What in your opinionwill happen to the Six Flags corporation. Will it sell of smaller parks, will it keep operating "troubled" parks at minnimum status, or will it invest in overall operations improvements. The company has had their credit rating drop again. Something needs to be done, any honest ideas on what that will be and where the changes will take place.
Their will be a new Looney Tunes show as well as a karting circuit at Six Flags Belgium. (confirmed) And an elephant, maybe zebra's too and a larger area for the giraffes at Bellewaerde Park. (partly confirmed) Warner Bros. in Germany has delayed an interactive darkride (Terminator 3 theme), but will open some children's rides themed to the new Looney Tunes Back in Action movie. (partly confirmed) No other news or rumors from any of the parks, nothing big seems to be on the menu.
You see in a recession, the larger the companie's association with national public spending, the more it will be effected by a poor economy. I mena, SFI is huge in comparison with the other park chains so it will obviously have the largest effect if people stop going to the parks in a poor economy. Already parks are reporting a huge increase in attendance starting in the 3rd quarter and I'm sure this trend will continue as long as the economy is improving. I'm seeing SFI having a very strong 2004 season, but I'm also seeing them being much more cautious of how much they add to which parks at what time. They spent like a kid in a candy store from about 1998 through 2002 as Premier Parks bought up Six Flags and invested heavily in rebranding all their current parks. You'll start to see more SFI spending in the coming years, but don't expect anything like the three coasters in one year thing that SFMM recieved a few years ago with X. Also, I'm sure you will see a lot more caution put forth when buying prototype or experimental ride designs as a result of the X, Deja-Vu, Flying Dutchman problems that all occured essentially at the same time.
------------------ If you can't stand the heights, get out of the line.
No, I think SFWOA's problems have nothing to do with CP. Most of their problems stem from overspending and lack of return on investment. Also, bad customer service and lousy operations didn't help either in 2001 and 2002.
The whole three parks combined for one price is not working because its just not bringing in the attendance it should be bringing in. Also, given the $110 million purchase of the Sea World side they should be charging to get into that side of the park.
i am undecided if CP has anything to do with SFWoA's problems. Sure Cp has stuff WoA doesnt have but WoA has things that CP doesnt have. What SF needs to do is take care of the smaller parks to bring them up to competitive standards. I dont think its right they pump millions into one park and let the others go and fend for themselves on what they have. Sure they spent $110 million on Sea World hoping to get a good return, but you cant get a good reutrn on things when there is nothing to do over there. A whale show needs 2 whales and the trainers to actually get into the water with them. It was a joke seeing the whale all alone, jump up a few times, hit the orange ball and spalsh the crowd with the trainers on dry land. They need to bring that to life like Sea World had it. Sure i know it wont be the same, but they could attempt to bring it close to that or go past peoples expectations and make it even better than Sea World was.
But getting off my SFWoA complaining...SF wont sell off any parks as the Economy is picking up and if you remember this summer was one of the worst for the Amusement industry as it rained almost every day. Sure they may cut back on spending for the next few years but parks wont close as long as people come. and when the people stop coming...then you have another problem.
If the Cleveland park can turn it around in terms of *differentiating itself* from CP, they can be just fine. The bumper crop of coasters, and the marketing, was ill-fated in terms of trying to "be like Mike". Sorry, CP was already there and it's not wise to try and walk up to the big dog's dinner plate.
SFI as a whole, from where I'm sitting it sounds like they're *cluing in*....promoting John Odum to regional Veep is X-actly the kind of move that can "spell" great things for SF in the future. Cap-ex will rebound along with the '04 economy, and hopefully SFI will become a bit more *prudent* with the expenditures during this next business growth cycle. I'm predicting a pretty sizeable increase in return visits to the parks down this way....:).
This space reserved for Peter Griffin, 11 pm Sunday, hehehehe....;)
selling off assets would not increase their revenue jeff. Revenue is actually money generated from what the business is designed to do, in this case sell tickets, goods, and food. Selling off assets would be listed on the cash flow statment but would not increase their company revenue, or increase their stock. The money from selling off assets would go into retained earnings.
I agree CP Boy,SFI needs to treat all 39 parks as equals & not aas one park deserves more or better attractions & service.
All of their parks deserve the same standards aas some of their more "established & built up parks" that's why they're losing money on parks like SFWOA & SFDL.
It seems they've determined that "SFWOA isn't successful so let's cut them out of the budget" while "SFMM is a goldmine for us,let's spoil them punk rotten & give them anything they want". now until that mentality stops within corporate it will be a slow financial road to recovery for the company alltogether.
I agree that promoting MR. Odum to regional maanager is a step in the right direction,now they just need to shake up the hierarchey in the corporate management because Story & Burke clearly aren't using good judgement in their business strategy & that's what's driving the company into the red.
No, you miss the point. Big attractions go into the parks that can "afford them", so to speak. That is, the parks getting big, expensive attractions are the ones that they're going to see a return on that investment at. For instance, it's nonsense to build a $14 million B&M coaster at, like, Wyandot when there's no chance in hell SF will ever gain enough of an attendance increase to support such a ride. It's the initial overspending on parks in years like 2000 that put them in the hole, not this new conservative approach to installing rides.
The only thing that SF should apply across the board with their parks is customer service.
Just because you have a small park with SF branded on it doesn't mean you should get a brand spankin new multi-million dollar coaster. Be glad SF bought up some of these parks because otherwise they wouldn't exist.
IMO, SFMM shouldn't be considered SF's goldmine park. They pull in the same attendance figures as SFGAm and SFGAdv. Difference is, the Chicago and New Jersey park close for 5 plus months. To me, the So Cal. park is not pulling in the attendance that it has the potential to do.
------------------ Arena football has arrived in the Windy City. Go "Chicago Rush"
Yes. I think people today aren't nessacarily looking for the greatest new rides, they are looking for value for their dollar. They want to go to a park and not spend all day in line, not have terrible, overpriced food, and not be treated like dirt by the employees. I think this is what SFI needs to concentrate on.
While we all would love to see new rides, I don't think this is a direction the parks need to go to attract the GP. Word of mouth is the best advertisement, and if people come away from a park happy, then they will tell their friends and family the same.
------------------ The Phoenix, its Schmecktacular!
What people fail to realize is that if SF decides to cut back and quit adding attractions to SFMM, people wouldn't even care about the park. So Cal is a huge market with a ton of competition. If people don't have a reason to go to SFMM, they'll go to Knotts, Disneyland, DCA, USH or Sea World instead.
Now look at SFDl. If they don't add anything, there is no dramatic effect. Basically, its the biggest park around and people would have to go *far* out of their way to find something better. Therefore, SF doesn't see any reason to funnel multi-million dollar rides into it, as there is not a lot to be gained for doing so, and not a lot to be lost if they don't add anything.
Same argument goes for SFEG. Its the biggest park around. Lakeside is no competition. Neither is Lagoon. If people from Denver want to visit a park, they'll visit SFEG, regardless if they have added an expensive new ride or not.
And that is how the SF (and any reasonable park chain) works.
------------------ Knotts Halloween Haunt- Everyone has to go sometime....