Cobra Commander Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 I wonder if Time Warner want them back? lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bolliger&Mabillard Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 ^Think of the money they'd save on the licensing fee for Looney Tunes characters if Time Warner bought them back. That right there would put a dent in the debt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDCOASTERFAN Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 ^ The economy is going to get better at some point. I wouldn't expect any sales (of parks) to go through until the economy picks up, and companies are viable again. Until that point, it will have to be part of Six Flags plan to restructure once Chapter 11 is no longer a choice. I would have to think their plan is extensive and fully prepared as they've had a good year and a half to confer with creditors and other experts to get through this while keeping the parks running. Right now, it's in everone's best interest to keep the cash flowing in. As for the purchasing of new rides, it sounds to me like a smart move to keep adding capitol to the parks up and until they file. After filing, I'm pretty sure all capitol ex will be temporarily frozen. Wether or not the economy improves SFI will still be in trouble as they simply don't have the cash on hand to make the necessary improvements(adding new rides where needed as opposed to simply where wanted) that will bring people back into the parks.Ever wonder why I stopped going after 2007? That's right it was because of the rides(or lack thereof) being added to the park & that had been an ongoing problem since 2002 when the previous managment went on a "let's give rides to SFGRAM,SFGRADV & SFMM every year & screw the rest" spree that Shapiro seems hellbent to continue. The bankruptcy protection may just give them the needed cash to make these improvements but they have to be made in the right places,not the wrong ones for any positive outcome to be achieved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cobra Commander Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 ^ The economy is going to get better at some point. I wouldn't expect any sales (of parks) to go through until the economy picks up, and companies are viable again. Until that point, it will have to be part of Six Flags plan to restructure once Chapter 11 is no longer a choice. I would have to think their plan is extensive and fully prepared as they've had a good year and a half to confer with creditors and other experts to get through this while keeping the parks running. Right now, it's in everone's best interest to keep the cash flowing in. As for the purchasing of new rides, it sounds to me like a smart move to keep adding capitol to the parks up and until they file. After filing, I'm pretty sure all capitol ex will be temporarily frozen. Wether or not the economy improves SFI will still be in trouble as they simply don't have the cash on hand to make the necessary improvements(adding new rides where needed as opposed to simply where wanted) that will bring people back into the parks.Ever wonder why I stopped going after 2007? That's right it was because of the rides(or lack thereof) being added to the park & that had been an ongoing problem since 2002 when the previous managment went on a "let's give rides to SFGRAM,SFGRADV & SFMM every year & screw the rest" spree that Shapiro seems hellbent to continue. The bankruptcy protection may just give them the needed cash to make these improvements but they have to be made in the right places,not the wrong ones for any positive outcome to be achieved. Agreed. Shapiro has been avoiding other parks like SFKK for a long time and no new rides have been put in for a long while. The park could be a big money maker if they add more attraction and clean it up a bit. Heck, Kentucky doesn't have any major amusement or theme parks beside Six Flags. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDCOASTERFAN Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 ^ The economy is going to get better at some point. I wouldn't expect any sales (of parks) to go through until the economy picks up, and companies are viable again. Until that point, it will have to be part of Six Flags plan to restructure once Chapter 11 is no longer a choice. I would have to think their plan is extensive and fully prepared as they've had a good year and a half to confer with creditors and other experts to get through this while keeping the parks running. Right now, it's in everone's best interest to keep the cash flowing in. As for the purchasing of new rides, it sounds to me like a smart move to keep adding capitol to the parks up and until they file. After filing, I'm pretty sure all capitol ex will be temporarily frozen. Wether or not the economy improves SFI will still be in trouble as they simply don't have the cash on hand to make the necessary improvements(adding new rides where needed as opposed to simply where wanted) that will bring people back into the parks.Ever wonder why I stopped going after 2007? That's right it was because of the rides(or lack thereof) being added to the park & that had been an ongoing problem since 2002 when the previous managment went on a "let's give rides to SFGRAM,SFGRADV & SFMM every year & screw the rest" spree that Shapiro seems hellbent to continue. The bankruptcy protection may just give them the needed cash to make these improvements but they have to be made in the right places,not the wrong ones for any positive outcome to be achieved. Agreed. Shapiro has been avoiding other parks like SFKK for a long time and no new rides have been put in for a long while. The park could be a big money maker if they add more attraction and clean it up a bit. Heck, Kentucky doesn't have any major amusement or theme parks beside Six Flags. True but that trend actually started with former CEO Keirian Burke beginning with the 2002 season & really hasn't stopped since. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RCFreak Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 Agreed. Shapiro has been avoiding other parks like SFKK for a long time and no new rides have been put in for a long while. The park could be a big money maker if they add more attraction and clean it up a bit. Heck, Kentucky doesn't have any major amusement or theme parks beside Six Flags. Obviously not or SFKK (or insert any other park fanboys complain about not getting new rides) would have new rides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goatdan Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 ...they simply don't have the cash on hand to make the necessary improvements(adding new rides where I wanted as opposed to simply where needed) Fixed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Clinksalot Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 Obviously not or SFKK (or insert any other park fanboys complain about not getting new rides) would have new rides. Exactly. If a park is performing well, it will get new stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cgodsey Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 Rumors are flying around in the financial world that SIX is declaring bankruptcy today at close of business. If you are still holding stock, you might want to sell it so you can recoup some of the money before the shareholders get left holding the flaming bag of crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thrillerman1 Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 Sir Clinksalot wrote: Exactly. If a park is performing well, it will get new stuff. See that's the thing I've just never understood. To me it would seem that the parks which are doing well don't need anything new to attract visitors. The visitors are already clearly coming to the park in droves. Why not add to the parks not doing so well in order to attract visitors? I'm listening to the replay from today's 4Q investor call. Should be interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoasterNews.Net Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 They won't declare bankruptcy until they absolutely have to. They are looking at giving current bond holders 85% of the company, 10% goes to PIERS holders, and the other 5% goes to common stock holders. There is only 1 large bond holder that refuses to talk but everyone else is basically on board for the debt-to-equity exchange because Six Flags has turned it around. They had positive cash flow for the first time EVER last year even with the crappy economy. Check out these articles: http://washington.bizjournals.com/washington/stories/2009/03/16/daily10.html http://www.coasternews.net/2009/03/15/six-flags-bankruptcy-and-you/ http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/14/business/14flags.html?_r=3&scp=2&sq=Six%20Flags&st=cse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manic Monte Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 Sir Clinksalot wrote: Exactly. If a park is performing well, it will get new stuff. See that's the thing I've just never understood. To me it would seem that the parks which are doing well don't need anything new to attract visitors. The visitors are already clearly coming to the park in droves. Why not add to the parks not doing so well in order to attract visitors? I'm listening to the replay from today's 4Q investor call. Should be interesting. Um... which parks aren't getting investments? Mark Shapiro has done a great job of adding new attractions to each park. Just because you personally aren't happy with what some parks are getting is a completely different issue, than parks being ignored. Not a single SF park is being ignored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoasterNews.Net Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 In the conference call today Shapiro said that ALL of the parks would be getting new attractions in 2011. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thrillerman1 Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 Manic Monte would you consider a concert series at SFKK as an investment or as an attraction? It is said to be "new for 2009" on the website. It is always interesting to learn how people define investment and attraction. Actually for the most part I'm really happy with Shapiro. Considering the utter mess he inherited, I would say he's done a very amazing job! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manic Monte Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 ^ I wouldn't call it a major investment, nor an investments that's going to give an enthusiast a wet dream. But it's one that families will appriciate, and it's marketable. This is a business, it's not always about making thrillseekers happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDCOASTERFAN Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 In the conference call today Shapiro said that ALL of the parks would be getting new attractions in 2011. Yeah & watch "new investment" mean another crappy waterslide for SFA when what they need is a new coaster or two & some flats instead of turning the place into another GL's WWK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jew Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 ^Maybe that's actually in the best interests of the company... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Clinksalot Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 See that's the thing I've just never understood. To me it would seem that the parks which are doing well don't need anything new to attract visitors. The visitors are already clearly coming to the park in droves. Why not add to the parks not doing so well in order to attract visitors? I'm listening to the replay from today's 4Q investor call. Should be interesting. So because Magic Kingdom and Disneyland pull in 30 million people a year between them, they shouldn't add anything new??? That's flawed business thinking, especially in a business that is guest driven. Let's say you have a year where you have, let's say 3 million visitors at Magic Mtn. And then those same 3 million come the next year. And let's even say those same 3 million come the next year (to be fair). Wouldn't you think by the next year some of those 3 million might be saying "you know, I've been riding the same things for the past 4 years with nothing new, I'm going to Knott's instead this year". But ... if you are continually adding new things to ride, new things to do then you are then getting a loyal customer. You also have to remember that what the "General Public" wants and what "coaster enthusiasts" want are very different from a business perspective. So to you, adding a Wiggles World, water ride, etc may kind of suck. But for the other 95% of people, it would be good for. SoCal is a very demanding market. There are what, 7 "major" parks between Valencia and San Diego? There's the beach and TONS of other things to do. The parks in SoCal realized a LONG time ago that they have to consistently add new stuff to keep people coming each year. I went to SFMM every year between 1979 and 2007. Most years at least 10 times, some years WAY more than that. Because of the state of the park, I stopped going. Of course, turns out I stopped going when the park started improving. But once you have a loyal customer, you want to do whatever it takes to KEEP that customer. I think Shapiro get's that. So much so that I'm actually excited to go to SFMM on Sunday. I can't remember the last time I was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thrillerman1 Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 I think we are kind of getting at the same thing...keeping people coming back to the park for more than one season, which is my point with the concert series at SFKK being considered as a new attraction. There may be one or two artists a person or family wants to see...maybe more...then again maybe none. Popular live entertainment is a good marketing tool to get people to the park, but then what does the park have to offer for the family not interested in the live entertainment choices and also for the long term that lasts more than one season? I think your analogy with Magic Mountain is exactly what I'm getting at with SFKK and adding new infrastructure such as a Wiggles World or Thomas Town to the park - an investment with a long term return for many years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jew Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 Every market is unique. It's not entirely flawed to say that a good performing park can go a few years without adding something new. It depends on the competition, the reasons for being successful, and many other factors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manic Monte Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 ^ You hit the nail right on the head. This is what most people don't get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Clinksalot Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 I think we are kind of getting at the same thing...keeping people coming back to the park for more than one season, which is my point with the concert series at SFKK being considered as a new attraction. There may be one or two artists a person or family wants to see...maybe more...then again maybe none. Popular live entertainment is a good marketing tool to get people to the park, but then what does the park have to offer for the family not interested in the live entertainment choices and also for the long term that lasts more than one season? I think your analogy with Magic Mountain is exactly what I'm getting at with SFKK and adding new infrastructure such as a Wiggles World or Thomas Town to the park - an investment with a long term return for many years. Good point, it doesn't all have to be a ride. I mean, look at Disney's "Celebration" thing. It's done wonders for Disneyland (not sure if it's had much of an impact on WDW though). I know alot of people thought DCA's "Rockin' the Bay" thing was a bad idea, but I can think of at least 3 or 4 bands we made a point to go and see at the park. Heck, even something like "Rockin' Space Mountain" or "Rockin' CA Screamin'" brought people to the park. Joey, I agree with your post, which is why I had like 3 years between attractions in my post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDCOASTERFAN Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 I think we are kind of getting at the same thing...keeping people coming back to the park for more than one season, which is my point with the concert series at SFKK being considered as a new attraction. There may be one or two artists a person or family wants to see...maybe more...then again maybe none. Popular live entertainment is a good marketing tool to get people to the park, but then what does the park have to offer for the family not interested in the live entertainment choices and also for the long term that lasts more than one season? I think your analogy with Magic Mountain is exactly what I'm getting at with SFKK and adding new infrastructure such as a Wiggles World or Thomas Town to the park - an investment with a long term return for many years. Exactly my point as well because when the park goes year after year with no new rides people in the area(including myself) will lose interest & go elsewhere,especially if there's a competitive market such as the mid atlantic region. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 As Jew said it depends on the park, situation, and market. IOA hasnt really gotten anything in 10 years (streak which will be broken with the opening of HP soon, but still) and id consider that a fairly succesful park. Disneyland Park hasnt really gotten a new major e-ticket in like 15 years and that park is always packed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the ghost Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 Nemo may not be a "E" ticket attraction, but it is always completely packed. Disneyland is actually really smart for changing the subs to Nemo(I know, I miss the 20,000 leagues to) but Disney made something everyone knows. If you go to Disneyland, you will see Winnie the Pooh is kind of a flop(unless your in Japan) because Winnie the Pooh is a much older character. Disneyland and IOA are different than most parks, because they are actually theme parks. Many parks(such as Knott's) have "theming" but are not near Disney standards. For a lot of people(me included) Knott's is a coaster park, they just go on coaster and leave. Disney is one of the companies that has the awesome ability to make people want to ride everything(dark rides, coasters, kiddie rides, go see the shows) which is why they don't really need a new E ticket. Also, Disney does not get rid of many rides, but they give them refurbs and other things to make then new and exciting. Also the reopening of Space Mountain was technically an E ticket attraction, because the entire ride changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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