Unsealed documents detail conflict between Kinzel and Falfas

Walt posted this on PB... The article was updated to include the referenced documents.

Falfas testimony

Kinzel testimony

Now that I've read them both, is it me, or does it sound like Falfas' lawyer is testing the water for dementia, Alzheimer's or something else of that nature?

I think the arbitration panel's assertion that Falfas did not resign, and apparently wasn't fired either, is the right decision. Granted, both sides acted like unprofessional children, but still, if you want to talk about company rules, he didn't officially quit.

Dick remembered he ate a hamburger at home after the phone call, but couldn't remember 94 seconds worth of conversation that is of this importance. Somebody is fibbing!

Dick fired Jack because he was enraged that Jack would challenge him over wasting $6.5 million dollars on the failed Apollo deal which has yet to come out. Even if Jack did blow $1.6 million on a show that wasn't well received, any competent CEO would work with his team to figure out the reasons why it wasn't well received and make changes accordingly for the future, rather than stiffle creativity which is the lifeblood of the entertainment industry. What is the saying, it is better to have tried and failed than to never try at all?

The excerpts of Kinzel's testimony are on cross and Falfas' are on direct so the approach is much different. One goal on cross (particularly where the heart of the matter is a phone conversation in the past about which the parties disagree) is to make the other side look bad. Skillful counsel on cross can make a lot of folks look like they may have early stage dementia, alzheimer, etc. Or may be lying/revising what happended. Not sure what, if anything, was done on re-direct to clear any of that up.

When I initially read yesterday's article, I wasn't sure how the arbitration panel made any definitive determination about what happened based on statements of each side. I presumed that there was other evidence/testimony which tipped the balance toward the decision that was made. Reading the transcripts of the testimony of Jack and Dick, I didn't see anything that pointed one way or the other in any stronger way.

As to the gap in recollection, Kinzel tried to explain that at least in part (I asked him where he was, talked about Michigan Adventure trip plus the Rock Band stuff that Jack referenced). But Falfas' counsel ignored that and made it a 70 second Nixon-like-gap appear. Jack's recollection of the conversation wouldn't take 90+ seconds either. So what is Jack hiding? I suspect that the substance of the call is there but each man is selecting recollecting what was said. And again Jack's testimony is on direct so his counsel is trying to show Jack having recollections about anything and everything so show how much he remembers but Dick's testimony on cross is meant to show the opposite.

Jeff said:
It's a little ironic that the "not a finance guy" would qualify anyone else as that. Still, what's troubling about this is that it really comes down to a conversation that two guys had. Only they know what was said, and one of them is lying.

Or they're both lying. Might be a case of three versions of the truth- Dick's truth, Jack's truth and the actual truth that lies somewhere in the middle.

Personally, I don't trust Kinzel at all. The guy seems to relentlessly cling to a position he's been ill-equipped to handle for the last 10 or 15 years. Cedar Fair seems to function more like a monoarchy than a publicly-traded company. I also have a hard time believing that Falfas- a company man for three decades and obviously in line to lead the company following Kinzel's protracted retirement- would pack up his things and leave after a phone call lasting less than two minutes. As with most Cedar Fair dealings, it sounds a little suspect.

There's three sides to every story - yours, mine and the truth. :)

I can't wait until Q chimes in with another 5th-grade-level filing.

I think this is kind of amusing really. I think a couple of hotheads blew smoke at each other and each decided to take the other one literally when they thought it would benefit them.

Silliness, especially coming from people at that level of business.

But - Did he call you Stupid - or Silly?
Stupid...

Yeah, and are you sure you had a hamburger for lunch? And did it cost you $12?

Will Judy testify that he had a hamburger? I think we all want to know.

"And why would you pay $12 for a hamburger?"
"Well, a guy's got to eat..."

(Sorry, I couldn't resist)

So the findings of the arbitration or whatever it was were that Falfas neither resigned nor was fired, right? It kind of sounds from the excerpt that's *exactly* what happened!

What a mess! Maybe my goofball theory about all those tall, skinny structures at Cedar Point isn't as goofy as I thought!

--Dave Althoff, Jr

Are you inferring a Napoleon syndrome?

OhioStater said:
I can't wait until Q chimes in with another 5th-grade-level filing.

Ask and you shall receive.

It's all OhioStater's fault ;)

Amen to the live band thing...the Rock Band show was a bad idea that cost too much money. (Good) live bands are still the way to go, and they always will be. Mr. Kinzel was dead on right about that one.

There's far more to this story. I don't buy that a guy walked away from a million dollar job based on a 10 minute conversation or contention over an attraction, especially if he knew he was going to get the keys soon anyway. One or more of these things

A) There has been far more conflict behind the scenes and he hates his job or the people there that much that he walked away from a fortune and an eminent promotion when the guy he contends with retires shortly.
B) He needs to have his head examined
C) Someone has gotten to him...perhaps an investor
D) He put his pride before millions of dollars, years of investment in the company, and IMHO, one of the greatest jobs on earth.

If he really had problems with Kinzel, were they that bad that he couldn't put them aside for a little while longer?