CHILLERLC1 Posted February 10, 2009 Posted February 10, 2009 By 2005 I bought Mr. Six glasses and a bowtie at my local SFGADV.
robbalvey Posted February 10, 2009 Posted February 10, 2009 I changed the topic title since I agree with Larry, this isn't really"news" and the article was more of a commentary. --Robb
KDCOASTERFAN Posted February 10, 2009 Posted February 10, 2009 I'm not sure if this is completely accurate and up to date but, doesn't Six Flags Inc. just manage SFOT, SFOG, and SFStL. I thought i read somewhere that the three original parks were owned by a few investors and families. If SFI was to go under these three parks would be kind of safe for the time being? They only manage SFOT & SFOG so those two are safe.SFSTL is owned & run just the same as the remainder of the parks however.
CHILLERLC1 Posted February 10, 2009 Posted February 10, 2009 So according to the article I guess Six Flags won't be opening a Krispy Kreme, Claire's, and Drive Thru Rite Aid Stores. I have that soft spot for Six Flags and Krispy Kreme if anyone on the list could survive.
bpmitchell Posted February 10, 2009 Posted February 10, 2009 If Six Flags can turn a profit and not give Mark Shapiro huge bonuses, then yea they may survive 2009. The problem behind the economy is that all these big fat suit dressed ceos and shareholders walk off with dividends and huge bonuses, and make us look like a bunch of hoes.
cycamps Posted February 10, 2009 Posted February 10, 2009 It doesn't really surprise me that they would think that. It's obvious that Six Flags hasn't been doing well, and many people have thought that they would go out of business.
thrillerman1 Posted February 10, 2009 Posted February 10, 2009 But what about Six Flags Cuts? Will I still be able to get that Schwarzkopf makeover?
ParkTrips Posted February 10, 2009 Posted February 10, 2009 The problem behind the economy is that all these big fat suit dressed ceos and shareholders walk off with dividends and huge bonuses, and make us look like a bunch of hoes. Its not like those execs aren't working for that money! Secondly, the common stock has (correct me if I'm wrong) never paid a dividend, and the preferred shares have only paid out three times
ginzo Posted February 10, 2009 Posted February 10, 2009 If Six Flags can turn a profit and not give Mark Shapiro huge bonuses, then yea they may survive 2009. The problem behind the economy is that all these big fat suit dressed ceos and shareholders walk off with dividends and huge bonuses, and make us look like a bunch of hoes. While I'm no fan of the general pattern of executive compensation these days (aka high pay even if you suck), Shapiro's total compensation package is obviously a very small fraction of the total expenses of Six Flags. In other words, he and the other C-level execs could reduce all their total compensations to $1 each and that wouldn't save the company by itself. Not even close.
rbpia Posted February 10, 2009 Posted February 10, 2009 Isn't Mr. Six gonna save the company? What they really need is the power of the terrible towels. Or Sham-Wow towels could do just as well... You just saved Six Flags Inc.! I can see a ban on towels in Hurricane Harbors and a Vince lookalike "Get your Sham-Wow now cuz I can't do this all day!" Ron "You thought the locker policy and food pricing were bad" Patton
Bolliger&Mabillard Posted February 10, 2009 Posted February 10, 2009 I still find it hard to share you guys' optimism that SIX will turn a sustaining profit in 2009 through the 'DAYcation'. I do believe that theme parks will see a decent amount of local travellers this upcoming peak season. But that's what we saw last year when things were bad. Now things are worse and the waters rising. 2008 saw people taking smaller vacations and ditching interstate travel. 2009 is predicted to be worse so I see the barbeque/public park renaissance versus the 'pay-for-play' concept that theme parks operate on. If people are looking to cut back to save cash, paying 45 bucks to spend a day with the family seems expendible when you can do it at a public park or venue for pennies on the dollar. I don't see any them park operator doing well this forthcoming peak. And since SIX already has one foot in the grave...
larrygator Posted February 10, 2009 Posted February 10, 2009 ^you bring up good points. Are people going to choose a BBQ at home or at a public park versus a day at Six Flags? However, I think Six Flags is hoping people that might normally spend $3,000 on a week long Disney vacation opt instead to spend $200-$400 (depending on the home park) for SF season passes for the family. In the end only time will tell.
FlyingScooter Posted February 10, 2009 Posted February 10, 2009 I still find it hard to share you guys' optimism that SIX will turn a sustaining profit in 2009 through the 'DAYcation'. I do believe that theme parks will see a decent amount of local travellers this upcoming peak season. But that's what we saw last year when things were bad. Now things are worse and the waters rising. 2008 saw people taking smaller vacations and ditching interstate travel. 2009 is predicted to be worse so I see the barbeque/public park renaissance versus the 'pay-for-play' concept that theme parks operate on. If people are looking to cut back to save cash, paying 45 bucks to spend a day with the family seems expendible when you can do it at a public park or venue for pennies on the dollar. I don't see any them park operator doing well this forthcoming peak. And since SIX already has one foot in the grave... i agree completely. If over 500k americans lost jobs in January alone, imagine the next few months before the main park season begins in the north. I can't imagine it's going to get better for quite a while. Has anyone else heard about the price of oil going up due to the possiblilty that the stimulus package may go thru? Remember last time gas seriously shot up? It was right when people started getting the stimulus checks.
Jew Posted February 10, 2009 Posted February 10, 2009 There is no doubt that Six Flags is a troubled company, but there have been a few positive things this year. For the first time, the company is cash flow positive, meaning that they actually brought in a profit this year. While the odds are still stacked against them to survive as a company, many of the individual parks are profitable and would be sold off if the company was liquidated. I just don't see the bigger parks like SFMM, SFGAdv, SFGA, SFOT, SFOG shutting down at all. They were cash flow positive because of how their debt was structured. Once those payments become due...they are still in trouble.
Manic Monte Posted February 10, 2009 Posted February 10, 2009 ^ People keep saying SF is in trouble, but no one is saying what that means for the company. Does this mean possible Chapter 11 and restructuring or does this mean the destruction of the entire company? What does "in trouble" mean?
Jew Posted February 10, 2009 Posted February 10, 2009 ^It's too early to tell. If they can't yet again restructure their debt (which will be more difficult than ever given the current economic situation), something has to give. Selling assets, Chapter 11, severe cutbacks, and any other cost cutting/cash increasing things are all possible. But none of them will be good!
larrygator Posted February 10, 2009 Posted February 10, 2009 ^^ Too many variables to give an accurate answer. It all depends in how bad the lenders are doing in the economy right now. If the lenders overextended themsleves too much with other clients and can't refinance in a way that is beneficial to SF and themselves, the lenders could take over the SF properties. The parks are the collateral for outstanding loans. If the lender takes over a SF park, it very well could end up in the same limbo situation as HRP.
OldJJman Posted February 10, 2009 Posted February 10, 2009 If the lender takes over a SF park, it very well could end up in the same limbo situation as HRP. Larry, I'm NOT doubting you, as I KNOW you know way more about these things than I do. But, even *IF* a lender were to take over, wouldn't the SF properties still be considered a positive cash flow, by past proven performance records? (Attendance based) Wouldn't that still be reason enough to keep the parks open? To recoup whatever $$ they could? I mean even a smaller property like SFA, can really only bring in what the actual land value is, plus the rides liquidated at a basic "firesale" price. That wouldn't really recoup any significant funds to pay off any debtor (aside from Dippin' Dots). OTOH, I feel like the example of HRP, which had little to none, support base to speak of. Season pass sales were on the extreme edge of minimal, thus the projected income was nearly nil, with no guaranteed income for the park. Hence the closure and subsequent auction/liquidation. What I'm getting at is, if the turnstiles are still moving, wouldn't that be enough reason to keep them open, vs closure, and getting even less pennies on their (lent) dollars?? JJ
KDCOASTERFAN Posted February 10, 2009 Posted February 10, 2009 I still find it hard to share you guys' optimism that SIX will turn a sustaining profit in 2009 through the 'DAYcation'. I do believe that theme parks will see a decent amount of local travellers this upcoming peak season. But that's what we saw last year when things were bad. Now things are worse and the waters rising. 2008 saw people taking smaller vacations and ditching interstate travel. 2009 is predicted to be worse so I see the barbeque/public park renaissance versus the 'pay-for-play' concept that theme parks operate on. If people are looking to cut back to save cash, paying 45 bucks to spend a day with the family seems expendible when you can do it at a public park or venue for pennies on the dollar. I don't see any them park operator doing well this forthcoming peak. And since SIX already has one foot in the grave... Well keep in mind that gas prices HAVE come down to reasonable levels in recent months but if the parks don't have anything substantial to offer,especially in terms of operations & customer service then their attendance & profits are still gonna fall way short of expectations. CF doesn't seem to be hurting,at least nowhere near as bad as SF & their parks seem to turn a decent profit.....could it be that they provide gasp! a better experience that justifies the expense to the consumer than SF?
larrygator Posted February 10, 2009 Posted February 10, 2009 If the lender takes over a SF park, it very well could end up in the same limbo situation as HRP. Larry, I'm NOT doubting you, as I KNOW you know way more about these things than I do. But, even *IF* a lender were to take over, wouldn't the SF properties still be considered a positive cash flow, by past proven performance records? JJ Jeff - I have no more info than you. All I'm saying is the following, and it is just playing Devil's Advocate. The new owner might be faced with the following options. Selling the park (for development) and liquidating the rides and making $15 Million in one year or operating the park at a $1 Million profit per year. If they needs the cash quick to cover other bad loans, they might have to sell the park. That's the dilemma faced by HRP's former lenders. CF doesn't seem to be hurting,at least nowhere near as bad as SF & their parks seem to turn a decent profit.....could it be that they provide gasp! a better experience that justifies the expense to the consumer than SF? Untrue - Cedar Fair is in trouble also. The may announce on Friday that they are cutting the dividend paid to shareholders. This has increased every year for almost 20 years, even keeping it flat would show weakness, but they are considering cutting the dividend.
sfmmrules! Posted February 10, 2009 Author Posted February 10, 2009 If something happens to SFMM then all their coasters could be sent up to CGA. There's no way all of SFMM famous coasters would go to the scrap pile.
larrygator Posted February 11, 2009 Posted February 11, 2009 If something happens to SFMM then all their coasters could be sent up to CGA. There's no way all of SFMM famous coasters would go to the scrap pile. The coasters will go to whoever pays the most money. Scrapyard or another park, the seller isn't going to care if he needs the money.
senna Posted February 11, 2009 Posted February 11, 2009 If they are in that much trouble why are that painting their rides and building a new one? sorry if that sounds like a stupid question. I personally think the government will step in to help if it gets that bad, the parks bring people into the local areas so if they go a lot of shops will go.
ginzo Posted February 11, 2009 Posted February 11, 2009 I personally think the government will step in to help if it gets that bad, the parks bring people into the local areas so if they go a lot of shops will go. Most local governments are hurting financially just the same as everyone else. For example, my local county government can't even afford to build a new jail even though they desperately need one. The judges are sentencing people to jail, but when they report to jail they have to send them home because there is no room. And the Feds aren't going to touch an amusement park. They're just concerned with broader, systemic things like keeping the credit market afloat.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now