The Geauga Lake story has made a Chicago paper.

I'm not dismissing the $25 million as much as I am isolating it. The $25 million was not intended to do anything to improve the rides side of the park (what most of us refer to as Geauga Lake.) The only impact that investment had on the rides side of the park was an abandoned waterpark, therefore hurting it more than helping it.

---

A plan B should have existed because $145 million seems to be large investment to walk away from.

---

Plan B did exist...and you're seeing it happen.

For $145 million they got coasters and other rides to distribute to other parks, a buttload of very valuable land to sell (they will probably easily net more than the cost of buying the entire park) and are still left with an operating waterpark that could possibly continue to operate and be profitable well into the future.

They bought it knowing the land and equiptment in the park was worth what they paid for it alone. They gave it ONE SHOT, OK TWO STUPID SHOTS. 1 New waterpark 2. Try to gain the Pitt market over KW. Both failed. They then let the park go stagnant for two years then deciding to recoupe their investment and perhaps turn a dime on it.

IMHO they never made the RIGHT MOVES to make the park a success. The first one was not letting CF holders use their pass at the park. So what if they wouldn't turn a dime on the gate. They'd still of gotten the 10 for parking 20 for food and any game, souvineer money that those people that NEVER CAME would have spent.

Packages linke to CP. Say Three days, Two parks and two nights in Sandcastle sweets for 500.00 for a family of four? Concerts at the park? Geauga daze? 50 bucks a carload again getting money that NEVER CAME.

Like others have said, Hindsight but I am right and you are wrong. :)

I'll move on.
Chuck

---

Charles Nungester said:
Like others have said, Hindsight but I am right and you are wrong. :)

---

LOL!

Hey, no one told me it was opposite day. ;)

I'm talking about Plans A and B to keep the park in operation. My thought is that more could have been done to keep the park in operation as it was. If Plan B was to close the park, distribute rides and sell the land, doesn't that kinda make it their intention to close down the park since that option was near the very top of the list?

Isn't it possible that Plan B was favored but a half-hearted attempt called Plan A was tossed into the mix for any number of reasons, maybe to safe face?

*** Edited 10/26/2007 3:29:56 PM UTC by Rob Ascough***

Why would you have two expensive "we don't know if this will work" plans? The smart business move is, presumably, to have a plan of action, and then a plan to implement if that one fails. You don't succeed in business by implementing numerous failing (and expensive) plans.

---

Isn't it possible that Plan B was favored but a half-hearted attempt called Plan A was tossed into the mix for any number of reasons, maybe to safe face?

---

I ignored the similar comment the first time because in my mind, it's so ridiculous that I don't even know how to respond.

I still don't. :)

And, as some have been saying, there are many armchair business experts, but I also see a lot of armchair CEO's roaming around here as well.

I don't know why it's ridiculous? It's not possible to have a "what we really want to do" plan and a "we'll do this in the meantime" plan?

I don't understand this continuous assertion that there was no investment in the park. Call it what it really is, no investment in the things you would've liked to have seen. $25 million in the water park was a lot of money, and it's where the bodies were. A million for the catering areas in particular shows that their initial focus on bringing back the company picnic more than anything demonstrates to me their desire to win.

Everyone wanted more rides even though it didn't work for Six Flags, and they were trying to scale down what they had to fit the audience. I can't tell you how many times I walked past the Yo-Yo and Scrambler just sitting there with bored ride operators. More rides would've added expense, not reduced it.

---

Jeff said:
You're suggesting that Cedar Fair repeat Six Flags' mistakes.

---

Can you please show me where I said that Cedar Fair should install multi-million dollar coasters at Geauga Lake? Oh that's right. I didn't say that. You seem to think investment only means installing new coasters. I think investment can mean cleaning up things you've closed or removed. Close a water park, tear it out and landscape the area. Remove some coasters, landscape the area and put in a games midway. Remove some more coasters, put in a cheap flat. That's called investment. Notice in all of those examples, there was a lot of downsizing of the park by removing existing infrastructure that was expensive to maintain. But, it clearly shows an interest in keeping the property looking top-notch and enticing people back year after year.

---

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

---

Six Flags may have only had the park for four years, but what did they do to the park? Sure, their decisions probably weren't the best, but they clearly TRIED. They poured money into the park, not just in rides, but infrastructure. I hear Geauga Lake has some of the best electronic equipment and sound systems around for a park that size. They're even better than most of the systems at Cedar Point. Yes, their plan was flawed, but they clearly had a plan and executed that plan.

Cedar Fair on the other hand didn't start executing their plan (of downsizing) until last year. So, they really only "stuck with it" for a year.

Wasn't the Yo-Yo on the waterpark side? Makes sense it had no riders since people were over there for the waterpark, it's not like anyone made the trek around the lake for one or two spinning rides.

No one is saying Cedar Fair didn't invest money in the property, they just invested the money in the relocation of a waterpark that absolutely no sense... unless the plan was to sell off the land that the existing waterpark occupied. No money was invested in correcting the problems that Six Flags created with Geauga Lake. The money spend was completely unrelated.

Funny how Geauga Lake supposedly improved its catering areas, seeing as how another park operator in the general area told me that Geauga Lake had pretty much turned its back on group sales.

So now you just wanted them to appear interested, and that was the key to success?

Face it Tim, your accusation that they didn't try is completely unfounded. You equate "not trying with "WWTD."

---

...they just invested the money in the relocation of a waterpark that absolutely no sense...

---

Did you spend any time in that old water park? It was the most ridiculous and poorly thought out thing Six Flags did. It was so crowded you couldn't even move, and there was zero opportunity to expand it further. Where would you put a new tornado slide and a play area?

I equate trying with doing things along the lines of what Tim suggested. Landscaping the old waterpark so it didn't look like a scrapyard, install a cheaper ride to replace an expensive removed ride, that sort of thing.

Trying means you make an attempt to fix the old problems, not create new ones (new waterpark, abandoned old waterpark. etc.)

^ I spent as much time in the old waterpark as I did in the new one (none whatsoever). If more land was needed to expand the old waterpark, why not wrap it around the other side of the Dipper. It's not like there appeared to be any grand plans for that area anyway (dormant observation tower, removed monorail, closed concessions).

*** Edited 10/26/2007 4:11:01 PM UTC by Rob Ascough***

My accusation that they didn't try is not unfounded as I've clearly illustrated with many posts. Other people have illustrated this as well. If you chose to ignore our points, so be it. But, that doesn't lessen the points at all just because you say so.

Your version of trying is abandoning a park and basically building a new one on the other side of the lake. When the brand new one succeeds and the abandoned one fails, I don't think many people are surprised. If they had installed the new water park on the GL side, it still would have been packed. Why? Because it was brand new. People like new things.

edit: Cedar Fair knows this too. I've read countless interviews from the people at Cedar Point that say they need to stay fresh to keep the people coming back. That's why they add attractions every year. People like new things and that's why they return. That's why people returned to the water park and not the ride side. The ride side was dying and the water side was flourishing. Big surprise which one closed.

Also, I think it was Gonch that said you can still go to Geauga Lake next year, but as a water park. That's really not true. You can go to Sea World next year, but as a water park. *** Edited 10/26/2007 4:25:04 PM UTC by halltd***

---

Rob:
It's not possible to have a "what we really want to do" plan and a "we'll do this in the meantime" plan?

---

It's possible, but makes no sense in this case because the "what we really want to do plan" is one they could've done from day one.

And I know you're reasoning is to 'save face', but again, you're losing me in a big sort of way. That's just not realistic on any level to me.

---

Tim:
Six Flags may have only had the park for four years, but what did they do to the park? Sure, their decisions probably weren't the best, but they clearly TRIED. They poured money into the park, not just in rides, but infrastructure. I hear Geauga Lake has some of the best electronic equipment and sound systems around for a park that size. They're even better than most of the systems at Cedar Point. Yes, their plan was flawed, but they clearly had a plan and executed that plan.

---

So in summary:

1. You're not trying unless you dump money into something - even if dumping money into that same something failed for others in the past.

2. A flawed plan that loses everything (SF's run) is better than a plan that results in a net gain for the owner and still leaves an operating waterpark there for future growth (CF's run).

And you don't understand why I disagree with that line of thought? :)

I'm also baffled by the idea that the way to fix a park that costs too much to operate in comparison to it's customer base is to throw more money at it.

---

If you chose to ignore our points, so be it. But, that doesn't lessen the points at all just because you say so.

---

And it doesn't make them valid just because you say so.

Ahh, the beauty of opinion. :)

Just to throw something else out there...I'm going to compare what CF is doing with MiA to what they tried to do to GL.

CF bought MiA when the park was a blip on the map...a blip predominately caused by the popularity of one, single wooden coaster. At the time of purchase, there had already been rumors of additional large ride investment by the Jourdans.

What did CF do? Pretty much exactly what they did at GL. They cleaned the park up, painted, and moved the Dodgem from CP to MiA. What else did they add to the ride side in the first few years? Huh?? Anyone?

Nothing.

Instead, they added to the water park and waited. Attendance and ROI increased from the water park alone. Then they added a new Coasters restaurant and Grand Rapids.

I see the same thing done to GL except for one major troublesome point. They had too many large rides that were costing too much in maintenance and not enough attendance and ROI to warrant the cost of running the park, even with the popularity of the waterpark side.

So they tried to remove a couple of those rides to help offset the cost and were still losing money.

MiA increased in popularity within 4 years. GL did not. And I certainly don't believe MiA's success was due to advertising. I live in the Detroit area and there was very little advertising in our area for MiA. They depended upon the local market and it worked.

Could they have done things differently? I think most of us agree they could have. But obviously CF didn't see the same return in the same amount of time that they saw with MiA and rather than take the "emotional" course, they took the business one.

I can understand some people looking at what wasn't done and making assumptions that CF simply didn't care. But that's all they are. Assumptions. When I see what they've done with MiA and compare it to what they tried to do at GL, MY assumption is they had every intention of trying to succeed. It just didn't work out that way.

Why is it so hard to understand that "investing in something" doesn't mean millions of dollars or big fancy coasters. I'm baffled why you can't see that.

Yay, Linda!

That's the stuff....too bad you're just a CF fangirl. ;)