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

Cedar Fair Corporate Development Discussion Thread (FUN)


Recommended Posts

Well I don't know about on a corporate level, but the past 2 years the "local management" at Dorney Park have been making a lot of poor decisions, and it shows in the final product. I and a lot of my friends who are season passholders and go on a regular basis have said the same thing - it's not as fun since there's a lot of "corporate atmosphere", the employees aren't allowed to actually have fun with the guests, and there have been a LOT of very good, guest-centric employees that have been there for years (and thus have a lot of good experience) and interact with regular repeat customers to keep them entertained, coming back, and spending money, who have been fired for very stupid reasons within days of the end of the season just so they don't have to pay out the seasonal bonus. As a result of that short-sightedness, those employees are not allowed to return to ANY Cedar Fair property (as employees), and what's left is a bunch of rookies who are just looking for a paycheck in a poor economy with no team-thinking or loyalty to the company whatsoever. The guests are the ones who suffer as a result.

 

If that shortsightedness permeates the corporate level, then there's no way this deal will go through because they won't be looking at the long term - only the short term (which looks to be making a quick buck before they get out of the game entirely - both on a management level and a unitholder level)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find this situation very interesting. I'm not defending anyone here, but this illustrates the challenges of being a CEO.

 

Jerry Yang of Yahoo got skinned and eaten alive for rejecting Microsoft's buy out offer because he thought it was too low. Mr. Yang was almost certainly wrong in this perception, but it was his honest opinion.

 

Now Kinzel and Company are getting a beat down for going to the opposite way: Selling out too low.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this low sellout is because Kinzel & Co may be scared of the economy, and with a lot of people drawing parallels with Six Flags, they don't want to be around and/or publicly traded if things pan out similarly where the best option seems to be bankruptcy. Not to mention that I'm sure he stands to lose a LOT of money if the company does declare bankruptcy.

 

The other thing that I think really needs to be pointed out is that the company was trading just barely over $9 a share before this deal was announced. It immediately skyrocketed to over $11 (doesn't take a genius to figure THAT one out) and continued trading to the point where I was able to sell all my units for $13, and it actually got up to $13.56 before coming back down, and is still trading in the mid-$11 range.

 

To me, it looks like the value of the company went up about $2.50/unit as a result of this deal. Not a bad feat in the present economy, especially if there were people who WERE interested in getting out but didn't want to do so at $9/unit.

 

Add in the delay of the vote of this deal, maybe they are merely waiting until they get to a more favorable part of their yearly value roller-coaster when the seasonal parks start opening and hoping that if/when this deal falls through the unit price is that much higher. Although we hear reports and confirmations of large unitholders who vow to vote no, for all we know Kinzel et. al. will vote no with their own shares to reap the value increase the deal has apparently created.

 

Maybe I'm missing something here, but as I'm typing this, I'm starting to wonder if maybe this was an interesting move on their part to try to increase (or at least prevent decrease of) the value of the company over the winter inactive months with no intent to actually sell in the long run.

 

Edit: typo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find this situation very interesting. I'm not defending anyone here, but this illustrates the challenges of being a CEO.

 

Jerry Yang of Yahoo got skinned and eaten alive for rejecting Microsoft's buy out offer because he thought it was too low. Mr. Yang was almost certainly wrong in this perception, but it was his honest opinion.

 

Now Kinzel and Company are getting a beat down for going to the opposite way: Selling out too low.

 

In this particular case, I see it as shareholders seeing right through the real intent of the buyout: to bail management out. They clearly have no idea how they are going to pay off the debt from buying Paramount Parks. Pulling the dividend was the backup plan, which would be fine if they had enough revenue to eventually restore it...but right now, they don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^Your theory is possible in the sense that I could see it, but heres were it falls apart. If Cedar Fair did this as an attempt to raise the companies value through the winter with no intentions of selling, what were they going to do next winter, or the winter after that? It just doesn't seem realistically possible that they would've done something of that nature.

 

I also agree that most CF parks have a "corporate" feel to them, and it's not just generic naming. Uniforms, scenery, employee morale, nothing about any of their parks that I've been to (Knott's, Cedar Point, Dorney Park, Great America, Geauga Lake and King's Island*) None of them had anything going on for them other than the rides themselves. I know it seems a bit off color, but overall Cedar Fair has created a product that is bland and IMHO has peaked and without this sale going through I can only see it either plateauing or declining. We'll see what happens in about a year or so...

 

*Visited in 2007, so Paramount's contracts/policies were still in effect despite Cedar Fair's ownership

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In this particular case, I see it as shareholders seeing right through the real intent of the buyout: to bail management out. They clearly have no idea how they are going to pay of the debt from buying Paramount Parks. Pulling the dividend was the backup plan, which would be fine if they had enough revenue to eventually restore it...but right now, they don't.

 

I wonder how many of these unit holders objected when Cedar Fair opted to buy Paramount Parks. I could be wrong, but I don't remember so much outrage from back then.

 

Also, a lot of the shareholders are not long term investors, but sharks coming in to feed off this situation.

 

Note: I'm definitely not on Team Kinzel's side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like most acquisitions, it seemed like a good idea at the time:

 

The only way it could fail is if there was some perfect storm where proposed cost savings couldn't be found and/or the merging of cultures was mismanaged. Even if those two things DID happen, the parks were ALL profitable anyway and in the worst case payments could still be made on the debt. Reducing the debt payments or extending deadlines would be as simple as refinancing. It's not like the banks are going to stop lending, right?

 

 

Anyway, pretty much everything that could go wrong did go wrong (some in the company's control and some out of their control). There was no reason to object to the purchase at the time. It seemed like a really good plan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what happens when shares plummet again down to $9 or lower in a few months? I mean, an investor should know the stock price will jump to that of the sale price if there is an offer out there. However, some investors did/do not get that all. Of course the sale price was on the lower side, but this is also a company looking down the barrel at over 1.5 Billion in debt with shrinking profits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^Your theory is possible in the sense that I could see it, but heres were it falls apart. If Cedar Fair did this as an attempt to raise the companies value through the winter with no intentions of selling, what were they going to do next winter, or the winter after that? It just doesn't seem realistically possible that they would've done something of that nature.

They could be banking on the economy improving by the end of the summer leading to more guest/guest spending and thus higher profits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Investors didn't object to the sale because they were still paying a dividend. I'm sure it would have been different if they said "this deal will only work if attendance and revenue levels remain constant. We have no room for error or your dividend will get cut."

 

They took a gamble and they lost. There's no way they didn't know it was a gamble too. Nearly doubling how many parks they owned, going away from being fiscally responsible by taking on so much debt, and still expecting to pay out a dividend....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I don't know about on a corporate level, but the past 2 years the "local management" at Dorney Park have been making a lot of poor decisions, and it shows in the final product. I and a lot of my friends who are season passholders and go on a regular basis have said the same thing - it's not as fun since there's a lot of "corporate atmosphere", the employees aren't allowed to actually have fun with the guests, and there have been a LOT of very good, guest-centric employees that have been there for years (and thus have a lot of good experience) and interact with regular repeat customers to keep them entertained, coming back, and spending money, who have been fired for very stupid reasons within days of the end of the season just so they don't have to pay out the seasonal bonus. As a result of that short-sightedness, those employees are not allowed to return to ANY Cedar Fair property (as employees), and what's left is a bunch of rookies who are just looking for a paycheck in a poor economy with no team-thinking or loyalty to the company whatsoever. The guests are the ones who suffer as a result.

 

If that shortsightedness permeates the corporate level, then there's no way this deal will go through because they won't be looking at the long term - only the short term (which looks to be making a quick buck before they get out of the game entirely - both on a management level and a unitholder level)

 

Not to disagree with you, but this is happening at damn near every park in the country, not just Dorney. It's an industry-wide problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kinzel got Cedar Fair into this mess, patrons of the parks are not happy nor are the shareholders. If this is the only way Kinzel thinks he can salvage the company he ought to stop aside and let someone who cares about the shareholders and patrons take over. This is very self serving on his part to protect his own money.

 

Does anyone remember Linens and Things? Apollo Group took them private and folded the company 2 years later when they couldn't turn the company around quick enough. Do I trust the Cedar Fair parks to these guys? Hell no, especially if Kinzel is still in charge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Investors didn't object to the sale because they were still paying a dividend. I'm sure it would have been different if they said "this deal will only work if attendance and revenue levels remain constant. We have no room for error or your dividend will get cut."

 

Not necessarily. My former employer went through a very similar deal with a failed expansion about 10 years ago. They used to pay a fat dividend, but had to cut it to buy the other company. Not only did investors not revolt, the share price rose like crazy for a time. Of course, the whole thing went south and the company is still paying off the debt to this date. But at least they're servicing the debt and not going bankrupt. Of course, this isn't the amusement industry, but it's the same basic principle: Investors love growth. They love it enough to mentally minimize the risk they're taking to get it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^Very true. But I still contend the strength of Cedar Fair was entirely in the dividend and being a safe investment. The amusement industry has never been a "hot" investment. Investors loved the prospect of growth and their dividend. There's no way the deal would have been approved if management was to have said "we're going to cut your dividend so we can grow the company."

 

Now it's playing out exactly like Larry said. Kinzel and Co. got themselves into a huge bind and can't find their way out of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.amusementtoday.com/

 

Cedar Fair, L.P. today announced that a Special Meeting of Unitholders will be held on Mar. 16, 2010. At the Special Meeting, unitholders will have the opportunity to consider and approve a proposal concerning the previously announced acquisition by affiliates of Apollo Global Management, pursuant to which Cedar Fair unitholders will receive $11.50 in cash for each Cedar Fair limited partnership unit that they hold. Cedar Fair unitholders of record as of the close of business on Feb. 12, 2010 will be entitled to vote at the Special Meeting. The meeting will be held at The Sandusky State Theater in Sandusky, Ohio.

 

A definitive proxy statement related to the merger was filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission today and will be mailed to Cedar Fair unitholders. It will also be available on the company's Web site at http://www.cedarfair.com/ir/proxy.

 

The definitive proxy statement contains important information about the terms of the merger, and unitholders are urged to read it carefully. The company noted that it will release its fourth quarter 2009 and year-end results after market closing on Feb. 11, 2010.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100214/BUSINESS03/100219805/-1/BUSINESS06

 

Saddled with debt and forced to eliminate its quarterly dividend, Cedar Fair LP had to decide last fall what kind of ride to board for its future. Its financial options weren't strong, with attendance down and a national recession curbing entertainment spending. The Sandusky amusement park company needed a way to pay down its debt. A sale was a possibility, but there was no line of parties seeking to buy a ticket. The firm didn't seem headed for bankruptcy, as its rival Six Flags Inc. did, but it faced the possibility of being in default of its loans, which topped $1.6 billion from its 2006 purchase of Paramount Parks, analysts said. So, Cedar Fair Chief Executive Dick Kinzel announced on Dec. 17 the firm's $2.4 billion acquisition by Apollo Global Management LLC, a New York private-equity firm. Apollo would take Cedar Fair private, arrange new terms for its debt, and pay shareholders $11.50 a share, a premium from the $9 price of the stock before the deal was announced.

 

Now, two big shareholders have revolted, opposing the deal because, they say, the purchase price was too low. Analysts say they could kill the transaction, which goes to a stockholders' vote on March 16. But industry experts don't think the operator of 11 amusement parks and six water parks across the country will have difficulty reducing its debt or staying solvent whether the deal is completed or not. “They've been pretty tight-lipped about a scenario that involved them remaining public, or what is their financial condition going to be like,” said Jeff Thomison, an analyst with Hilliard Lyons LLC of Louisville. “I've posed the question, but only got some answers. They're seemingly not anxious to talk about it.”

 

Scott Hamann, an analyst with KeyBanc Capital Markets in Cleveland, said that even before the Apollo deal, Cedar Fair's financial position was sound and nowhere near a Chapter 11 bankruptcy, the route that Six Flags took in June. “They were on the path to fixing their balance sheet by paying down debt,” he said. From its original $1.77 billion in debt in 2006, Cedar Fair has reduced the amount owed to $1.6 billion.

 

If the Apollo deal is completed, the debt levels that have concerned investors will be addressed, and the company will no longer have public stock or worries about keeping its stock price up, analysts said. If the deal is scuttled, the company will be in a better position to pay off its debt because it will have two big shareholders holding nearly 30 percent of its stock. Analysts say those holders won't be as concerned about resuming the dividend, so that payout could go toward loans.

 

But Justin Lumiere, head of the special situations/risk arbitrage group for Summit Securities Group of New York, doesn't think Mr. Kinzel and the rest of Cedar Fair's management will have an easy time if the Apollo deal falls apart. The two big shareholders — hedge funds Q Funding III and Q-4 Funding, controlled by Texas investor Geoffrey Raynor and mutual fund Neuberger Berman LLC — could direct Cedar Fair management to sell land to raise money for debt payments or could make other demands, Mr. Lumiere said. The two shareholders, each of which bought up additional stock after the Apollo deal was announced, could seek seats on Cedar Fair's board. Mr. Raynor's two hedge funds and his personal investments control about 18 percent of Cedar Fair's stock, and Neuberger Berman holds nearly 10 percent.

 

The Knott family, founders of Knott's Berry Farm in California, which Cedar Fair acquired in 1997, could line up with the investment funds. The family, with 3.6 percent of the stock, has stated displeasure with the sale but has not indicated how they will vote.

 

If 34 percent of shareholders vote against the Apollo deal, it will be dead. Apollo's $11.50 share-price offer amounts to $635 million. The stock, traded under the symbol FUN on the New York Stock Exchange, closed Friday at $11.44.

 

At the time the Apollo deal was announced, Mr. Kinzel said: “We've been hit as hard by the recession as anyone has. We think it's in the best interest of the unit [share] holder to do this deal.” He contends the $11.50 price is fair, and no other bidders came forward during a 40-day period after the announcement.

 

Steven Davidoff, a mergers expert, former corporate lawyer, and a law professor at the University of Connecticut, said it is unlikely Apollo will raise its offer to try to get shareholder approval. “I think they're financially savvy individuals. I don't think they want to overpay for assets and they have the discipline to not do that,” he said. “No other bidders have emerged.”

 

Stacy Frole, Cedar Fair's director of investor relations, said that whatever happens, the company is prepared for the 2010 season. “Throughout this whole process we continue to move forward with our operations, because whether we're sold or not we still have parks to run. That part of our strategy has not changed,” she said.

 

Mr. Thomison, the Hilliard Lyons analyst, said that, far from the picture of struggle that was Cedar Fair in December, the company has promising prospects. At the start of the fourth quarter last year, Cedar Fair's overall company value was not high enough — under the terms of its agreement with its lenders — to allow it to pay shareholders a dividend, something it had done for 22 years. So the dividend, an incentive for many individuals to invest in the firm, was eliminated. “Now without the distribution, they have plenty of cash flow to start paying down debt and de-leveraging the company,” Mr. Thomison said.

 

Mr. Hamann, the analyst with KeyBanc Capital, said the company has stated it is not in danger of defaulting on its debt. To stay out of default, the company's total value (as measured in its earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization) had to be at least $293 million by the end of 2009. It was $300 million.

 

Cedar Fair announced last week that it had a profit of $35.4 million last year on reduced revenues of $916 million. It had a $4.5 million loss in 2007 and a profit of just $5.7 million in 2008. Its debt soared in 2006 when it purchased Paramount Parks. Some analysts and investors criticized that purchase as overburdening Cedar Fair because of the amount of debt it took on. Cedar Fair's premier park remains Cedar Point in Sandusky, but in the Paramount purchase it snapped up other key parks, including Kings Island near Cincinnati and Canada's Wonderland near Toronto.

 

The recession hurt the amusement park industry as people stopped or reduced spending for such entertainment. But Mr. Hamann said the industry has bottomed out. “2009 is the worst we'll ever see on consumer discretionary spending side,” he said. “2010, while it may not be dramatically better, it will not be dramatically worse.”

 

Rick Munarriz, an analyst for the Motley Fool online investor Web site, said, “I don't think this is a do-or-die summer for the company. Most companies are going to have a decent summer compared to last summer, so there's no reason to think [Cedar Fair] will do worse.”

 

Mr. Hamann said Cedar Fair has positioned itself well by building $20 million roller coasters at two of its parks, Carowinds near Charlotte, N.C., and Kings Dominion near Richmond, Va., and a $10.5 million water ride at Cedar Point. And its Kings Island park will benefit by Six Flags' announcement this month that it is closing its Kentucky Kingdom amusement park in Louisville, a two-hour drive from Cincinnati. “In this industry, you need to feed the beast. You've got to bring people in and you've got to spend money — on new attractions — to do that,” Mr. Hamann said. “I think they were on the path to being in good shape this year.”

 

Robert Routh, an analyst with Wedge Partners LLC of Denver, said Cedar Fair had been reluctant to cut its dividend because of the high volume of individual investors wanting the payout.

 

But now it has big shareholders who may be less concerned about having that payout and who may “applaud” its elimination if the share price rises after debt is reduced, he said.

 

Mr. Raynor and Neuberger can sit on their shares for a few years, wait for the share price to rise, then cash out, he added. “They can sit on it for 10 years if they have to,” he said.

 

Mr. Lumiere, with Summit Securities Group, said his analysis of Cedar Fair's worth determined that its value is $13.19 a share. Given that Q Funding has paid $12 for some of its shares, would $13 be good enough for it to cash out? Probably not, Mr. Lumiere said. “I think they're just kind of waiting it out to see what Apollo does. The question is how much do they want. They don't want $13. They're looking for $15, $16.”

 

http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/11/the-end-of-cedar-fairs-ride/

 

The proxy spells out the details the unit holders of Cedar Fair have been waiting for. The meeting will be held on March 16 at the Sandusky State Theater in Sandusky, Ohio. Cedar Fair has a large number of local unit holders, so expect a big turnout if you go. Hopefully, Cedar Fair will do the right thing and serve its unit holders copious amounts of coffee and doughnuts.

 

The meeting itself increasingly appears to be a fait accompli. On Feb. 4, Q Investments amended its S.E.C. filing to report that it had raised its ownership stake to 17 percent of Cedar Fair, plus another 1 percent ownership equivalent in cash settled equity swaps. Meanwhile, on Feb. 1, Neuberger Berman converted its 13G into a 13D filing and reported an ownership stake of 9.7 percent in Cedar Fair. Neuberger also announced its opposition to the acquisition. The conversion from a 13G to a 13D allows Neuberger Berman to take positions that involve the control of Cedar Fair, something the Schedule 13G for passive investors does not permit.

 

The combined funds now have a 26.7 percent voting stake in Cedar Fair. The vote to approve the transaction requires that two-thirds of all Cedar Fair’s shareholders vote yes. It appears that this transaction, at least in its current form, is heading towards failure. Interestingly, Cedar Fair’s units are now trading around the offer price, down $2 a unit from just a few weeks ago, an indication that it is unlikely that Apollo will increase its offer or that a white-knight bidder will emerge.

 

So, why even bother continuing forward? There are a lot of reasons. First, Cedar Fair is releasing its earnings on Thursday after stock market closes. I have no doubt that the financial results will be bad (Update: see for yourself), and that management and the board will use this to justify the low price offered by Apollo. Second, scheduling a vote provides time to negotiate a deal with the objecting parties and still have a meeting very soon thereafter. Third, pushing things forward gives time for Apollo to think more about raising its offer. Fourth, the merger agreement mechanics allow for Cedar Fair to adjourn the meeting if the vote is close in order to attempt to corral more votes; this provision quite common these days after the Delaware case of Mercier v. Inter-tel, which allowed such an adjournment. Finally, if the agreement is voted down, Apollo receives its fees and expenses up to $6.5 million. This last amount could be paid now in a settlement, so is likely not a good reason, but just remember, Cedar Fair shareholders, that if you vote no, Apollo will still be left with something if you are worried about it.

 

We also have another milestone coming up on Friday. That is the current deadline for nominations to the Cedar Fair board for its next annual director election if Cedar Fair is not acquired. We will get some indication of how hard Neuberger Berman and Q Investments are willing to play — as well as their long-term commitment to the company and their relationship with Cedar Fair — if they actually try to nominate directors to this board. Cedar Fair effectively has a staggered board, so the parties could only replace three directors, but this would include the company’s current chief executive, Richard Kinzel. Remember, though, that Neuberger Berman does not have a history of this type of activism and Q Investments has filed as a passive investor signaling that it may not be willing to take these steps. Nevertheless, if I were them, I would nominate since it would be a sign that there would be someone to look out for the company if the Apollo deal collapses.

 

If Q Investments and Neuberger Berman do indeed nominate directors, expect Cedar Fair to finally adopt a unit holders rights plan — a form of poison pill that will cap the amount that these entities can accumulate. I am actually a bit surprised that Cedar Fair has not done so already — perhaps I am missing a reason that Cedar Fair is holding off on this action. Apollo certainly would give its approval for Cedar Fair to do so, something required under the merger agreement.

 

In other words, we still have an interesting ride ahead of us as we await to see how this vote plays out.

 

The new version of the proxy statement is available for those who want to read it to see what changes were made from the last version. But you really don’t need to bother. It appears that the S.E.C. elected not to review it. Since the S.E.C. did not review the transaction, Cedar Fair took this opportunity to make very few changes to this version of the proxy statement from the initial preliminary proxy filed with the S.E.C. This includes almost no changes in response to what are now more than 10 lawsuits challenging the disclosure in this transaction.

 

Here, I suppose the S.E.C. did not agree with my argument in a previous post that Cedar Fair should be required to file a Schedule 13e-3 for a going-private transaction. And indeed, Cedar Fair still has not filed as one. This may have been a result of the relatively small amount management will own of the acquired Cedar Fair. Management will own approximately 1 percent of the post-acquisition company and have options to acquire another approximate 2.75 percent.

 

Interestingly, and perhaps showing the strategy of plaintiffs law firms these days, the geographic focus of the numerous lawsuits is in Sandusky, Ohio, and not Delaware, despite the fact that Cedar Fair is organized under the laws of Delaware. Ten lawsuits have been filed in state court in Sandusky, but only one in Delaware, and the Delaware lawsuit has been stayed. The lawsuits are no doubt in Ohio because the plaintiffs think they have a better chance of a more favorable forum and perhaps a judge who is unfamiliar with the law of Delaware and how hard these cases are to win. Take notice Delaware.

 

Here, I have to comment on a funny allegation that Cedar Fair describes in the proxy and that is made in the complaints. Cedar Fair states that the complaints:

 

Allege[] that Rothschild and Guggenheim Securities: (i) colluded to select the same 16 companies to use in connection with their public company analyses; (ii) failed to include four family-themed resorts in their public company analyses; (iii) selected the same two companies in connection with their precedent transaction analyses, one of which, plaintiffs contend, was not an appropriate comparable; (iv) were inconsistent with respect to how they conducted their public company and precedent transaction analyses; and (v) used the same discount rates and perpetuity growth rates in their discounted cash flow analyses.

 

For those who know how subjective the valuation underlying fairness opinions can be, you have to laugh that the investment banks basically did the same work and used essentially the same reference points for their analysis. While some overlap is inevitable, this appears to be too coincidental and once again highlights why fairness opinions are often not worth the paper they are printed on. It also begs the question why two opinions were needed when there was no special committee.

 

But that is an aside on what is now the main driver of this transaction — Apollo’s willingness to raise its bid and the possibility of a settlement. There appears no indication for either of these events right now, but a month is a long time in the corporate arena.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stacy Frole, Cedar Fair's director of investor relations

 

Would it be accurate to assume that if the deal DOES miraculously go through and the company is turned private under Apollo that her position would no longer exist?

 

That exact position would no longer exist but that doesn't mean she would not end up in a new role at the new company. For an outsider it is hard to determine what positions/personnel will be eliminated in a merger/takeover scenario.

 

From a personal standpoint, I had to speak with Cedar Fair investor relations a couple of years ago and Stacy was very courteous and quick in returning my e-mail and providing the information I needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm starting to understand this a little bit better. My major concern is this though: will appolo be backing off once the debt is managed, and will cedar fair be proposing stipulations to a contract signed with them. Also, $11.50 seems like an ok price, are people just disagreeing with it because of aggravation or honest concern?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^I personally think it's just that. 11.50 is an "ok" price. If I held CF shares I'd vote "yes" to the merger because I know the stock price in the amusement industry always fluctuates and 11-12 bucks is a dead-on average overall. I just think that most regular people who hold those shares fear change and like previously mentioned think "this company [Apollo] doesn't know anything about parks! What if they run it into the ground?"

I wonder what the people who feel that way think is the next best course of action. The article Jedimaster posted that the company [Cedar Fair] wasn't as close to bankruptcy as we think but they're tight lipped about the scenarios as to what. I personally think if the don't go private, they're going to sell assests. They're going to shrink work force. They're going to cut spending. Whether this deal goes through or not, we are going to see a completely different [and probably much smaller] Cedar Fair with less parks, and less infrastructure in those fewer parks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^And that's what I mean by "ok" price. Yes, you'd take a loss, but what if you bought your stocks when the price hit $6 around September of 2008 (rough estimate as I remember my semester had just started) then would your perception of the deal vary?

The price Apollo is offering sucks for anybody who bought share for more than $12. But nothing this company is doing as of late shows that its going to raise on its own. I could be wrong, and I hope I am, but if this sale doesn't work out, it's going to be a long trek back to solvency.

Link to comment
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/