The Geauga Lake story has made a Chicago paper.

There should be a place for discussion among those enthusiasts/nostalgists who flat-out refuse to look at the business realities....

I'd probably even visit from time to time... ;)

"Argument" need not have a quarrelsome connotation...

No, the reason people don't post much anymore is there are too many people who take a simple statement that was not in the least meant as an insult at all is taken as such.

Rob A., for one I am interested in Geauga Lake. I visited there this summer and I thought it was a really nice park. It was also very interesting to see it after visiting as Six Flags Ohio in 2000. Please understand, I don't want to see any parks bulldozed.

My telling people to stop arguing about it came out of reading and what felt like rereading the same arguments over and over again.

Two, I need to respect that the mourning process, as it were, is different for each individual. I came up with six reasons why as an individual I've already become disconnected:

1 ) I have no local ties in that area
2) I didn't know anyone who will be losing their job
3) I don't know if there will be a significant drop at area businesses such as gas stations, hotels, and places to eat
4) Some cherised rides to some may bite the dust and it doesn't bother me
5) I'm not a CF shareholder
6) I'm really happy to have Vodoo within two-1/2 hours one direction and Dominator two-hours in the other for the 2008 season. That may sound callous, but these were rides that were bought by Six Flags, not Cedar Fair.

It's just that when you start getting duplicate threads that keep repeating the same information over and over again, it's not treading any new water people. Someone suggested that I move on to another thread if I don't like the thread. Therein lies the problem;

Sometimes, threads become monsters, and all the sudden they've jumped two or three pages overnight since the last time you've read them. So I read through all the new posts, and that's when I realized that it may never end.

Made a trip to the park today. Here's some pictures.

Amazing how the whole lift hill is gone. Nice pictures and keep them coming.

CPLady, perhaps people should choose their words better. I mean "CP has been making a profit for longer than you've probably been alive," I'm suppose to take that as a "nice" comment?!? *** Edited 10/28/2007 2:16:36 AM UTC by JR Villain***

---

super7* said:

---

Jeff said:

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.

---

Not necessairly more rides, but new rides. Anything new, especially when there is mass ride removal.

---

Something unique for Ohio. I dont know of a Jump, Evolution or Top Scan in Ohio......to name a few.

---

And there's a darn good reason for that. The Jump at Great Adventure never worked right and was retired. I don't know if the Jump2 (Giant version) works any better.

Evolution when it was at Great Adventure never worked right. It seemed to be running better as Excalibur at SFSTL, but there were still some periods of downtime. Sure, it looks impressive, but the ride is actually quite tame, and I'd be worried about the maintenance issue.

Top Scans are a rare breed in themeparks. Mondial again has a fairly bad reputation. The one at Lagoon someone said will be closed for the rest of the season (or did I read it never opened at all this season?)

---

Family attractions like King's Island's cheesy Scooby Doo glow in the dark Castle seem to draw well too.

---

I agree that the Sally shooters have been great family attractions at the parks they've been installed in and are guaranteed to bring back repeat customers.

---

Water parks only appeal to the local crowd.

---

I totally disagree with that statement. I've always got my swimsuit with me on any out-of-state coaster trip during the traditional waterpark season. Since most waterparks are part of the admission plan, it's a nice way of breaking up the monotony of going on rides and sweating in queues for days on end.

The four of us had every intention of visiting Wild Water Kingdom at GL this summer, except for all the thunder and lightning that went on for a few hours. By the time the storm finally ended, it would've eaten into our travel time to Sandusky after we changed in and out of our swimsuits.

---

*** Edited 10/28/2007 2:23:57 AM UTC by Intamin Fan***

---

Lord Gonchar said:

In the real world, the men with the power don't give a crap if the park is open or closed - they're paid to do what's best for the company.

I don't think anyone on the 'business' side is saying the other side is stupid or don't understand...at least I'm not. I'm just trying to sell/explain the other POV. Everything you say about those of us using the business argument is exactly how the other side looks to me from my side of the fence.

Think you're better or smarter? Prove it. If you want to talk "would've, could've, should've" then write me out a 5 year business plan using real world numbers that shows how CF could've done things since buying the park that results in it opening as a full-fledged park in 2008.

---

1. Actually, they're paid to do what they think is best for their company. I'm sure the honchos at Countrywide, Toll Brothers, and these numerous banks and builders thought they were doing the right thing for their companies too.

Or at least they thought with all these subprime loans they were handing out that they'd be making s***loads of money for their companies. Obviously, there wasn't much thought put into contingencies in case the bubble burst. But they're business people, making business decisions so they have to be right. Correct?

2. You haven't come right out and called anyone stupid or ignorant, Gonch, but the terms have been tossed out. You don't have to look too deeply into any of the half dozen GL threads to find them.

3. You want me to write a 5-yr business plan for GL? Well, I have my own office to worry about managing right now, but I will tell you one thing. If I were to write a 5-yr plan it would be the first one done in at least 12 years. Obviously, neither SF of CF had one, unless quitting after 4 years is a valid part of a 5-yr plan.

Instead of just "summarily dismissing" suggestions made by several people here that called for a scaled down more family oriented park-- and what CF promised years ago--, tell us why it isn't feasible or why it isn't a good business decision. Educate us foolish folks beyond saying it was a business decision made by CF therefore it has to be right.

---

JR Villain said:
CPLady, perhaps people should choose their words better. I mean "CP has been making a profit for longer than you've probably been alive," I'm suppose to take that as a "nice" comment?!?

---

No, that statement is what it is. There is absolutely nothing wrong with it or condescending about it.

For what it's worth, Cedar Point has been profitable for longer than CPLady has been alive, too, so you're in good company. ;)

---

RatherGoodBear said:But they're business people, making business decisions so they have to be right. Correct?

---

Not at all. But they're not making decisions based on what a vocal minority with no interest other than their own personal ones as the decider.

Even if that vocal minority represents 20% of GL's business - it's nothing it the big scheme of CF. Considering those opinions in the decision making process would be as wreckless as handing out subprimes.

Again, it's easy to point out the 'bad' examples, but for every bad example there's thousands of good ones that garner no attention. Considering the stake of those involved and the true knowledge of the situation - I'll trust Mr. Suit & Tie every time over some disgruntled enthusiasts. Play the odds and over the long run you're a winner. :)

---

Obviously, neither SF of CF had one, unless quitting after 4 years is a valid part of a 5-yr plan.

---

In a weird sort of way, it just might be. :)

But you're overlooking my core point. If the business arguers are going to be called out and held accountable for their opinions, then the opposite is only fair. I don't have numbers, I don't claim to. If I have to offer over the CF books to make my point valid, then I expect the opposite as well. CF closed the park in 4 years. SF sold the park after 4 years. With all of the 'good alternative ideas' floating around, it doesn't seem to unreasonable to make the same "offer up the facts" demand. Show me a valid plan that keeps the park open for more than 4 years. Be sure to show your work as well.

I can't offer numbers to back my opinion and I suspect the opposite is true as well.

---

Instead of just "summarily dismissing" suggestions made by several people here that called for a scaled down more family oriented park-- and what CF promised years ago--, tell us why it isn't feasible or why it isn't a good business decision. Educate us foolish folks beyond saying it was a business decision made by CF therefore it has to be right.

---

Again, I was merely turning the tables. I offer the same challenge. Educate us 'enlightened' folks beyond saying they didn't try and therefore it had to be wrong to close at this time.

Or, you could take it as the simple statement of fact that is. Cedar Point has been profitable longer than I've been alive and I'm an old fogey.

---

Zima said:
All CF had to do was do a little bit of investigation about the park to see what it really needed before throwing money at it.

---

But would Busch have come back? :)

...and is there a pet store big enough that stocks orcas? ;)

As long as it isn't one of those mall chain puppy prison places where the dogs are all retarded from being inbred and in tiny cages.

---

slithernoggin said:
Or, you could take it as the simple statement of fact that is. Cedar Point has been profitable longer than I've been alive and I'm an old fogey.

---

I'm pretty sure Cedar Point has been making a profit since before I was born, but wasn't the park pretty much dead and buried by the late 50's/early 60's? There are likely plenty of people on this site that were alive when Cedar Point was not making a profit.

---

Jeff said:
But would Busch have come back? :)

---

What does that have to do with my statement at all? I hate the fact that someone brings up a valid point and it is ignored. It seems that all people want to do is use the same tired arguments ad nauseum. Do 20 pages of accusations about Cedar Fair convince anyone? Clearly they have not swayed any minds here, but neither do the myriad of other topics praising Cedar Fair for everything under the sun.

I believe Cedar Fair did not try and I have given reasons why. Until they are at least discussed, I will operate under the assumption that my logic is correct and therefor valid.

Cedar Fair did not try.

---

Zima said:
I hate the fact that someone brings up a valid point and it is ignored.

I believe Cedar Fair did not try and I have given reasons why. Until they are at least discussed, I will operate under the assumption that my logic is correct and therefor valid.

Cedar Fair did not try.

---

I'm sitting here at 1am trying to avoid doing more important things, so I'll have a go.

Hmmmm. All this latest post says is CF did not try. I guess I have to dig back and find a previous post because that says nothing. :)

Ahhh, here it is:

---

Zima said:
They gave the park what it didn't need and didn't want. What they really needed to do was a little touching up on the park. It wouldn't have even cost that much. Repair the broken rides, give them a fresh coat of paint, add a few small attractions, and advertise in the area. Does that really sound that difficult?

---

Nope, but where's the valid logic that we're all ignoring? That's an opinion - one that many people before you mentioned.

---

All CF had to do was do a little bit of investigation about the park to see what it really needed before throwing money at it.

---

Is there more to this or is that a reference to the first part? Still no valid logical conclusions to be ignored.

---

Did you know Geauga Lake amusement park pulled over 700,000 visitors in 1975?

---

So?

---

Do you know how many roller coasters the park had in that year? The only one was the Big Dipper!! The main attraction for that year was the introduction of the Geauga Dog.

---

So?

---

Don't believe me?

---

Sure, I believe you.

---

Look it up. I found attendance information after a 2 minute search. You can find my source here

---

Ok. I looked.

So?

Seriously, what's the big argument that we're all ignoring? All you did was offer an opinion on what the park should have done and then point us to some attendance numbers that shows how the attendance at GL grew to record numbers after Sea World moved in next door. Which leads us back to the beginning of the post:

---

Jeff said:
But would Busch have come back? :)

---

---

Zima said:
What does that have to do with my statement at all?

---

Everything. :)

---

Zima said:
Cedar Fair sure did try pretty hard - with their wallets. They gave the park what it didn't need and didn't want.

What they really needed to do was a little touching up on the park. It wouldn't have even cost that much. Repair the broken rides, give them a fresh coat of paint

---

So what you wanted was Cedar Fair to pour even more money into paint for rides IF they could be fixed, if I'm reading your comments correctly. But, I feel I'm reading your comment incorrrectly, and I think you wanted the whole park painted.

The only coaster I thought looked really bad was Raging Wolf Bobs. We were there after the derailment, and to me it looked like the coaster that should've been in Final Destination 3. Otherwise, I didn't have any problems with the upkeep of the park.

Now that Dominator is being taken down, it is quite obvious that the track needs some new paint, but it's not that offensive, when compared to say Millennium Force, which is in far worse condition.

---

add a few small attractions, and advertise in the area. Does that really sound that difficult?

---

What kind of small attractions are you suggesting? The park had quite a few flats already, so that wouldn't have worked. A Sally darkride shoot-em-up? That could've been fun, but since no other non-Paramount CF park has added one, it probably wasn't on their list of things to add.

If the park were smaller as well, it would've been much easier to market a Sally ride as well.

As far as advertising in the area, here's where we get into that sticky area. How much sense does it make to advertise one big amusement park, when there's another big amusement park (and the crown jewel) not that far away? That means advertising more to the east and hoping the Pittsburgh potentials will jump ship from Kennywood.

---

All CF had to do was do a little bit of investigation about the park to see what it really needed before throwing money at it.

---

Which is it? You're claiming that CF didn't spend any money on the park in your opening comments.

---

Did you know Geauga Lake amusement park pulled over 700,000 visitors in 1975? Do you know how many roller coasters the park had in that year? The only one was the Big Dipper!!

---

Well, SeaWorld would've been open during that time, so maybe people were making a trip out of it. Someone also mentioned that they would have company picnics at one park one year, and the other park the next.

I'm still not buying into the idea that small rides would not have made a difference at the park. In fact, in light of what's less than two hours away in Sandusky, I think smaller, family-oriented rides were definitely the way to go. Geauga Lake needed to differentiate itself from Cedar Point.

I agree that's tough to market something small as a major addition, but there are ways to advertise small additions in conjunction with other improvements. Much of the advertising budget should have been spent on highlighting the park and how it was getting better. The big problem was unhappiness with the way Six Flags was running the place, so why not tell people (in an indirect, roundabout sort of way) that the Six Flags era was over and there was a new sheriff in town that was cleaning up the streets?

Getting back to small rides... a few years back, I got into a debate with someone about large rides vs. small rides. I was of the mindset that things like $5 million wood coasters were investments that would have a more positive impact than rides costing four to five times that much. Needless to say, the person I was debating with disagreed with me, saying that smaller rides weren't the answer. Since then, Dollywood added Thunderhead, Valleyfair added Renegade, Hersheypark added Reese's Cup Challenge and both Six Flags Over Texas and Silver Dollar City made major additions out of simple, inexpensive flat rides. Now a wood coaster is being built at Six Flags St. Louis and Cedar Fair is planning a wood coaster for Great America. I don't see any proof that smaller, family-oriented, cost-effective additions to parks don't make any sense. Nor do I see any proof that large, super-expensive rides make sense for parks not named Cedar Point.

*** Edited 10/30/2007 1:29:29 PM UTC by Rob Ascough***

I'm glad that Gonch was bored, because he saved me all kinds of trouble.

Rob: Simply applying what you see happen at other parks and trying to apply it to Geauga Lake is precisely the problem Cedar Fair walked into. They tried to apply the Dorney plan (or to a lesser extent, the Michigan's Adventure plan) and apply it to GL. It didn't work.

I'm willing to agree with you that some smaller rides and attractions would've been a great addition to the park, but I don't see how that was going to add the 400,000 visits they needed.