After the 3 year extension for Six Flags to purchase Marine World runs out and they don't exercise the option, would the city approach Busch to possibly purchase the park and convert it to a Sea World? The only thing I see where Busch wouldn't be interested is that the park has an offseason.
Just a thought. :)
I say Cedar Fair, just because they bought Geauga Lake in a somewhat surprising move.
Busch would seem like the most likely candidate, but, I'm not sure if they would be interested or not. Remember, Busch does operate seasonal parks, including one of its Sea Worlds (Texas). The others being Busch Gardens & Water Country USA in Williamsburg, and Sesame Place near Philadelphia. (Which makes the seasonal excuse for selling Sea World Ohio seem really 'fishy'! It had to do more with their restrictive no-ride lease, I feel, than anything else and the great offer that they got from Six Flags at the time.)
I suppose if the price were right, and the facility met their standards, it might be possible for them to buy it. It's at least a 400 mile drive between Sea World in San Diego and SF Marine World, so it wouldn't be competing with themselves. Of course, Six Flags is still in charge of the park, and I feel will try to remain there for the time being. *** Edited 12/18/2004 5:46:30 AM UTC by Brother Dave*** *** Edited 12/18/2004 1:30:20 PM UTC by Brother Dave***
Brother Dave.. proximity doesn't matter too much - look at Geauga Lake and Cedar Point (oh wait, that was CF :) )
Funny thing is, alot of the marine life animals didn't even GO to another SF park. The majority were sold to various other parks and aquariums. Just trying to recover costs I would think.
Coaster Lover.. "unless they absolutely need to"? Hmm, perhaps a continued plummeting of company value and need for $$ may make it a "need to".
Huh? How could they sell a park they don't own for profit?
I wouldn't be surprised to see a sudden belly-up of the entire SFI.
Not...gonna...happen. Do you think Bill Gates and the 'Skins owner has bought huge stakes in the chain because they expect it to fail? It's a viable product with a marketable name and good upside potential in the right hands.
Go under? Nope. Change management? It could happen, but to be perfectly honest, I doubt that too. They'd have to seriously bungle 2005 first.
They'd still blame it on the weather ;)
I'm not talking within the next year, I mean about 5-10 years (I consider that "soon" in the amusement industry, what with lead times on coasters around 2 years)
Also, just because you have influential people doesn't mean they can't make mistakes in stock. Just because Bill Gates buys something doesn't automatically mean it can't die. All it means is that it's popular. Six Flags is probably the most recognized amusement park chain (next to perhaps Disney). Heck, before I really got into Coasters, Six Flags was the only "chain" that I knew of. Paramount did movies, Busch did beer, never heard of Cedar Fair (gasp!), but I heard of Six Flags.. "A World of fun, not a world away!"
They stick with what they are good at.. rides...
Wrong! After the last dolphin died, they decided not to carry on the show and the last one (two?) were sold.
It's not so much that CF isn't interested in Animal Parks- they are not allowed to have them- Remember the Dolphin Show at CP? The ASPCA shut that down and fined CF
Where do people get this nonsense?
The way I understand it, Vallejo gets a nice chunk of rent for owning the park. I get the distinct impression that the city isn't all that anxious to close the deal.
Then came '04, and Busch seems to be spending quite freely (and MAYBE even wisely) on their theme parks...
Certainly CF seems unlikely to want to get involved in animals, and this park seems to me to be even MORE tied in to their marine life than GL/SFWoA was...
I think this is a bit much for some newcomer in the industry to bite off...
And I agree that Vallejo really LIKES the income they generate from renting the park....sure, they WOULD sell the land outright, but not without taking a *pound of flesh* from the buyer...
Also, while the city owns the park, SF has some substantial equity invested in the capital improvements made over the last few years. I would imagine they'd want some of that equity back if the city sold the park to another operator. (What do you think the depreciation schedule is on a coaster? Ten to fifteen years or so?)
You must be logged in to post