Who killed Geauga Lake?

[KDCOASTERFAN]

It was SFI under the premiere parks management that killd SFWOA/GL by not adding new rides to the park just prior to the sale to CF in 04 due in large part to their focus shifting toward SFMM & SFGRADV recieving ride after ride at the expense of the other parks.CF inherited a troubled park that SFI would've never sold if they could've kept running it at a profit but that's just my .002 cents.

 

Adding rides is exactly why the park was "killed" off - adding anymore would probably sealed its fault sooner. The park had too many assets for the amount of revenue/attendance that was generated. Hence why high-maintence rides like X-Flight were shipped out quick to help cut some of the huge maintenance budget.

 

Kinzel has gone on record (prior to the Paramount Deal) that one of his biggest regret was not purchasing Geauga Lake when he had the chance in the mid-90s from FunTimes Inc. If they purchased it then I think it would have been another story - I would guess Cedar Fair would maintain it as a local attraction not try to over-expand it.

 

The factors I believe are:

1) Too much, too fast - There is a reason no existing parks have added the amount of capital Six Flags did for the 2000 season. It throws off the balance sheet.

2) Six Flags directly went after Cedar Point (anyone remember the old SFO commercials - "We drove past Cedar Point to get here"). They went strong after the Detroit market - which was 4 hours+ away and had Cedar Point in-between. Whether it was marketing or captial they went after the wrong audience.

3) The area physically couldn't handle it - and the government didn't help. The park was a legal mess. Anyone who followed the park in the early '00s will remember the many legal battles the park faced (especially when it became SFWoA and it sat between two counties). Simple things like rerouting a service road was big point of contention in local court. The long-rumored hyper coaster was argued in court forever to try to get both cities to approve the height. Didn't help literally 50 feet from some of the rides were houses. The only real route to the park was a 10-min drive down a two lane road passed an increasing number of wealthy subdivisions whose residents didn't like the welcome attention.

 

I honestly believe Cedar Fair buying the park and reopening it as Geauga Lake was one of the better things that could have happened. Who is not to say SF wouldn't have killed it also ala AstroWorld? I attended the media ceremony for the "grand reopening" and just talking to some of the execs and hearing them speak there was one consistent message - they wanted to "bring back the fun" by transforming it back into a smaller local park. Maybe I drank the koolaid but that seemed to be the right idea - trim the assets to match revenue and attendance and get back to what made the park successful for the first 50+ years. They even brought in some of their top leaders from the Point.

 

Could CF have done a better job? Maybe a few things seemed to hurt them off the bat - including the park's rep with the local residents and government and some ticketing issues (i.e. fail with the season pass tie-in with Cedar Point). I think did the right thing by trimming the fat - honestly I wondered if they could've done more. Kinzel has also admitted removing the animals hurt more than they would have thought.

 

I think my point is the park survived for so long (considering a large number of Cleveland/Youngstown parks didn't make it) because it was a local place - trying to turning it into a large force didn't work as planed (who's not to say if it was built up over time as local infrastructure was expanded that it wouldn't have worked. Cedar Fair is always painted as the bad guy when it comes to the final closure but I can't help but see it as they bought a sinking ship and couldn't repair it fast enough to keep it afloat.

 

The way the public saw things however was that CF gave the impression that they were gonna start adding new rides rather than removing what was there & when that didn't happen they turned away in favor of the other two players in the region(CP & KI)I think that,had CF waited just a little longer to make an investment to replce x-flight & SV for instance it might've made a difference....using SFAW as an example SFI under Burke didn't make any investments before closing it citing lack of room when they could've removed outdated rides & replaced them with new ones to maintain public interest.

 

I would have to agree that SFI did indeed make a mistake in overexpanding the newly flagged parks & should've paced themselves out better as that would've given the public a feel for the new additions,and allow them to guage their response while at the same time saving money on the cost of new rides chainwide,the fact that the national economy tanked & has yet to fully recover didn't help matters either.

[Geauga Dog]

A couple more thoughts and I'll stop.

 

I believe that CF bought GL to prevent another company from successfully developing it to the point it competed with Cedar Point. The story I've always heard was that Busch originally offered to buy SFO before SFI counter-offered to buy Seaworld Ohio. In 2000, Busch obviously believed that they could successfully run both properties with the Seaworld brand name and consolidated overhead. I suspect that CF didn't want a competent operator like Busch (or even Kennywood) to buy and improve SFWOA.

 

And the competition between parks came to an end and I'm also including Kings Island in this. Having a monopoly here in Ohio sucks as now there is nothing that makes CP or KI special or unique.While CF has added much needed rides at Kings Island (Diamondback in particular) their influence is killing the atmosphere there. Hopefully Mr. Ouimet will change that.

 

I wonder if Parques Reunidos would have made an offer since they operate both theme and animal parks instead of going after Kennywood. We'll never know.

 

IIRC, those who purchased SFWOA season passes had the option to get a full refund up through June 30, 2004 (or they could exhange it for a GL pass). Had GL been honored at CP, the price would have been drastically higher. Otherwise, CP customers would just buy the cheaper GL pass. A CP/GL combo pass was available in 2005 and 2006 (and GL passes were accepted at other CF parks).

 

Another thing that sort of bit CF was they weren't going to accept vouchers/tickets from the Six Flags Read To Succeed program in 2004. There was such a large public outcry that they eventually changed their minds. Talk about making a bad first impression.

Edited January 10, 2012 by cfc

[cowboyjoe]

Honestly, I believe Cedar Fair bought Geauga Lake for the purpose of closing it. I heard and saw too much to believe that they tried to keep the park going. Obviously they had the intention of keeping the waterpark for the long haul, otherwise they wouldn't have built Wildwater Kingdom. Cedar Fair had a great return on investment with this deal. They killed one of their biggest competitors, continued to make a profit before closing the park, and got a ton of rides to market at other parks as "new" attractions. The Illions carousel was worth millions alone. On top of that there was a top notch B&M floorless and three other steel coasters that have found new homes around the country. Cedar Point got Planet Snoopy out of the deal and the other flats have been thrown all over the place. I don't think there's a single Cedar Fair park in the US that doesn't have a piece of Geauga Lake. Cedar Fair definitely made back more than they had spent to purchase the park. I'm sorry, but there's no way the park was failing as badly as they claimed it was. Cedar Fair cited stagnant attendance figures as a major factor in closing the park, assuming they were the actual attendance figures. I personally think it was impressive the figures stayed stagnant and didn't decrease. Operating costs decreased due to attraction removals and shortened operating seasons. These two measures are exactly the kind of things that would potentially drive down attendance, but they didn't. Therefore, net profit for the park should have increased each year under Cedar Fair management. Proportionally, attendance would have increased as well considering the seasons were shorter. Based on what I witnessed in the park, I also believe that the attendance figures were manufactured. What this all comes down to is that closing the park was an extreme measure. TOO extreme, I believe. This is simply my opinion and I respect those with varying opinions. The fact of the matter is that we will never entirely understand for sure what caused the ruin of the park. I personally think that Six Flags sold it too soon, but that's delving even further into the unknown. What I am sure of is that the Cleveland area is really missing a local amusement park, specifically Geauga Lake.

[Rollercoaster Rider]

I don't think Valleyfair, Canada's Wonderland, or Knott's got anything from GL but I'm probably wrong.

[larrygator]

Cedar Fair definitely made back more than they had spent to purchase the park. I'm sorry, but there's no way the park was failing as badly as they claimed it was. Cedar Fair cited stagnant attendance figures as a major factor in closing the park, assuming they were the actual attendance figures. I personally think it was impressive the figures stayed stagnant and didn't decrease.

 

Cedar Fair spent $145 million. Do you know how long it takes to make $145MM in profit? Not revenue, profit. Cedar Fair was nowhere near recouping their investment in this property. Many businesses sell for 10 times their current year's profit figure, at that pace Geauga Lake would have had the make a profit of $14.5 million per year to reach the break even point in 10 years.

 

Attendance dropped from 2,000,000 to 700,000 from the last SF year to the first CF year. I'm guessing that CF knew attendance would drop some due to the animals leaving. So, I'm estimating 1,500,000 was that break even point to make $14.5MM in profit per year. I could be completely wrong but seems like a logical assumption.

 

If CF was making money hand over fist it from Geauga Lake would have stayed open, that's how business works.

 

 

They killed one of their biggest competitors.

 

Come on, was Geauga Lake really a competitor to Cedar Point? Really?

[OISU8P]

If anything, they overpaid and lost money on the deal. They are still paying taxes on the land and even to attractions they moved \ sold I do not believe have a net worth of half the price (with depreciation and move costs). Also, not to mention the bad press for how it was handled.

 

I think CF wanted to make GL the equivalent of what Idlewild is to Kennywood. They failed though when their attention went to the Paramount purchase.

[TPOLMike]

Yes, Geauga Lake was a huge competitor to Cedar Point. Geauga Lake was extremely successful at hosting company picnics, something Cedar Point struggled at. With the eliminate of GL, companies that wanted to have a picnic had one of their top choices eliminated.

[MrSum1_55]

Overall, I would say Premier killed Geauga Lake. Premier was able to successfully convert Marine World Africa into a thrill park, now known as SFDK. Currently, all seven coasters now operating at the park were built in a four-year span. 1998 came Boomerang and Kong, 1999 Roar and Roadrunner Express, 2000 Medusa and Cobra, and 2001 V2. What SFDK did right was limit expansion to no more than two coasters every year. Four coasters in one year was simply too much; only one or two coasters were really needed each year. This way, the park could gradually ease in to becoming a major complex from being a family park, rather than trying (and failing) to make the immediate transition.

 

In terms of competition with Cedar Point, building rides gradually rather than all at once would have given locals more time to get used to Geauga Lake being a major theme park. If this had been done, management would also be able to cope better, as new staff could be hired over the course of several years, rather than one year. And, the gradual building of rides would not only cause more people to come, but give people a reason to come back. If a park builds 4 new coasters in one year, a person would be likely to come once, but, if no new rides were added the next year, would you be likely to go back? My answer is no, especially if the park was as bad as Geauga Lake was. However, one or two rides a year would allow more people to come back, and slowly build the park up to compete with Cedar Point.

 

If Geauga did not build four new coasters at once, one the next year, and none after that, I believe they would still be open today.

[KDCOASTERFAN]

^Well therein lies the problem,using your statement regarding new rides as a draw to get people to return.

 

SFO/SFWOA was doing well as far as keeping up the additions through 2001 & people were coming but SFI shifted their focus starting in 02 because the economy went bad & 9/11 didn't help.Prior to the 02 season SFI was spending 150/200 million on cap ex so all the parks got a little something but that changed with the reduced budget of between 80 & 100 million being spent chainwide per year...usually 60 million of it went towards 2 or 3 B&M's per year for one or more of the "big four" parks like SFMM or SFGRADV & attendance dropped at the newly flagged parks like SFDL,SFEG,SFKK,SFWOA & SFA(SFNE continued to get decent rides like a floorless & spinning coaster probably due to the popularity of their ROS coaster)

 

As a result this is why SFI sold the underperorming parks of SFEG,SFDL,SFWOA & all the European parks in late 03/04 so they could continue spoiling their big four at the expense of the remaining smaller parks...a trend that,more or less continues to this day.

[larrygator]

As a result this is why SFI sold the underperorming parks of SFEG,SFDL,SFWOA & all the European parks in late 03/04 so they could continue spoiling their big four at the expense of the remaining smaller parks...a trend that,more or less continues to this day.

 

That is not why SF sold the parks. SF sold the parks due to the massive revolving debts issues which came about when they purchased many of these same parks. At the time SF started selling park they were struggling to just cover the interest on their loans. Their creditors were not willing to restructure the loan due to the economy, although I'm sure the creditors would have if they knew how long the economic downtown would last.

[DirkFunk]

That is not why SF sold the parks. SF sold the parks due to the massive revolving debts issues which came about when they purchased many of these same parks.

 

The massive debt incurred by buying parks and outfitting them with large rides could have conceptually worked if attendance was capable of stabilizing. Attendance dropped in 2001, 2002, and 2003, negating much of the gains from the huge capital expenditure years of 2000 and 2001. They sold SFWOA for a fraction of what was spent to create the park/resort because the continuing fall of attendance made the place as Six Flags had constructed it impossible to produce a profit. I would say it is factually incorrect to say that SFWOA then was sold for any other reason than that it was an underperforming property.

[TPOLMike]

Major attractions simply do not have the ROI that they did years ago. I always remember Kinzel saying Magnum was his best investment, not only because it was a major success, but that it paid for itself the first year. Major coasters these days simply do not bring in the hoards of people to have a return their first year.

[MrSum1_55]

^I believe the problem is that building coasters now costs a lot more than it used to. In 1989, $8 million bought you a hyper coaster. Now, a hyper costs at least $20 million. Also, not nearly as many coasters existed in 1989 as so now. Before, people went insane when their little park added a new major coaster. Now, people wonder if a difference of one coaster, from 18 to 19, makes a difference.

 

Imagine if the locals of every park in the world were as eager to see a new ride as those local to CGA now.

[KDCOASTERFAN]

That is not why SF sold the parks. SF sold the parks due to the massive revolving debts issues which came about when they purchased many of these same parks.

 

The massive debt incurred by buying parks and outfitting them with large rides could have conceptually worked if attendance was capable of stabilizing. Attendance dropped in 2001, 2002, and 2003, negating much of the gains from the huge capital expenditure years of 2000 and 2001. They sold SFWOA for a fraction of what was spent to create the park/resort because the continuing fall of attendance made the place as Six Flags had constructed it impossible to produce a profit. I would say it is factually incorrect to say that SFWOA then was sold for any other reason than that it was an underperforming property.

 

With that in mind premiere should never have purchased SF from time warner in 98 as premiere already owned/operated a total of 13 parks prior to the SF aqquisition while all SF had was SFMM,SFOT,SFRADGV,SFGRAM,SFSTL ,SFOG,SFFT & SFAW.

 

Looking back on it the parks that premiere parks had could've grown well on their own as Adventure world(now SFA) was starting to get new rides between 93 & 98 & there's no telling how it,and the other 12 premiere properties would've evolved had the two chains remained separate.

[DirkFunk]

I don't disagree that it was probably unwise for Premier to buy Six Flags, Walibi, or most of the stuff they bought on credit. But when SFWOA's was dropping the same year they installed a $15 million dollar attraction, you can't go pretending that the park's poor performance wasn't one of the reasons they chose to sell it instead of their other properties. They could have sold or liquidated any of their properties instead - they chose SFWOA ahead of any of the North American properties to sell at far less than cost for good reason.

[larrygator]

I don't disagree that it was probably unwise for Premier to buy Six Flags, Walibi, or most of the stuff they bought on credit. But when SFWOA's was dropping the same year they installed a $15 million dollar attraction, you can't go pretending that the park's poor performance wasn't one of the reasons they chose to sell it instead of their other properties. They could have sold or liquidated any of their properties instead - they chose SFWOA ahead of any of the North American properties to sell at far less than cost for good reason.

 

You need two parties to have a sale. The seller and the buyer. Was anyone willing to overpay for the other SF parks as much as someone did for SFWOA? Unlikely. They were not going to sell parks that serve the largest markets (SFGAdv, SFMM, SFDK, SFNE or SFGAm) They couldn't sell SFoG or SFoT due to pre-existing arrangements. They couldn't make money selling LaRonde of SFKK since they didn't owe the land. All the second tier parks did get sold shortly after for less money per park than SFWOA . That left only SFA, SFStL and SFFT that could have been sold and I don't think anyone wanted to pay $125 Million for either one of them.

[DirkFunk]

IMO, you can't argue they wouldn't be against selling due to market size when they turned around and shuttered SFAW in the US' 4th largest city (and the cornerstone of the 6th largest market: bigger than the one SFDK serves). If we're going to argue that the sales of the other secondary market parks was similar in nature to SFWOA as a way to purely to pay off bills, we might as well trot out that management group's very public attempt to put SFMM on the market. It seems very elementary to me: debt was racked up with the idea that investments would pay off in the long term. They didn't because expectations for attendance and per capita spending weren't met. SFWOA had one of the most precipitous drop offs in the entire chain after what was probably the largest investments the chain, made in one of the most competitive markets in the entire industry. That Cedar Fair was able to buy it for much less than Six Flags spent only speaks to Six Flags' incompetence and poor management at the time. Same as the death of Astroworld, their failures in overseas expansion, and so on.

[larrygator]

Agreed, SF would have sold SFMM for the right price, but they weren't offered the right price. I'm sure they would have entertained selling the other majors (SFGAdv, SFDK, SFNE or SFGAm) for the right price. As I said in my post you need and seller and a buyer.

 

Six Flags needed buyers willing to pay the right price. Most companies will entertain offers for anything they own, you never know when someone will overpay.

 

Astroworld was a another problem park. Although it was in a large market the park's performance was weak. There were also parking issues involving the Houston Texans, Reliant Stadium, and the Houston Livestock Show and Rodeo. I think SF sold the park (land only) for $80 Million, which further goes to show how much Cedar Fair overpaid for SFWOA.

[KDCOASTERFAN]

IMO, you can't argue they wouldn't be against selling due to market size when they turned around and shuttered SFAW in the US' 4th largest city (and the cornerstone of the 6th largest market: bigger than the one SFDK serves). If we're going to argue that the sales of the other secondary market parks was similar in nature to SFWOA as a way to purely to pay off bills, we might as well trot out that management group's very public attempt to put SFMM on the market. It seems very elementary to me: debt was racked up with the idea that investments would pay off in the long term. They didn't because expectations for attendance and per capita spending weren't met. SFWOA had one of the most precipitous drop offs in the entire chain after what was probably the largest investments the chain, made in one of the most competitive markets in the entire industry. That Cedar Fair was able to buy it for much less than Six Flags spent only speaks to Six Flags' incompetence and poor management at the time. Same as the death of Astroworld, their failures in overseas expansion, and so on.

 

True on that,I still remember one of Burke's excuses for closing SFAW wasdue to lack of room for expansion....well if they had removed some of the outdated rides to make room for new ones then perhaps that park could've been saved? but of course they couldn't do that if it meant SFMM or SFGRADV wouldn't get that next coaster they wanted.

[larrygator]

The time for a park to get a new coaster should not be based on a specific time period. It should be based on the ability of the park to continue to maintain attendance vitality and profit margin.

[DirkFunk]

Agreed, SF would have sold SFMM for the right price, but they weren't offered the right price. I'm sure they would have entertained selling the other majors (SFGAdv, SFDK, SFNE or SFGAm) for the right price. As I said in my post you need and seller and a buyer.

 

I don't disagree with this. I do disagree with the premise that SFWOA was sold instead of those parks (many of which sit on much, much more valuable land) simply because it was easier to find a buyer and not due to ailing performance, difficulty of competing in the market, and so on. If all they wanted was an large infusion of money, the hundreds of acres of prime real estate SFMM sat on (or thousands in the case of SFGAdv) would have undoubtedly brought in more money, particularly circa 2004 in the midst of the real estate boom. The biggest difference between SFWOA and those other parks ultimately came down to performance, and lack thereof.

 

As for SFAW, they also kept all the assets of the park and they may have even paid for demolition (I don't know?). I'm sure the land it sat on was worth a lot more, but the total number of assets sold to Cedar Fair was greater, in terms of gross acerage, rides on site, etc.

[blade1]

I am fascinated by the what if's of history. Let's look at this one. I never made it to Geauga Lake or Seaworld.

Let's suppose Busch had bought GL in 2000 instead of the other way around. Would Busch have integrated the parks into one like SF did, or would they have operated them separately? How would acquiring GL have changed what rides Busch could have installed? If they had done this, would there have been a way to install rides into both parks?

Was there a possibility of retheming GL into another Busch Gardens or was the market too small?

If Busch had bought GL, what would it be like today? With the sale to Blackstone, would GL have been sold and Seaworld run independently? Or would the parks be run as one?

 

What if Cedar Fair had indeed bought GL back in the mid 90's? I assume it would have still stayed smaller. What direction would the park have taken? Would it have been built more as a waterpark? Might CF sell it though, possibly to reduce debt? I'd love to hear your speculative answers.

It is too bad the park didn't take this alternate direction.

[gforce1994]

Who killed Geauga Lake?

Simple Answer Geauga Lake. They set themselves up for a situation where outsiders ran a buisness against the traditional way the park was operated for the previous 90 years. Had they kept to their own practices and retained ownership you could have gotten a Cedar Point/Geauga Lake relationship like Kings Island/ Coney Island (Ohio).

[cfc]

^Wrong.

 

It was Col. Mustard in the library with the lead pipe.

[gforce1994]

No are you thinking it was Six Flags with the Cocktail/rope in the Kitchen?

Edited August 1, 2012 by gforce1994