Jump to content
  TPR Home | Parks | Twitter | Facebook | YouTube | Instagram 

Kentucky Kingdom (SFKK, KK) Discussion Thread

P. 401: Herschend Enterprises named majority partner and park operator

Recommended Posts

Will this property ever work as a large scale corporate amusement park? It's wedged between Holiday World and Kings Island. A "coaster war" would likely be a fail. Also, this property, being in an ugly part of town and cut in half by a bridge, doesn't exactly project "squeaky clean wholesome family fun".

 

It has once been a large scale corporate amusement park and it can be that once again. If it wasn't for Six Flags taking over and not taking care of this park like any other park such as Great America, Georgia, Magic Mountain, this park would have made it as being a Six Flags park. Almost every year since the park went over to the Six Flags name, we had been losing attractions while places like Holiday World and Kings Island have been gaining attractions. We havent seen a decent fresh coaster since ed hart added Twisted Twins. Greezed Lighting is o.k., but it isnt really... Major like the Voyage, Diamondback and etc.

 

The birdge make this park sort of unique, no other park is like.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 10.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

It's neither cheap, easy, or practical to dig a 100 foot deep tunnel. Apparently Roller Coaster Tycoon is catching on again.

Herschend was and is a different brand than Six Flags.   There is one certainty. Kentucky Kingdom will not be receiving a launched wooden roller coaster any time soon.

Yeah, I think the only 'concern' is because people see this park going more the way of Celebration City or Wild Adventures than becoming the next SDC or Dollywood.  I think it will stay pretty much th

Posted Images

But heres the thing. Six Flags has been focusing on the waterpark for quite a while, and I actually like that because I live less than 30 minutes away from SFKK and the summer can get quite hot. Yes the removal of Chang has made us very angry with them, and the closure of Twisted Twins made a new group on Facebook, but the waterslides are actually cool for once. Plus Six Flags was going to be expanding the waterpark even more if they were to stay (I wish Six Flags could stay). It would have been amazing if SFKK would have used all of the land as a waterpark, but doing that would also piss me off.

 

Also, Greezed Lightnin' had a wait time less than 10 seconds, I LOVE IT!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Twisted Twins was supposed to open back up in the 2009 season with 100% new wood and tracking. The northwest territory was supposed to open up with a new Thomas town, this info came form a couple of KK ride supervisors who where giving this info at a ride supervisor meeting in 2008.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good thing we got to see this park on our mid west tour in 2007.

 

Cant wait to do another tpr trip (only done the one) cept my gf and i just bought a house and planning to rennovate so might be on the backburner for another year.

 

Thanks Rob

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.wfpl.org/2010/02/14/negotiations-with-new-kentucky-kingdom-operators-may-start-in-march/

 

At least four companies have approached the Kentucky State Fair Board about taking over the Kentucky Kindgom amusement park property. But officials aren’t likely to meet with those companies until next month. In early March a bankruptcy judge is expected to rule on Six Flag’s request to reject its lease on Kentucky Kingdom.

 

While he doesn’t expect the lease to stand, Fair Board President Harold Workman says he won’t speak with any potential new operators until the ruling. “I think it’s just prudent on our part not to be out immediately soliciting a new operator while you still have a contract in place; i.e. Six Flags’ contract is still a good contract,” he says. Workman declined to elaborate on the companies that might take over the Kentucky Kingdom property, but he says the fair board will be looking for a new operator. It’s also unclear how long it would take for a new operator to open a new park at the site.

Link to post
Share on other sites

FYI - The State of Kentucky has filed suit to prevent Six Flags from removing any rides.

 

 

DOVER, Del. (AP) -- Kentucky officials are suing bankrupt theme park operator Six Flags Inc. over ownership of rides and equipment at a shuttered amusement park in Louisville.

 

State officials contend that the rides are considered fixtures to the land on which Kentucky Kingdom sits, much of which is owned by the Kentucky State Fair Board.

 

In a Delaware bankruptcy court filing, Kentucky officials are seeking a declaration that the state owns the rides, and an order preventing Six Flags from removing them.

 

The state filed the lawsuit late last week after learning that Six Flags had positioned trucks to begin removing equipment. It preceded the lawsuit with a letter to Six Flags instructing the company not to remove the rides.

 

Six Flags has filed a countersuit, claiming that it owns the rides and that the lawsuit by Kentucky is prohibited by the bankruptcy code. Six Flags is seeking court permission to remove the rides and a permanent restraining order prohibiting the state from trying to take possession.

 

A pretrial conference in the dispute is scheduled for April 14.

 

Kentucky officials have said at least four companies have expressed interest in taking over Kentucky Kingdom, and that a new operator could be in place by summer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would think this would pretty easily be on the side of Six Flags this time around. From my perspective it seems like just moving from one rental property to another, you bring your own furniture. If Six Flags bought the rides and paid to have them installed (probably paying state tax fees anyways) there is no reason I can see that they wouldn't be entitled to removing the rides and/or relocating them to other parks.

 

The only thing I can think of is that the land owned by Kentucky might have had a clause in their lease that would claim ownership of anything built on the property, but not only would that be stupid of Six Flags, but also extremely naive on their lawyers part...

 

This is besides the question of what they would do with all the themeing...would a new operator not have to buy a license to all of the different IPs?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you but if the rides legally don't belong to Six Flags than they shouldn't be allowed to take them period. But rides like Greesed Lightning, Road Runner Express, and what ever else they put in than I feel they should be allowed to take those. But really all we can do is agree or disagree but there will be no facts unless they better explain the lease agreement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

^Exactly

 

Not to oversimplify the situation, but I would bet the contract states that permanent structures/rides are the property of the farigrounds and that Six Flags is saying that if they can take a structure/ride apart and move it, then it is not permanent.

 

And now it is up to the lawyers the defend their definition of "permanent"

Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree with you but if the rides legally don't belong to Six Flags than they shouldn't be allowed to take them period. But rides like Greesed Lightning, Road Runner Express, and what ever else they put in than I feel they should be allowed to take those. But really all we can do is agree or disagree but there will be no facts unless they better explain the lease agreement.

 

Greezed Lighting is the only ride and USED ride from another park! that Six Flags has added. Road Runner was added by Ed Hart (Kentucky Kingdom original owner) after a 10 year investment plan from 1990-2000. Road Runner also took the place of the former coaster Vampire which Six Flags took out in 1999. I believe that Six Flags don't have any rights to any rides but T2, Blizzard River, and also Mile High Falls, because those are the only rides that are fully on their property. Remember that every ride that Six Flags had added replaced a original Kentucky Kingdom ride, besides Greezed Lighting. The park also had dozens of rides when the park went under the Six Flags name, but the ride count had went down year by year in the past decade and most rides wasn't replaced that Six Flags has took out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would imagine that anything that was added under Ed Hart world be considered a Premier/Six Flags addition since their "purchase" of KK was likely just taking over the park's lease from Hart. The fairboard might have rights to any rides that were installed prior to the reopening in 1990, but checking the parks Wikipedia entry it doesn't look like many of those rides are still around.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ed Hart Invested From 1990-2000

 

When SIx Flags Took out a Ride They replaced it. Like Tonado Replaced the quake and Deluge replace Choas and The Great Race. Most rides were never replaced such as thriller bees, tea cups, and many more. Also mainly every flat ride in the park that was added was by Hart. Six Flags only added 2 flats which were small kiddie rides.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If that's the case, then Six Flags would own all of the rides. Not a single ride is left from the original 1987 season, because the only two rides that re-opened with the park in 1990 was the Starchaser and the Tin Lizzies. The Starchaser was repurchased by Ed Hart, and then was sold to Darien Lake in 1995, but all that remained of the Tin Lizzies was the track, new cars were purchased by Ed Hart.

 

I'm taking a tourism property law class right now, and if they go by a literal interpretation of the law, then (as long as it was a very basic contract), Six Flags can take anything that doesn't damage the land. For example, if you lease an apartment, it comes with nothing, much like Kentucky Kingdom did when Ed Hart began the lease. You move in your furniture, much like Ed Hart did with the rides. He sold the rides and the lease to Six Flags for $64 million (which I think is for the additional land and buying the rides), similar to if you sold your furniture to someone who agreed to sublease from you. Now, your landlord is saying your furniture is his property.

 

Technically, anything that doesn't cause a permanent change to the land is considered personal property, and should be the property of Six Flags. However, anything that makes a permanent change to the land is considered a fixture, meaning that Six Flags would have to leave it or remove it and turn the land back to its original state.

 

The way I see it, Kentucky doesn't have ownership of anything but the land, buildings and other infrastructure on their property. I don't think Six Flags is trying to remove any of that, they just want to get the rides off the land and give it back to the fairgrounds.

Link to post
Share on other sites
scroll down to the year 2000, he even added rides when his company didn't own the park in the year 1998, 1999, and 2000.

 

It only says it was Ed Hart's "10 year plan" it could be possible for Six Flags to take over on finishing the plans because it would not make sense in investing on a buissness you don't own.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It just like a child being taking away for the parent and the parent still want to take care of the child. In this case Ed was the Parent and The Kingdom (everyone in louisville call it that, hopfully its the parks new name or KK lol) is the Child

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's a stronger argument that Ed Hart didn't spend a dime on the additions after he sold the park to Premier. Premier may have honored that plan and installed the rides that were in his 10-year-plan, but I would go as far to say everything 1999 and later was payed for by Premier, maybe even 1998 (depends on when Twisted Twins was payed for)

 

But saying Ed Hart payed for it is like saying Six Flags payed for Wildwater Kingdom to be installed at Geauga Lake, it doesn't make sense. Business doesn't work that way. Ed Hart sold the property in 1997, he's not going to go and invest more money in it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, Hey what can I say? Somebody is going to get there A$$es kicked and I'm very glad that IT AIN'T GONNA BE ME!!!

 

But the downside to this legal battle is that no matter which party wins this case, we (the riders, the amusement park flyers, and those that live in Louisville that no longer have a home park anymore) are the losers; lawsuit cases such as these can tie up in courts for years to come. And by the time something is settled, the rides that have been sitting dormant may not work or need tons of $$$ to get them back into operation.

 

{NOTE: I know that money is green, not blue, but BLUE shows up better on these post than GREEN does.}

 

"I'll be available as a seat cushion to whomever it is that do get their rear end kicked!"

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use https://themeparkreview.com/forum/topic/116-terms-of-service-please-read/