EnglndPatriots6 Posted July 13, 2009 Share Posted July 13, 2009 Yes but premier parks owns the park(bought it before they bought SF) and then they bought six flags. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spaceace12 Posted July 13, 2009 Share Posted July 13, 2009 Six Flags...Premier Parks...all the same, they as one went into bankruptcy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnglndPatriots6 Posted July 13, 2009 Share Posted July 13, 2009 Then how are the rides on loan to a park they own? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coasterking2981 Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 A drop tower(unlikely), Huss flat ride, or even a euro-fighter would be good for the park. What about the Terminator Salvation clone that Shapiro said one of the parks was going to get? I feel it certainly proved itself here at SFMM, so maybe SFKK might be the one to get it. Its inexpensive as far as coasters go and its size makes it perfect as 'stepping stone' for kids to move up and conquer the bigger rides, while of course being thrilling enough for teens and adults. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnglndPatriots6 Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 That would be good, but the entire section needs a retheme and the section is about 1/2 the size of the space they had at SFMM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dj snow Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 I have a feeling that SF might pull the plug on this park soon... Companies in bankruptcy can break contracts (such as lease agreements) relatively easily. If Six Flags wanted to pull the plug on SFKK, their time in bankruptcy is a good opportunity to do so. The front-gate side (inside the perimeter road) is on leased land, presumably under a long-term agreement with the KFEC. That said, if the park truly is contributing to the bottom line, I doubt there'd be much reason to take such action. Time will tell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nitrofan Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 ^ I thought Premier Parks owns all of it?. One comment i have to say is that the accident wasnt entirely the parks fault it was mainly intamins. I say that becuase they found that it shouldnt have been built with exposed cables, and they wouldnt give them a new maintenance book for the ride either. But the GP doesn't care. People think that people die/get injured on coasters even when they don't. The last thing a park needs is an accident actually happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnglndPatriots6 Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 I'm just saying it doesnt make any sense that when she heard the findings on the ride why they didnt sue intamin also. If it was me i would have if thats what they found out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coasterking2981 Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 Six Flags did sue Intamin for the Superman Tower of Power accident, as well as the cable's manufactor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnglndPatriots6 Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 Then wheres the lawsuit? And i was talking about the girl's family not suing intamin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nitrofan Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 Then wheres the lawsuit? And i was talking about the girl's family not suing intamin. Does it really matter? Intamin made a pretty big mistake, and I'm sure they learned their lesson from Six Flags' Law Suit. All that matters now is that SFKK has a bad reputation from that accident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coasterking2981 Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 ^^I'm sure the girl's family never even heard of Intamin. Most of GP probably dont know the names of the companies who design and build their favorite rides. http://coasterbuzz.com/Forums/Thread/54812.aspx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfkk339 Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 Im, sorry but the accident is over....Yes it was horrible but it's time to move on. Lets look in to the future of Kentucky Kingdom and the promise (or failure) that it holds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnglndPatriots6 Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 ^^ Thanks the newspaper up here never reported this lawsuit. And yes They did know about Intamin because the company name was said over and over in the states investigation and was repeated over and over on the news stations Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cathyJ Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 ^^ Thanks the newspaper up here never reported this lawsuit. And yes They did know about Intamin because the company name was said over and over in the states investigation and was repeated over and over on the news stations Not saying its the case here but perhaps the paper had some "hidden" ties to Six Flags or even Intamin, or maybe either one of those companies paid off the paper in exchange for the lack of coverage on that lawsuit. I have doubts it happens very much with TV or radio but with newspapers, many of them have been known to "overlook" a story on purpose for various reasons such as politics, friends and of course..money even though the same story can very well appear in the other media such as radio and televison stations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnglndPatriots6 Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 Maybe, but i doubt it. In 1996 when one of the coasters(star chaser) had a accident they reported there was a serious mechanical failure that resulted in it and the park sued them. And when all that happened with the drop tower they always slanted it towards the girls side. Which is why I dont think they was paid off since they have had a long history of appearing to be against the park. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoasterCard Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 ^ Not exactly the newspaper. WHAS 11 was the television station that made the comments on starchaser. They said that the ride was unsafe and that the park took off a very important safety device of the ride causing one train to collide with another. The Courier-Journal knows the general image of the park and wanted to entice readers by pandering that image. The public wants to feel right about its views and do not take well to being proven wrong. Give the people what they want to hear as the old saying goes. It's not always about alliances/enemies between companies (which I guarantee that the courier has no affiliation with anyone at Intamin) It's just about ratings and money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoryPa77 Posted July 15, 2009 Share Posted July 15, 2009 The only rides that were ever leased were before Premier bought the park in '97 and that was the Giant Wheel, the Quake and maybe a few other rides. This was done because they had a lease deal with Vekoma back in the early goings of the park. Chang was not leased though, it was a big deal for them to round up $12 million for it. Premier Parks does not exist anymore, they assumed the Six Flags name in 2000. My understanding is this is still one of the few profitable parks in the whole chain. I think there are other parks in the chain that they've dumped millions into and aren't getting the returns they hoped. They haven't dumped that much in SFKK and they've still pulled nearly a million every year anyway. Well, that number has probably dropped some, but everybody's numbers have dropped lately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnglndPatriots6 Posted July 15, 2009 Share Posted July 15, 2009 ^If they want the park to stay profitable they need to add a few good rides to the park Quake was removed and replaced by the tornado. I wonder what will happen to the Wheel tho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FeelTheFORCE Posted July 15, 2009 Share Posted July 15, 2009 ^ Keeping a park profitable doesn't always mean it's necessary to constantly add new rides. Proper maintenance, general upkeep, strategic management tactics, etc. are what attract guests, not building a new ride every year. If anything, building too many big rides too quickly kills parks, not helps them. Take Six Flags Worlds of Adventure, better known as Geauga Lake, for example. Rides play a big role, but they aren't the sole factor. Take Kennywood for example, it's been 8 years since a major ride was added, and they're doing just fine. Why do some people think that all there is to parks are major rides and thrill machines? I laugh at the fact that one some other forums, people are already speculating, wondering, and even looking for clues as to what Kings Island's next coaster is going to be. KI just got a $22 million thrill machine, I bet it'll be a good 5-8 years before their next major ride is built. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfkk339 Posted July 15, 2009 Share Posted July 15, 2009 Keep in mind though, its been 6 years since the last major ride has been built. And it seems like the keep up of rides is also not good at SFKK. SFKK is profitable and deserves more from SF then it's getting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnglndPatriots6 Posted July 15, 2009 Share Posted July 15, 2009 ^Exactly. They need one good ride in my opinion to keep people going to the park. I wouldn't call greezed lightnin a new major ride. The last real one to me was Chang and that was over 10 years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ginzo Posted July 15, 2009 Share Posted July 15, 2009 Why do some people think that all there is to parks are major rides and thrill machines? Because so many of the US parks have been run with that mentality. Bigger, faster, taller = better. To speak to the general topic, SFKK does need a nice, new addition. What would be a suitable addition for a park of this size? GCII or Gravity Group woodie? Themed custom Maurer Söhne spinner? While I'd love an Intamin Mega-Lite and think this would be perfect for the park, I doubt this is in the budget or even desired by Six Flags who seems to only want family rides these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfkk339 Posted July 15, 2009 Share Posted July 15, 2009 GCI would be perfect. There is a little height restricton of 100 feet in the Twisted Twins area which puts a limit to what you can put back there but a GCI is fairly cheap, smooth, fun and under the height restriction. Bizarro treatment would be great for Chang and referbish T2 with new trains and new paint, along with atleast 3 new flates...would make SFKK a really good park. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FeelTheFORCE Posted July 15, 2009 Share Posted July 15, 2009 My point being, for parks in general, it doesn't always have to be a roller coaster or thrill ride. Some people always seem to have the mindset that a roller coaster is the only thing that's going to boost attendance, which isn't true. With that said, I doubt SFKK will add any coaster any time soon. They still have the whole Twisted Twins and Mile High Falls area to deal with, and I wouldn't expect any new major coaster like a GCI until that is sorted out. If anything at all is done in the next year or so, I wouldn't be surprised to see a coaster makeover like Bizarro/X2, as already stated. 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