Six Flags [FUN] Corporate Discussion Thread

[robbalvey]

^^, ^^^ I mostly was speaking for the Bizzaro coasters, cause their was nothing wrong with them. There IS nothing wrong with updating coasters, but or the effects on actual new coasters but, update coasters that NEED it, not the best ride in the WORLD that there is nothing wrong with. I do feel that there was better ways to spend the money, especially at SFNE.

I dunno...I rode SROS in 2008 and I really felt like it had been neglected. It wasn't running anywhere NEAR as good as the last time I had been on it.

 

You gotta understand that, for a park to spend a few million dollars putting work into a ride, they need to be able to get something out of it. So I'm more than happy to have them slap a coat of paint and some fire cannons onto a ride if it means that ride gets some attention and love.

 

--Robb

[DOCTOR DOOM!!!]

^ Very true, I just would have spent the money upgrading something other than SROS and Medusa!

[netdvn]

When SFA Regular shows up in a thread, you know the party has started.

 

Funny for you to say that. Why is it a party when I show up in a thread?

Because you're a bot...

 

I mostly was speaking for the Bizzaro coasters, cause their was nothing wrong with them. There IS nothing wrong with updating coasters, but or the effects on actual new coasters but, update coasters that NEED it, not the best ride in the WORLD that there is nothing wrong with. I do feel that there was better ways to spend the money, especially at SFNE.

Unless you actually work maintenance for Medusa/SROS, you have no idea about whether or not they have something wrong with them. It could've been that both SROS and Medusa were aging poorly due to environmental conditions or heavier wear and tear after 10 years of operation and upgrading them would reduce maintenance costs for both coasters. You never really know.

 

And plenty of new rides/attractions have cool special effects on the ride. Look at Mystery Mine or Tower of Terror. The effects are a bonus to give a slightly different ride experience from the original.

[larrygator]

Why do people keep talking about Shapiro and SF being responsible for converting Medusa and S:ROS to Bizarro, when everyone knows Lex Luthor did it? SHEESH!

Edited May 14, 2010 by larrygator

[cfc]

^Because Luthor has convinced everyone else that he had nothing to do with it. But now that you've blown the whistle, he's going to hunt you down!

[larrygator]

I read it in the Daily Planet!

[Tiburon503]

^^^So why didn't bondholders remove him as part of their agreement, like they did with Snyder? They let him remain as a director and walk away with $3 million.

 

2009 was a rough year for the theme park business, not just Six Flags. The company was headed to bankruptcy no matter what the circumstances were. Shapiro also spearheaded licensing deals, pushed for Q-bots, VIP tours, preferred/valet parking, food vouchers, and other revenue generating items that don't add much cost. So his value is far more than the reported $52 in ad revenue that was projected for 2009.

 

Something just doesn't add up. CEO's don't just quietly leave. Let alone ones that took every chance they got to be in front of the press.

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court effectively removed Daniel Snyder. The approved bankruptcy plan made Mr. Snyder ineligible for re-election to the Board of Directors without the consent of the junior bondholders. Why Mr. Shapiro was allowed to remain as CEO is something the judge would need to answer. The court (i.e. judge) has the ultimate authority, at its sole discretion, to appoint or remove directors. I don't believe the court testimony will state the reason either (but without access to read them, I have no idea). I do know Resilient Capital Management wanted ALL of the Six Flags directors fired, as well as an investigation into the Dick Clark Productions acquisition (http://tinyurl.com/25urgma) By the way, Mr. Shapiro has performed terribly as CEO since his installation, and has not shown a single indication of a financial turnaround. As I stated before, "Free Cashflow Positive" is a metric trumpeted to investors who have no idea what earnings are. It's B.S., because it's not linked to profitability. Truly, it's nothing more than a form of "arbitrage" (see "Enron: The Smartest Guys In The Room"). I sure as heck wouldn't risk my money on "free cashflow positive". Remember, bondholders swapped debt for equity as a last resort. Mark Shapiro's performance almost sent Six Flags into an automatic "Chapter 7" liquidation, and bondholders took the debt for equity swap as it was the better deal in this soft real-estate market. In four years (financially), Mark did nothing to fix the bottom line, and his few attempts (divestures, in-park advertising) were dismal failures. Let's not forget the SIZEABLE loses Mark Shapiro was hiding that became public during the bankruptcy proceedings either.

 

Upon receivership, the newly elected Board of Directors (approved by the bondholders) decided Mr. Shapiro didn't qualify to move the company forward. Six Flags has stated a desire to reenlist on the NYSE in the short term, and a change of CEO was imperative to appeal to investors. While Mr. Shapiro is treated as a god here by many at TPR; investors don't take kindly to people who eviscerate shareholder value. Again, the patient died on his watch, his 4 YEAR watch. That's the bottom line and that's how the bondholders see it. That's how potential new investors will see it. If Six Flags hopes to post a successful IPO, regime change was necessary. I'll stop short of reigniting the Mark Shapiro flame war. He's gone and we both know our opinions.

 

According to Reuters, Six Flags has applied to list new shares on the NYSE

http://tinyurl.com/298ov6x

"The company exits bankruptcy as Six Flags Entertainment Corp and under the control of hedge funds such as Stark Investments, Pentwater Capital Management and Bay Harbour Management. The funds owned its bonds and invested $725 million to recapitalize the company."

 

"The company's pre-bankruptcy shares were wiped out under the reorganization, and Six Flags has applied to list newly issued shares on the New York Stock Exchange."

 

The original press release didn't give Mark Shapiro any well wishings either:

http://tinyurl.com/2fyg7cr

 

"The Company also today announced Mark Shapiro, the Company’s former President and Chief Executive Officer and a member of the Board of Directors, is no longer with the Company."

 

They wouldn't even say he resigned. Ouch! Sounds like a firing to me. This is how it's done in upper management firings.

[DOCTOR DOOM!!!]

<<<

^Because Luthor has convinced everyone else that he had nothing to do with it. But now that you've blown the whistle, he's going to hunt you down!

 

Don't worry Larry, Lex Luthor AIN"T GOT $**T ON ME!!!

[Jew]

^^Great insights. However, it's still not making sense to me why this was a good move.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the judge in a bankruptcy hearing merely give a "go, no go" to the creditors? Why would the new owners want to let Shapiro walk away with the 3 million dollar bonus instead of using bankruptcy as an excuse to get rid of him?

 

And why the change now? He's the face of the company (every newsworthy quote from the company comes from him. The family friendly strategy is always linked with him as well in news articles), its probably too late into the year to make drastic changes to his 2010 plans, so why not let him stay and make a smooth transition?

 

Why is anyone going to invest in a company without a leader and a vision at the moment? Surely his abrupt departure raises red flags about what's going on with the company.

 

I hated my finance classes in school, so I'm definitely no expert, so you can probably provide more insight into the numbers. I noticed that revenue increased in both 2007 and 2008, and took a dive in 2009. However, the entire industry took a hit in 2009. I can't find an article about Six Flags being in danger of chapter 7, nor can I find anything about these sizeable losses. How much worse off would the numbers be without Shapiros licensing deals, ad revenue, and programs he spearheaded such as rolling out Q-bots on a wider scale, VIP tours, food vouchers, preferred/valet parking, etc.?

Edited May 14, 2010 by Jew

[Solid Gold]

^^^Great posts Tiburon503. There's a lot of talk recently on here about people posting opinions without knowing any information, I give kudos to you for bringing up some important info for us lowly enthusiasts. I definitely wouldn't have known that SF was trying to reenlist on NYSE.

 

I have no opinion on this matter. No one knows at this point how Al Weber and the other execs envision the park's futures.

[JEAPUgrad]

^^^Great posts Tiburon503. There's a lot of talk recently on here about people posting opinions without knowing any information

 

Than message boards as we know them wouldn't exist.

 

LOL

[ginzo]

While Mr. Shapiro is treated as a god here by many at TPR

 

That's an exaggeration to say the least. Have you not noticed the constant bitching about the lack of major installations under Shapiro? Mark received credit for cleaning up some of the parks, improving employee morale, trying to attract better clientele, etc. But, "a god"? No.

 

IMO, Six Flags was on a one way course to bankruptcy. Given the debt load and general crappy economic environment for the amusement industry, there was probably nothing he could have done to save the company. Still, as CEO, he was paid be ultimately accountable and now they have held him as such.

[SFA Regular]

If they let Alexander Weber stay, I think we will learn to like him more. Again, he has many years of experience in water parks and theme parks. Just imagine the great things he can accomplish for all the parks if he stays as CEO. Who knows what the water parks and themed attractions will become if once he really gets started. Who knows what he can do with the DC Comic theme. To tell you the truth it would be cool for him to really take the Batman and Superman themed to the next level. If not that, start introducing a lot of SUPERMAN's enemies and turning them into rides.

[ginzo]

^What if they gave the job to Dick Kinzel? Would that give you even more of a boner?

[DOCTOR DOOM!!!]

THANK YOU MARK SHAPIRO!

but, Dan Snyder is at another castle...

[SFA Regular]

^What if they gave the job to Dick Kinzel? Would that give you even more of a boner?

 

I would be happy for any CEO that would give all the parks a more balanced installations. Look at what they are doing at Kings Dominion. They gave them a brand new coaster and at the same time gave them a brand new themed area for families. I would love something like Planet Snoopy here at the Six Flags parks, but we ended up getting Wiggles World and Thomas Land. But when you look at it, it's very balanced the way they did it. If they install a thrill ride, why not install a family area the same year. The same thing could be done here at the Six Flags parks.

[DOCTOR DOOM!!!]

Also speaking of my earlier post, I would have upgraded GASM before I touched Medusa. Its older and some consider it a

Maybe put some of those new boomerang trains with the lapbar only restraints, paint, and add the special FX while you're at it. This is just an idea of mine on a better way to spend that money.

http://www.rcdb.com/1093.htm?p=20128

http://www.rcdb.com/1093.htm?p=20129

Edited May 18, 2010 by DOCTOR DOOM!!!

[SFA Regular]

I think Alexander Weber will start making improvements on what is already there. Fixing these rides that people complain are a bit too rough or not fast enough. Let me reword that, cause I doubt he is going to fix them himself. He probably will replace some of the park GM's for the parks that are struggling the most or he may do it based on the ones he think can benefit from people he knows from Paramounts. Once that happens, current rides will start improving in performance. People will know it for sure, when they go and the rides can go through a whole day with maybe just 1 delay.

[larrygator]

I would be happy for any CEO that would give all the parks a more balanced installations.

 

Socialism is bad! Parks should earn capital investments based on attendance and more importantly REVENUE.

[KDCOASTERFAN]

^What if they gave the job to Dick Kinzel? Would that give you even more of a boner?

 

I would be happy for any CEO that would give all the parks a more balanced installations. Look at what they are doing at Kings Dominion. They gave them a brand new coaster and at the same time gave them a brand new themed area for families. I would love something like Planet Snoopy here at the Six Flags parks, but we ended up getting Wiggles World and Thomas Land. But when you look at it, it's very balanced the way they did it. If they install a thrill ride, why not install a family area the same year. The same thing could be done here at the Six Flags parks.

 

I wouldn't call PS a "new" themed area as all they did was rename a few rides & slap some new paint on them but not much else.

 

I think that most people liked Shapiro simply because he was a change from the previous regime(the old "lesser of two evils" philosophy I guess) that had unfairly played favorites with some parks while ignoring others,but as we saw with Shapiro not much was changed for the better as the spoiled parks continued to get spoiled while the ignored/neglected parks continued to follow their same course.

[SFA Regular]

As KDCOASTERFAN mentioned, the spoiled parks continued to get spoiled and the neglected parks followed the same course. He is correct. Hopefully it wont be that way with Alexander Weber. Paramounts never treated their parks like that. Kings Island and Kings Dominion are both equal to each other. They didn't favor Kings Dominion more because they were the closest to a much richer city, which would be Washington DC. They gave both parks, pretty much the equivalent to each other and looked how it turned out. He needs to bring that same feel to the Six Flags parks. I wonder if Alexander Weber will sell a few more parks? Or will he downsize them and expand them as water parks?

[redfoot12]

I'd rather see him sell some parks than have another SFKK situation.

[SFA Regular]

I'd rather see him sell some parks than have another SFKK situation.

 

True. That situation was very bad, and I felt bad for the people there who got hired and then the company decides to sell and remove the rides. But what other parks do you suggest selling? Most of the ones they have left are money making parks. They pretty much sold off the slackers back in 2006. Not unless he sells the ones that are just water parks. But why do that when he has many years of experience in water park management?

 

Now one thing that has been floating my boat is the Nigeria park. I know Dubai was just paying to use your name. I'm not sure about the park that was suppose to be in Nigeria. If we were going to build a park there, I would rather him cancell it and continue to improve the parks that are here in the United States.

[ginzo]

They didn't favor Kings Dominion more because they were the closest to a much richer city, which would be Washington DC.

 

That's a very interesting observation considering the clientele at Kings Dominion. Few would describe them as "much richer" than the clientele at Kings Island.

 

But, please, continue.

[SFA Regular]

I was just trying to say that a more balanced scale is better for the company. Under both former managements of Six Flags Inc, Great Adventure and Magic Mountain were always given the most because they were close to richer city's. Great Adventure being close to New York and Magic Mountain being in Valencia. Paramounts on the other hand still gave a good bit to Kings Island so that it could grow and give the people who live near there a reason to support it. Just picture if they took the Six Flags method and said "Well, Kings Dominion is real close to Washington DC, so lets give them more and just see how Kings Island does". But with great time and investment, the park became a great place. The same can be done for a lot of the smaller parks if they are given the chance for for better family and thrill installations. If Alexander Weber becomes the permanent CEO, which I think he will, I think my home park will start doing a lot better. Possibly performing at the same level as it's competition, Kings Dominion, if given the right installations and improvements.

 

I actually wouldn't mind replacing the current park management and getting former Paramounts park management to run SFA.