Yet another player acquires a significant stake in Six Flags

Posted Tuesday, September 13, 2005 10:09 AM | Contributed by Jeff

New York investor Simon Glick has bought a nearly 10 percent stake in Six Flags Inc., a move that followed Redskins owner Daniel Snyder's bid to take control of the amusement park company.

Read more from The Washington Post.

Tuesday, September 13, 2005 10:38 AM
Yet another "Player"....CO, I didn't know you were carryin' around THAT kind of cash! ;)

Is Simon Glick related to Jiminy Glick?

Honestly, the blood is in the water, sharks with enormous bankrolls see the opportunity to turn a quick profit. I doubt either of these guys is really interested in the LONG-TERM viability of SFI....just my take....and I hope I'm wrong.

+0
Tuesday, September 13, 2005 10:53 AM
I don't see how ANYONE would think they can turn a quick profit given SF's incredible debt and the apparently entrenched local management.
+0
Tuesday, September 13, 2005 11:05 AM
While looking for info on the closure of SFAW this morning I came across that same article in the business section,was gonna post it but looks like Jeff beat me to it.
+0
Tuesday, September 13, 2005 11:35 AM
This can ONLY be settled in the ring!

Flag-o-Mania XVIII - this one's for all the coasters.

available only on Pay-Per-View!

-CO

+0
Tuesday, September 13, 2005 11:37 AM
This kind of *quick profit* isn't based on gate receipts or in-park spending or anything like that. It's short-term fluctuations in stock price that anyone theoretically COULD take advantage of....but it helps (alot!) to have about a billion dollars to truly effect a change in the value of the stock.

The parks themselves would be better off if Glick, or Gates, or Snyder really wanted to stick it out and turn SF around to make the SF park business viable in the long-term...but that seems unlikely, given the givens...one of which definitely IS the huge debt load. Debt-financing of expansion isn't *necessarily* a bad thing...but with who's been in charge of SF for the past 10 years or so, then it's not good...

+0
Tuesday, September 13, 2005 12:46 PM
themedesgner- it is about the land. We need to worry. These "interested" players are only after selling off very valuable real estate and keeping only a handful of the profitable parks.
+0
Tuesday, September 13, 2005 2:27 PM
maybe that would do SF a world of good.

sparky - you are absolutely right, I didn't word this right. What I meant is that hopefully another chain or aspiring owner would buy them up and learn how to manage them right, and build relationships with the employees and guests and turn them into a true amusement park that provides a great experience.
*** This post was edited by brscoast 9/13/2005 2:28:12 PM ***
*** This post was edited by brscoast 9/14/2005 12:42:33 AM ***

+0
Tuesday, September 13, 2005 6:03 PM
Sure it might do SF some good, but what about the people who enjoy going to parks? These parks will be gone, not sold to another company. I don't care what your opinion of SF is, no enthusiast should want that.
+0
Tuesday, September 13, 2005 6:25 PM
Just remember it will be up to the loan holders to decide if any property gets sold. If it's not in the best interests of the loan holders then they won't be able to sell. In SFAstroworlds case the county has pretty much pushed them out of business by reducing the available parking so it really made selling off the property a viable choice. If people can't easily get to the park then it's just not reasonable to think the park can ecomically feasible.
+0
Tuesday, September 13, 2005 8:44 PM
^ I could see a whole lot of parks going, even profitable ones. SFMM: the land the park sits on and the high cost of real estate in CA along with property tax revenue that could be had if homes were on that area. Now compare that to a basically seasonal park and what they take in receipts on 2 mill guests and sales tax revenue............I'm sure the quick money would be to sell the land and redevelop. Who knows?
+0
Tuesday, September 13, 2005 10:44 PM
You can't overlook the "ego" factor in all of this. I think guys like Snyder, Gates and the others really think they can turn SF into a massive entertainment enterprise, although their ideas of what that should be are probably much different than mine and most people's in here.

To do that, I can see them selling off a number of parks, land, etc., and concentrating on only a few major properties-- maybe just enough to have more parks than the other chains, but certainly not 20 or 30.

The ego thing would come out again in the sites they keep. For example, they'd keep SFMM to try to beat KBF and Disney in Southern California. They'd want to win markets wherever they could and not just have small or medium sized parks in the middle of nowhere.

+0
Wednesday, September 14, 2005 8:26 AM
Maybe those you mentioned would, but if Burke stays in charge, isn't his background in real estate and not theme parks? I still think if the price was right even a somewhat successful park like MM could go, even though they are putting a new coaster in, just because the cash offered for the land might be more than the park expects to make, even after adding a major capital investment.

It's kind of like Drive in theaters. They did not just leave due to dolby surround sound, video and other developments, but at least in So Cal, the land became too valuable to have a business that only operated at night, with maybe a swap meet during the weekend day time.

I can count numerous Wal Mart's, Lowe's, and malls where once stood a drive in.

+0
Wednesday, September 14, 2005 9:47 AM
It would be a sad day if a place like SFMM got sold off because of the value of the land. But it WOULD NOT be the "loan holders" who would force this move. The loan holders are in the business of lending money, not managing or selling real estate. As long as the loans are not in default, they will let the status quo ride. Even if the loans did go into default, the lenders would probably try to restructure the loans, rather than force a sale of the land.

I would like to hear from Bill Gates what his ideas are. If he would be committed to the parks, and I mean all the parks, then he might be the guy to turn the company around.

+0
Wednesday, September 14, 2005 10:55 AM
Do you honestly think that Bill Gates cares enough to get involved with what he thinks Six Flags should be doing? Come on, his stake is worth something like $75 million at best. Gates isn't the one trying to take control. His investment firm has expressed its displeasure about the financial health and operation of the company, but he's got the richest software company in the world and a huge charity to run.
+0
Wednesday, September 14, 2005 3:09 PM
Bill Gates has other things to do, no doubt, but it would be nice if he would weigh in on the Six Flags situation. The fact that he is a major shareholder shows that he at least has a passing interest. Gates is a genius, and he is the one guy who has enough capital to acquire the company and not immediately need to start liquidating assets. The others seem only to be interested in a fast buck, have they ever even been on a coaster?
+0
Thursday, September 15, 2005 12:01 AM
He's a major shareholder with a company that constitutes a tiny, tiny fraction of his investment. Oh, and I'm sure he's super busy at PDC right now.
*** This post was edited by Jeff 9/15/2005 12:01:39 AM ***
+0
Wednesday, September 28, 2005 4:44 PM
Simon Glick's law firm on the Canary Wharf project was Weil Gotshal & Manges, the same firm that is advising PKS management.

The CEO of Weil Gotshal is Steve Dannhauser. The CFO of Six Flags is Jim Dannhauser. Related? I don't know.

But I suspect that Glick is there as a friend of management in order to head off Snyder and preserve the status quo.

So far, there has been nothing publicized that suggests anything is happening beyond Snyder's original offer.

+0

You must be logged in to post

POP Forums - ©2018, POP World Media, LLC
Loading...