean it qualifies as the right decision. Businesses make the wrong decisions all of the time. I once read an interview with a highly-regarded and wildly successful CEO (forget which one it was) and he defined business success as being right 51% of the time. That means success might include being wrong 49% of the time. Just something to consider.

As I've gone back and read many of the things posted, I see that some of us came up with some damn fine ideas on how Cedar Fair could have turned Geauga Lake around. I don't see proof of them being summarily dismissed, I just see a select few people disagreeing with them. Since when does disagreement automatically dismiss something? That's not how things work in the real world, and despite what some around here would hope, it's not how they work in an internet forum either. The way I see it, if a bunch of coaster enthusiasts can formulate a great number of ideas, why Cedar Fair didn't formulate some of their own speaks volumes about either their ability to turn the park around or their willingness to turn the park around. Or both.

I'm sorry, but Cedar Fair didn't do much. A marketing campaign doesn't qualify as much. Removal of rides and failure to replace them with new ones doesn't qualify as much. Building a new waterpark when the park already had a perfectly good one qualifies as downright idiotic.

*** Edited 10/26/2007 1:10:10 PM UTC by Rob Ascough***

Who said any of the suggestions by anyone on how to fix GL would work? Some people are speaking as if they actually know that their plan was viable and definitely would have been successful. For all you know, your suggestions may not have worked either.

But no one knows that for sure, therefore it's pretty hard to dismiss them as foolish, ignorant, idiotic... whatever the Insult of the Day happens to be. As far as I know, there are no people very active in these forums qualified to "summarily dismiss" decent ideas presented by others. If Mark Shapiro, Will Koch or one of the Moreys were claiming the ideas were bad, that's one thing. But I'm pretty sure they're not involved in this conversation and this debate is among enthusiasts where no one is in a position to dismiss another's suggestion.

*** Edited 10/26/2007 2:05:13 PM UTC by Rob Ascough***

"As Chitown recently mentioned- and as many of us have mentioned in the past- qualifying something as a business decision doesn't mean it qualifies as the right decision."

You're mixing your arguments here. Saying "It's a business decision" distinguishes the closure from a sentimental or emotional one. Whether or not it was the CORRECT business decision is a completely different conversation. Nobody here is arguing that simply because it was a business decision, it was the right decision. It's not happening here.

"I don't see proof of them being summarily dismissed, I just see a select few people disagreeing with them. Since when does disagreement automatically dismiss something?"

I don't understand your argument at all. If you want the right to post an opinion here you have to accept the idea that other people have the right to disagree. I think a lot of your theories in these GL threads have been really outlandish and not very well thought out but I'm just one guy, just like Jeff is just one guy, just like Gonch is just one guy, just like you're one guy. I don't get what the big deal is about.

"The way I see it, if a bunch of coaster enthusiasts can formulate a great number of ideas, why Cedar Fair didn't formulate some of their own"

You're making wild assumptions here. To assume that CF didn't have any ideas just because they didn't implement the ones you approve of is daffy. I've never been in a CF boardroom but I doubt there was any lack of ideas anywhere, IMO. Coming up with ideas is different from implementing them.