The Geauga Lake story has made a Chicago paper.

Did anyone ever consider the waterpark was moved to utilize that side of the park since virutally nothing was over there? And maybe, just maybe they had planned to do away with the old waterpark and expand the rides side? But, what happened was no one was attending, therefore negating any useful plan at all.

I still see a lot of armchair CEO's that have never been in that position, yet claim they have much better and valid plans than those whom have been in the industry for years.

---

halltd said:
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.

---

Because you said it:

---

Sure, their decisions probably weren't the best, but they clearly TRIED. They poured money into the park, not just in rides, but infrastructure.

---

SF tried because they poured money into the park. CF didn't because they didn't.

What part am I misunderstanding?

Gonch, how are you going to improve anything without throwing some amount of money at it? Even landscaping and training of employees is going to cost something.

I don't see how Michigan's Adventure can be compared to Geauga Lake. One park was operated well by the same owners for decades and located hours away from another amusement park while the other was operated poorly by relatively new owners within a short drive of other amusement parks. I see very few parallels.

---

Rob Ascough said:
I don't see how Michigan's Adventure can be compared to Geauga Lake. One park was operated well by the same owners for decades and located hours away from another amusement park while the other was operated poorly by relatively new owners within a short drive of other amusement parks. I see very few parallels.

---

She wasn't comparing the parks, but rather the way CF handled them after acquisition...and she's right. They handled them the exact same way.

Where you're right is that they weren't the same situation and probably required a different approach.

However Linda's original point remains - CF did what CF does...and it didn't work. Not for lack of trying.

---

halltd said:
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.

---

Gonch - You apparently missed this part. I said Six Flags TRIED. Their version of trying was throwing millions of dollars at the park and installing tons of rides.

For some reason, you're not understanding that I said Cedar Fair's version of trying SHOULD have been what I said above in the quote. That's still investing in the park, but doesn't require the millions of dollars that Six Flags invested in the park. It's an investment, but of a different type. But, it shows your customer base that you're still interested in the park. What they did was show the customers they were interested in the water side and NOT interested in the ride side.

So your answer to a park that was overbuilt and/or undervisited is to landscape? ;)

I guess I see your overall point, but I don't agree that it'd have made a lick of difference. There were much bigger fish to fry and some grass and shrubs instead of a wall wasn't changing things.

Perhaps not. But, it would have been trying. That's where my gripe is. You and Jeff claim they did everything they possibly could have to save the park. In reality, they did not. Even if landscaping or installing a flat wouldn't have saved the park, they at least would have tried. Who knows, maybe it would have saved the park?

I'm not saying they did everything possible. I'm saying they did everything they should have done. There's a big difference there.

And you're right - who knows? It might have saved the park. But then again - who knows? It might not have and why waste the time and money when both could be used better elsewhere.

I still say one reaches a point of diminishing returns where additional effort is no longer justified by the reward. I think CF reached that point with GL.

---

Lord Gonchar said:She wasn't comparing the parks, but rather the way CF handled them after acquisition...and she's right. They handled them the exact same way.

Where you're right is that they weren't the same situation and probably required a different approach.

However Linda's original point remains - CF did what CF does...and it didn't work. Not for lack of trying.

---

What I'm getting at (or trying to) is that CF should have been smart enough to recognize theobvious shortcomings of a "one-size-fits-all" approach. Geauga Lake's success ultimately depended on envisioning the park as something DIFFERENT from their vision for their other parks...

CF tried...hard. I think they could have accomplished more by working SMARTER instead of harder...

You have to be able to ADAPT to thrive and survive. Keeping focused on what works in one situation may actually be detrimental when trying to handle another situation that may APPEAR similar on the surface (but might actually be VERY different when you dig deeper).

---

CF tried...hard. I think they could have accomplished more by working SMARTER instead of harder...

You have to be able to ADAPT to thrive and survive. Keeping focused on what works in one situation may actually be detrimental when trying to handle another situation that may APPEAR similar on the surface (but might actually be VERY different when you dig deeper).

---

I agree. But if you want to get all philosophical - then one must know one's limitations in the first place.

I'd be of the mindset that if I do things one way and I do them well that way, that it's probably not in my interest to get into a situation where I have to adapt or I'll face a potentially high rate of failure.

In other words - the mistake was buying the park in the first place. (where have I heard that before? ;) )

Then again (and you've heard this from me already as well) - it was a no-lose situation at that price. Even if the ability to adapt fails, the losing scenario still benefits greatly.

When $145 million buys you that many rides, land worth much more than that and leaves you with an additional property in an operating waterpark and is considered failure - well, that's the kind of failure I want in life. :)

The thing that seems the most odd to me was the initial decision to move the waterpark. I wonder what prompted that move. IIRC, just before SFI sold the park, SFI had refurbished the waterpark over in the general vicinity of Superman. Then CF comes in and basically builds a new waterpark clear on the other side of the park. Anybody have any insight into *why* they would have done that?

Initially, I assumed that it had something to do with height variances being harder to obtain on the "Life" side of the park than the "Rides" side, but if CF thought the park was overbuilt to begin with, there would be no need for an overly big coaster that needed a special varience. Not a conspiricy theory, just a thought.

lata, jeremy
--lamenting that we never got a lakefront hyper themed to "Swamp Thing"

Cedar Fair should have known right away that the approach they took with Michigan's Adventure couldn't be applied to Geauga Lake because of the incredible number of differences. As Bill put it (perfectly, I'll add), they should have worked smarter. The fact that they didn't is probably a big part of the reason why some people subscribe to the idea that the park was purchased to eventually be closed down.

Jeff mentioned that there was little room for waterpark expansion and that's the reason why they built a new one on the other side of the property, and while that definitely holds water (no pun intended), I believe there were alternate ways around that problem. Like I said, the midway behind the Dipper was pretty much left for dead so why couldn't that have been used for waterpark expansion?

I still maintain they moved the waterpark side to actually utilize that side of the park. Aside of that, a few flats and a kids' play area, what else was over there?

Then, you start downsizing the rides side to match attendance and maybe moving some around since that side was pretty cramped for space to begin with. But, in the midst of all these changes, no one came.

When will this dicussion ever end? At some point people are going to have to accept the decision and move on with their lives.

In Microsoft Excel, if you create a formula that accidently refers back to the same cell for its answer, it's called a "circular reference." I feel like I'm reading nothing but circular references!

The decision was officially made on September 21st, but there were a lot of signs well before than. The thread I started called "Two more out the door at GL?" goes a few months back. Did anyone honestly think that they'd just let two more big steel coasters go and that would be it?

It's now more than a month later from the official notice, and yet many people can not let it go. And now we're offically moving into the off-season I only fear it's going to get worse, especially when construction of ex-GL rides begins.

So why do you bother reading? I really don't understand why people jump into conversations that they don't think should be taking place.

The only answer I can come up with is that the closing of an amusement park like Geauga Lake is a big deal to people involved in this hobby and we all have our reasons for discussing it more than a month later. Maybe it's therapeutic to some... entertaining to others... I really don't know. But seriously, is it that bothersome, especially when no one's forcing you to click on this thread instead of the one above or below it?

GL's closure is the biggest amusement industry news since the dismantling of AstroWorld. Prior to that, I think we're talking either Riverview, Palisades, or the old Elitch's in terms of *major* parks closing. It's "news" (maybe *old news*, but the last MAJOR announcement of the year)...at least until Paris Hilton and/or Lindsay Lohan get arrested again.

*** Edited 10/26/2007 6:48:36 PM UTC by rollergator***

---

halltd said:
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.

---

Well, yeah, it is unfounded, unless you're willing to revise your position to indicate that they didn't do what you would have done.

And even though Gonch already covered this...

---

halltd said:
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.

---

See my previous point. They did invest, quite heavily I might add, just not in the things you would have liked.

Linda really nailed the approach they took, though I think the closest comparison in terms of scope would probably be better suited to Dorney. I suppose the differences in geography and demographics in Eastern PA can account for the success there, and failure here. One size did not fit all.

And I suppose the point may be moot anyway, because I still believe the beginning of the end was when Shamu was hauled away on an airplane.

I'm not sure Dorney is a good comparison. The rapids ride (whose name always escapes me), White Water Landing, Steel Force, Talon, Dominator... Cedar Fair has regularly poured money into Dorney. If anything, I think Dorney represents the park that Geauga Lake could have become, although probably a little larger.

---

Rob Ascough said:
So why do you bother reading? I really don't understand why people jump into conversations that they don't think should be taking place.

---

ding ding ding ding

Linda's comparison would be accurate if Michigan's Adventure was completely overbuilt and struggling to balance operating expenses with revenue. They were able to "wait and see" with Michigan's Adventure because it really wasn't in that bad of shape when they bought it.