OFortuna

Its not like Kinzel didn't say anything that isn't true. Nor did he say anything particularly self aggrandizing. Telling a room full of managers in the amusement industry that giving away your gate is a bad idea shouldn't be a news flash anymore.

Cedar Point's glory days came when they removed the old stuff and put in new attractions. Raptor wasn't just put in a blank space, you know. elsewhere: Yeah, probably not. Though, if they do see the "bottom drop out," the only kind of activity that could cause that at the moment would likely take out Blackstone, Six Flags, and PARC too.

There isn't a scenario out there that involves CF going down without the hobby (as far as it is in this country) being essentially doomed. At that point, you'd better really like taking 17 hour flights to Abu Dhabi.

And those two parks are markedly different affairs than Disney, Universal, or Sea World. Again; its an understanding of what it is they need to provide for the market they're in. Dollywood and its food and shows might succeed wildly in a place like Pigeon Forge where buses full of old folks and families alike pour in during their season. The same balance might not succeed as well elsewhere. Look at how Fiesta Texas was doing pre-SF. Where is Opryland? So how is it that all the go kart tracks make money? Its a resort town that caters to a wide spectrum and Dollywood is a major anchor to it.

I'd argue the reverse. If you build a major themer in a resort town, you shouldn't be dying for attendance. After all, the people are already there. As long as you have a decent enough product, you should see bodies through the gate. Just look at Lake George, Weirs Beach, any of the Jersey Boardwalks, Santa Cruz Beach Boardwalk, etc. Universal and Busch didn't choose to build parks in Orlando just because the weather was good, you know.

Contraction is contraction and however "deep red" it was, CC wasn't making money. Overall, in the case of CF, I'm not seeing many properties running into deep losses right now. Do you? I'm gonna go on a limb and say that they are pretty versed on what the markets they're operating in are looking for. Maybe what they do wouldn't fly in Branson, but its argurable that what flies in the same town that Yakov Smirnoff runs nightly shows in might not succeed in Sandusky, Vaughn, or Mason.

In theory, it could go Mac tomorrow or to UNIX. It won't though, because Windows already took over the market. Only way to potentially compete is to offer something at an immensely lower price like Google's free solutions. Microsoft won the war almost two decades ago. As always, this is a YMMV type of thing. However, the number of operators that can be expected to repeat their success in the way CF can is, well, small. One can argue Six Flags isn't at that level yet in terms of quality on a universal level, much less being successful. In fact, while Cedar Fair is essentially stable, everyone else (Six Flags, Herschend, etc) is in a state of contraction.

Six Flags didn't have the extra cash to play with because they used virtually all the credit that was available to them (a couple billion dollars). The subsequent selling of some 20+ parks is a direct result of their need for liquidity when they could no longer rely on banks for loans. The big advantage for CF is that the Paramount properties, you know, made money to start with, unlike a laundry list of the Premier/SF acquisitions.

Cars in the US are every bit the necessity Windows is, and neither is comparable in their market to amusement parks. However, the greater point about having a lousy service dooming you is a truism that goes essentially without saying. Whether or not you believe CF offers lots of well run but ultimately souless collections of thrill rides is sorta meaningless if it turns out that the public actually likes well run but ultimately soulless collections of thrill rides. Free market and all that. And that is why SFMM is constantly the subject of potential sale rumors and the most negative thing most people can say business wise about Cedar Point is that the .25 cotton candy wasn't the draw they hoped (but they still were in the black).

The modern Cedar Fair built their share of the market over the course of 25 years. Regardless of what coaster enthusiasts think, they have positive cash flow, which is something Six Flags essentially never had after being sold to a bunch of real estate developers. In fact, if you think about it, Six Flags was run like the real estate industry in the last 10 years: seemingly endless amounts of development funded with tons of poorly concieved loans that are ultimately backed by even more loans to try and get the first few waves of development to keep stable. Cedar Fair, on the other hand, didn't generally believe the idea that the industry had entered a new world where every attraction could be paid for from new visitors in a single season and spaced new attractions out. They're still here. The majority of the chain Six Flags bought or built between 1996-2000 isn't gonna be under their banner.

They have no choice but to due to the bankruptcy. The minimum price is less than 1/10th what the park originally cost. At that price, they could be doing yearly attendance of 400,000 or so (which is a pretty lousy number) and probably break even. Its one third of what CF paid for Geauga Lake, just to give you some idea. Additionally, they would incur none of the old debts, given that this is ostensibly a liquidation to pay off debtors. As pointed out earlier in thread: Building a park is generally a losing proposition. Buying a park someone recently built and lost lots of money has a far better success rate. The point about it being potentially sold "part by part" is a red herring. Of course that's an option: this is a liquidation of the company's assets. When it goes to auction they have no choice but to legally present it as such. edit: For the sake of comparison, Wild West World cost $30 million to build. Its a full themer at FEC price.

Visionland closed god knows how many times. Jazzland's second season was abruptly shortened. I believe Bonfante Gardens went short in its first season also. DLP was astoundingly close to closing for a Disney park till they sold out to the middle eastern investor group.

Oh good lord. And so because it had the potential to not meet your lofty vision of amusement park nirvana, I as an enthusiast am better of having never visited? Or millions of other potential guests? That's some ego you've got there. Well, I know off the top of my head you've got two much larger coasters in the park, so I'm going with them first. So, its not a headliner? I'm not taking anything personally. I just think you're wildly offbase. Quality only matters to such a degree. You can build a Michelin three star in Cameroon, but that doesn't mean people will eat there. Again, covered already in vigorous detail. The failings of the business plan have nothing to do with how good the park was.

Interesting side note: The number of newly built mid-large theme parks in the west to make money in their initial entrance to the market is pretty low over the last two decades. Visionland and Jazzland both needed to get to their second/third buyers before they began to actually start breaking even. DLP is a particularly infamous example. IOA never quite met expectations. Gilroy Gardens is on its second owner/manager. WBMW Germany and Madrid are too.

Okay, you explained why it is you didn't rush out there, but not why you seem to actively dislike the park and are actively happy about its demise. You not liking Hard Rock Cafe's IPs doesn't tell me why amusement hobbyists are better off without a theme park. I didn't know it was intended to fill the same space for HRP that X2 does at SFMM (ie, a headlining attraction). Certainly news to me. The Walibi model is a damn forceful ride. If I had a choice of a B&M in a field or that thing, I'd pick the mine train. YMMV and all the rest. Additionally, I'm not arguing the position of how themed it was using primarily some other dude's opinion as my basis and not, you know, my own personal opinion. The reasons you're giving are absurd. The owners were "mismanaging" and "conceited" because, essentially as you define it, the park opened in the first place. The nerve! I'm not arguing one way or the other about the park's quality. I think the issue wasn't quality but location and cost. And I think its fallacy to say that we're "better off without it", as if its closure somehow will ensure strength elsewhere in the industry. Market location was everything. If it is purchased and continues to run as HRP in the future, it has a far better chance of success. After all, whomever buys it will do so for a whole lot less than $400,000,000.