The Geauga Lake story has made a Chicago paper.

I'm not mixing up my arguments. I'm not even referring to every instance where "it was a business decision" comes up- I'm referring to the times when it's used to shut down a debate, or attempt to shut down a debate. If I didn't make that clear, I apologize.

I have an issue with the "summarily dismissed" comment that Jeff made yesterday. There have been plenty of people in this conversation and past conversations about the closing of Geauga Lake that have come up with ideas for what Cedar Fair could have done had their intention been to operate the park for the long term. I don't recall their being a point when they were summarily dismissed because I don't know of anyone capable of doing that. Or am I to assume that disagreeing with something automatically renders it bunk? Furthermore, I don't think any of my ideas were outlandish. I suggested replacing thrill rides with flat rides and consolidating the rides and waterpark. I can see your point if I suggested Cedar Fair move rides from Cedar Point to balance things out or build a glass dome around Geauga Lake so it could operate year-round, but I didn't. If my ideas were outlandish, what do you consider realistic and rational?

*** Edited 10/26/2007 2:22:03 PM UTC by Rob Ascough***

What I find is outlandish is some of the conspiracy theorizing, and I consider it outlandish because I still haven't seen a good argument that explains CF buying the park with the intention of closing it. That kind of stuff.

I didn't catch Jeff's comment but I'm still missing what the problem is. If Jeff and I disagree and if I, in Jeff's eyes, fail to make my argument, then by all means, Jeff can dismiss me. I wouldn't care. All I can do is state my own notions and reevaluate my own position.

I'm fine with people disagreeing with me. In fact, I like it. That's why I'm here. If someone wants to dismiss my opinions, that's fine, it's their decision. Not bothered.

So if everybody has an opinion and there's no chance in hell that anyone will sway anyone else - then why does this keep coming up and going in circles?

So much so that we have to debate about the rules of debate. :)

I'm up for the long-haul discussions more than anyone, but this one is even wearing thin on me.

Money invested in a new waterpark, which they intend (and probably always intended) on operating to recoup the investment. Competing water parks do not cut into Cedar Point market much. Waterparks tend to be VERY local. However, another amusement park in the vicinity of Cedar Point does cut into the market. We have chosen Geauga Lake several times instead of Cedar Point. Now the option of Geauga Lake is gone, and Cedar Point can still attract the same people with the cost of only operating one park.................

The old waterpark was not good enough to stand alone. The new one might be.

The ride park/old waterpark side of Geauga Lake sits on RT 43. The better side of the lake for commerical real estate value. Now that entire side will be free to sell off. Leaving the waterpark on that side would have tied up valuable land for parking also.

Nothing was added to this park other than the water park under Cedar Fair, which is a good indication that they NEVER intended on keeping the ride side operating. The are "experts" in the business. They know that to keep the market returning to a park, new attractions must be added approximately every other year to acheive that. Nothing was added except the water park, which only appeals to a local market. Rides were massively removed with nothing to replace them. Downsizing is one thing, but there still has to be something "new" to attract people to back to a park from season to season.

Until they finally closed the place, they had wages and maintenance to pay, so sure they spent money on advertising to try to get enough people in the door to pay the wages. But nothing was added to draw people to the amusement park. 0 effort.

Where havent you seen a good argument that they intended to close it? They got it at a bargain price, which they can recoup in the land value and the value of the rides that they can relocate. Competition has been eliminated. It is a very plausible plan.

They knew what they were doing, and they did it. *** Edited 10/26/2007 2:34:45 PM UTC by super7****

Matt, suppose you and I are having a conversation in a baseball forum. You tell me you believe the '04 Red Sox were better than the '98 Yankees. I can tell you that I personally disagree with you and if I'm interested in an actual debate, I'll give you a list of reasons why I think you're wrong. What I can't do is tell you that you haven't a leg to stand on and your opinion isn't worth debating. For your statement to be dismissed, the entire forum would have to tell you to go screw. One or two people thinking your statement has no merit does not dismiss your statement.

It's not like the entire Coasterbuzz community got together and shot down all the ideas presented.

*** Edited 10/26/2007 2:38:23 PM UTC by Rob Ascough***

Why is now being said that it was stupid to build a large waterpark across the lake? I thought it was briliant. Build a huge waterpark that most of the GP will love and it blows away Soak City and Boomerang Bay. I honestly don't believe the old waterpark was anything that could separate GL from the competition, which it seems to me was their plan...to do something to separate them from the competition. Obviously, they didn't think it could happen on the rides side or it would have been done. And, I don't think it would be easy to market a new tilt-a-whirl or flat ride short of rides like Skyhawk, Delirium or something of that nature as a great new addition to the park. Who's gonna come for that?

Not to mention, if CF wanted to just close it, that could have been done in year one, rides would have been distributed and not even bother to spend money on a waterpark at all. *** Edited 10/26/2007 2:43:08 PM UTC by Coasterbuzzer*** *** Edited 10/26/2007 2:46:23 PM UTC by Coasterbuzzer***

---

Rob Ascough said:
It's not like the entire Coasterbuzz community got together and shot down all the ideas presented.

---

I totally agree. One person dismisses you, you still have the rest of the forum to work with.

Sounds fine to me so I guess I'm still missing the problem. *** Edited 10/26/2007 2:41:25 PM UTC by matt.***

IMHO CF isn't loosing a dime on this park in the long run. Sure they got 200 million in it. They've already transfered 60 million worth of rides. Theres probably another 40 million worth yet to be moved as well as all the concession equiptment, property care equiptment (Lawnmowers, ect) They can even move some buildings to other parks. Sell some stuff to scrappers and whats left? 700 acres right in the middle of a residential area. Thats worth 200 million alone to a condo developer.

CF is doing what they felt best for their company. I don't blame them for that. I still say they never did what was necessary to keep A PARK viable or give it a fair shake.

Bye bye Geauga :(
Chuck

If Geauga Lake needed a better waterpark and the real intent was to build something spectacular, why not build upon what was already there instead of spending $25 million while abandoning the existing waterpark that would eventually need to be demolished?

I'm not suggesting a new Tilt-A-Whirl would have been enough to reverse Geauga Lake's fortunes but rides like that would have shifted the overall experience. A Tilt-A-Whirl this year, a Scrambler next year, a darkride after that... before you know it, Geauga Lake went from being a thrills park to a family park. Changes don't take place over the period of one or two years and that seems to be all Cedar Fair was willing to give the park.

^^ But that's what I believe was implied. To me, "summarily dimissed" means that the entire forum got together and universally claimed the ideas presented were worthless. That obviously wasn't the case so I don't see how anything was dismissed.

*** Edited 10/26/2007 2:46:38 PM UTC by Rob Ascough***

Have a question.

If Cedar Point started losing guests and wasnt as profitable as they would like it to be,would they close it down as quick as they did with Geauga Lake?

I think they would try to find a solution to the above dont you?

They would have found a solution. The company didn't get to where it is today because of clueless people. Another thing I find hard to believe is that Cedar Fair couldn't find a way to turn the park around. All that high-priced talent in Sandusky couldn't produce a worthwhile plan?

---

CF is doing what they felt best for their company. I don't blame them for that. I still say they never did what was necessary to keep A PARK viable or give it a fair shake.

---

That's a pretty fair assesment, Chuck - even if I don't agree.

But for you guys saying similar things I have to wonder how long it makes sense to stick with a losing proposition. 4 years? 8 years? 10 years? 15 years?

Six Flags only stuck with it for 4 years too. Seems like a pretty consistent timeframe.

At what point do you have to realize that it's just not going to work.

In fact, I seem to remember Rob (my apologies if it wasn't you) saying the same thing about CLP - they need to keep trying.

That's great and all, but at some point you have to throw in the towel if things aren't working for whatever reason.

I think that's where the whole 'business isn't emotion' thing comes in. If you're emotionally invested in something, you'll be more inclined to continue the fight even if it's hurting you. If you have no emotional attachment, it's probably easier to see things for what they are long before someone with an emotional stake invested.

I say they did give it a go - for four years even. And they're still giving it a go. You will still be able to visit Geauga Lake next year...as a waterpark.

If they were really not trying, we wouldn't be here 5 years later still with a facility to visit.

I think the effort was more like two years because after that the plan shifted to dismantling the park. I'm not an advocate of standing by a losing proposition for all eternity but after blowing $145 million on the purchase of the park, I would think two years wouldn't be long enough to make that investment work... unless that wasn't the plan. That's where all these so-called conspiracy theories come in. Right or wrong, the door was left wide open for them.

And yeah, it was me that suggested Conneaut keep trying ;)

Rob, at the same time, if it was bought just to close it down(which is the conspiracy theory around here), why build anything and why not just close it from the get go?
They could have instantly re-distributed rides as well as any buildings or equipment and not spend 25mill on a waterpark to begin with. This is one question that I can't get a sensible answer to. Why bother investing anything in the park or even opening the gates at all if the intent was to just close it down?

The racetrack example is a good one. The guy bought all competing tracks and shut them down to eliminate competition. That was his plan. If this was CF's plan all along, why not do the same thing instead of keeping it running for four years? *** Edited 10/26/2007 3:06:40 PM UTC by Coasterbuzzer***

---

halltd said:
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.

---

That makes no sense. Of course it's relevant. You're suggesting that Cedar Fair repeat Six Flags' mistakes. That's completely relevant.

---

matt. said:
If Jeff and I disagree and if I, in Jeff's eyes, fail to make my argument, then by all means, Jeff can dismiss me. I wouldn't care. All I can do is state my own notions and reevaluate my own position.

I'm fine with people disagreeing with me. In fact, I like it. That's why I'm here. If someone wants to dismiss my opinions, that's fine, it's their decision. Not bothered.

---

Can I clone you?

---

Lord Gonchar said:I say they did give it a go - for four years even. And they're still giving it a go. You will still be able to visit Geauga Lake next year...as a waterpark.

If they were really not trying, we wouldn't be here 5 years later still with a facility to visit.

---

^My only argument with that is that the *re-imaging* of GL is something that should have been undertaken the day CF closed on the deal...

Still think a beach/boardwalk theme with a COUPLE of coasters (RWB, BD) and some flats alongside "Geauga Beach" would have had the potential to operate for many years as a *complementary* park to CP.

edit: Why is this even necessary? Meh.

Disagreement among rational intelligent adults makes for lively discussion. How you define "adults" seems to be a case-by-case kind of thing... ;)

*** Edited 10/26/2007 3:03:07 PM UTC by rollergator***

I don't agree or disagree with the conspiracy theories but if they are true, it made sense for Cedar Fair to make minimal investments in the park, which is exactly what they did. No new rides, very few improvements to existing ones, no new construction- that's the very definition of no investment, let alone minimal investment. Most of the money was spent on a new waterpark that seems to be the only thing that Cedar Fair had anticipated being part of any long-term Geauga Lake plan.

Can you imagine the heat Cedar Fair would have taken had they purchased the park and immediately closed it? Waiting four years made it appear effort was made, even though certain people that claim that's subterfuge are obviously seeing right through it.

*** Edited 10/26/2007 3:05:14 PM UTC by Rob Ascough***

---

Rob Ascough said:
I think the effort was more like two years because after that the plan shifted to dismantling the park.

---

Ok, but here's the thing. It was apparently necessary. I think the one thing we can all agree on is that the park was overbuilt for its customer base. After that initial season or two of building up that SF did, the curious never came back in numbers high enough to justify the building up of the park. If they had, SF wouldn't have spent so much money there only to give it away for so cheap.

Downsizing is the attempt to keep things going.

Again, at what point do you say "We tried, but this is going nowhere fast. The effort just isn't worth it for us."

For CF it was 4 years. At that point they probably had a good idea of what was needed and when compared to other alternatives (closing most of the park, moving rides to other parks and selling off the land) - it's a no-brainer.

Hell, maybe they even didn't do all the could have done, but they did do all they should have done.

We absolutely agree on the park having been overbuilt by Six Flags... so much that it's assumed with each post every one of us makes, it seems.

What I feel to be one of Cedar Fair's greatest failings is their inability/lack of desire to think a little outside the box with the park. Bill brought up an excellent idea- a small boardwalk-themed park that would operate as an alternative to the larger parks in the area. Entertainment and a shopping district are two things they could have looked at, but it seems they didn't. Then again, I have no proof of that. But I disgress.

Whatever amount of time they spent, it didn't seem like enough. It's pretty clear to me that Cedar Fair had one plan and when that one failed, they abandoned the whole thing instead of coming up with something different. A plan B should have existed because $145 million seems to be large investment to walk away from. But again, that's assuming that was to be an investment. Chuck's "operate the park while we can make some money from it, distribute the rides to other properties and sell off the property for big dollars" does make sense if you look at things in a different way.

I'm sorry. How is 25 mill a minimum investment? You seem to be dismissing this investment since it was not ride related.

I can imagine the heat, but still, it could have been closed sooner rather than later. So, it must be a viable business plan to run a park that's losing money to save a little face to the public. Still doesn't make any sense.