Carnage Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 Canada is realy just another American state anyway and I think the park is quite profitable, so under the circumstances it may not be on the chopping block. Guy "But what do I know?" Koepp We would beg to differ on us being another state. Not too mention that La Ronde is in Quebec which barely even considers itself part of Canada. SFI would be better off to wait a few years on La Ronde. By then the Canadian dollar would be higher then the US dollar and they'd get a better return on their money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenshinmac Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 Where do people get these ideas that smaller parks are all underperforming? I mean the costs of the big parks must easily be enough to offset the larger gate takings. I mean take a park like Elitches. The most they could have possibly spent for the last few expansions must have been $5 million tops. Then you have Magic Mountain spending some $21 million every other year plus all the other expenses that come with running such a huge park. Honestly if someone can show me numbers I am willing to accept it but it just kinda seems like people are just kinda picking on the smaller flagged parks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eunuch Provocateur Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 However, I do think they will try to sell Mexico. Sorry, I just thought that was funny... But, yea, one park down (SFAW). Who's next, bitches!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParkTrips Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 ^I agree. Same with Astroworld, it was making money yet it closed. Seems like everyone wants to say their park makes money when we all know that there are (well, at least WERE) huge gaps in the budget coming from somewhere. The only parks that I would be fairly confident in saying that they are making money (as in operating in the black year by year) are Great America and Great Adventure. Where did that info come from anyway to sell astro and sfno? Astroworld was simply closed not sold. Really though, where the hell did you hear that stupid RUMOR that SF was selling Astroworld and SFNO? Thats so funny! I don't know where you've been since Six Flags has stated they are looking to sell the land in Houston, that was their reason for closing it. As for SFNO, its really more of a guess by some. Like I said, it's not theirs to sell, but people were just speculating after a person with SF (look at the article in the 1st post to get it, I can't remember) said may be looking to sell two parks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twister II Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 Here's pros and cons to Elitch's: PROS (for staying): -New attraction in April -Rakes in a lot considering smaller parks -No competition (not including Lakeside) in a few hundred miles CONS (for going): -No room for expansion (unless bought from the Pepsi Center) -Free water park I could see Snyder stopping the free water parks with general admission and start charging separate. I could see Elitch's going though. After all, to me, its considered a testing ground for new rides (Halfpipe, Volar, new 2006 attraction). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenshinmac Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 ^I agree. Same with Astroworld, it was making money yet it closed. Seems like everyone wants to say their park makes money when we all know that there are (well, at least WERE) huge gaps in the budget coming from somewhere. The only parks that I would be fairly confident in saying that they are making money (as in operating in the black year by year) are Great America and Great Adventure.Don't forget that all the parks could well have been making money but with the amount of debt that the former Premier took on when purchasing Six Flags they just never really managed to get their heads above water. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_rock401 Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 I can see keeping Elitch's, solely because the nearest competition of substance (Sorry, but Cliff's in Albquerque isn't major competition) is Worlds of Fun in Kansas City, eight hours to the east. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mind Eraser Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 movieguy wrote:I've had it up to here with Six Flags letting this park go to rot. At least when the defunct Premier Parks INC owned DL, they had the friggin decency to at least give the place a couple of Veclonas, and the nightmare (Which is now in the Great Escape) which is more than Six Flags has EVER done. Actually, the only think defunct about Premier Parks is the name. Premier bought Six Flags and decided to go under the moniker "Six Flags" because of its high name recognition. Premier and Six Flags are/were the same people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy T. Koepp Posted January 14, 2006 Share Posted January 14, 2006 Canada is realy just another American state anyway and I think the park is quite profitable, so under the circumstances it may not be on the chopping block. Guy "But what do I know?" Koepp We would beg to differ on us being another state. Not too mention that La Ronde is in Quebec which barely even considers itself part of Canada. SFI would be better off to wait a few years on La Ronde. By then the Canadian dollar would be higher then the US dollar and they'd get a better return on their money. Oh c'mon you know Dubya is hot to try and conquer another country. Besides, Snyder has Bush in the palm of his hand. The Redskins just donated 4 million dollars to the Republican party down there in Florida the other day. All Snyder has to do is say "Hey Georgie, ya know that four Mil I just gave ya. I want it back unless you invade Quebec." Guy "If he can create WMD's out of sand in Iraq. Then I'm sure he can find someone harboring Osama in Canada." Koepp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dougr Posted January 14, 2006 Share Posted January 14, 2006 Canada is realy just another American state anyway and I think the park is quite profitable, so under the circumstances it may not be on the chopping block. Guy "But what do I know?" Koepp We would beg to differ on us being another state. Not too mention that La Ronde is in Quebec which barely even considers itself part of Canada. SFI would be better off to wait a few years on La Ronde. By then the Canadian dollar would be higher then the US dollar and they'd get a better return on their money. Oh c'mon you know Dubya is hot to try and conquer another country. Besides, Snyder has Bush in the palm of his hand. The Redskins just donated 4 million dollars to the Republican party down there in Florida the other day. All Snyder has to do is say "Hey Georgie, ya know that four Mil I just gave ya. I want it back unless you invade Quebec." Guy "If he can create WMD's out of sand in Iraq. Then I'm sure he can find someone harboring Osama in Canada." Koepp You know, the Millenium bombers did make their bombs in Vancouver, BC, but wait-that was thwarted by somebody paying attention in the Clinton era...I'm sure it's the Clenis's fault somehow... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cameraman Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 Uhh... everyone saying how SFAW was sold and was a "done deal." The park was closed... parts of it auctioned off. To me, selling a park is dumping all of its contents and land to someone for a nice lump sum of money. Not picking it apart, keeping some things and auctioning off others for very small amounts of money. Hell, the land still hasn't been sold yet. Who is this Reid anyway? He is an analyst who has nothing to do with Six Flags Inc. I think this is just like that San Antonio article where a complete outsider who has NOTHING to do with Six Flags gives their opinion, which amounts to a pile of crap. Don't read much into it. This is complete deja vu of the San Antonio article referring to SFFT. Everyone was like "oh noez they're going to sell SFFT next and give its rides to SFGAdv!11111!!!!" It's obvious that they don't intend on selling parks but rather maximizing the profits in each one they have. They see the potential in all of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gnome Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 As for the other one, I dunno, Frontier City or Enchanted Village? Six Flags does not run Enchanted Villiage, the park has its own seperate management and they pay a fee to use the six flags name and all related characters, as weel as be included onto the site, ect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cameraman Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 I don't think that's true at all. From a description of North American SF Parks: Enchanted Village and Wild Waves is a water and rides park located near Seattle, Washington. The facility is located onapproximately 65 acres. The Seattle-Tacoma market provides the park with a permanent resident population of approximately 3.5 million people within 50 miles and approximately 4.5 million people within 100 miles. The Seattle-Tacoma market is thenumber 12 DMA in the United States. When we acquired the park in 2000, the park was primarily a water park and lacked a full complement of rides and revenue outlets. Commencing in 2002, we began implementing an expansion of the park's rides and attractions which we believe will result in growth in this park's revenue, attendance and cash flow, with relatively modest capital expenditures. The park does not have any significant direct competitors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gnome Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 ok then, a mechanic at SFOT lied to me then, oh I'll get him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjholla2003 Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 Uhh... everyone saying how SFAW was sold and was a "done deal." The park was closed... parts of it auctioned off. To me, selling a park is dumping all of its contents and land to someone for a nice lump sum of money. Not picking it apart, keeping some things and auctioning off others for very small amounts of money. Hell, the land still hasn't been sold yet. Who is this Reid anyway? He is an analyst who has nothing to do with Six Flags Inc. I think this is just like that San Antonio article where a complete outsider who has NOTHING to do with Six Flags gives their opinion, which amounts to a pile of crap. Don't read much into it. This is complete deja vu of the San Antonio article referring to SFFT. Everyone was like "oh noez they're going to sell SFFT next and give its rides to SFGAdv!11111!!!!" It's obvious that they don't intend on selling parks but rather maximizing the profits in each one they have. They see the potential in all of them. The land has been sold. Just because they decided to get buyers for some things, re-distribute others, and auction off other things does not mean that this isn't a clean sale. Everything's gone or going, the land is sold, it's a done deal. Clean and simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astroworldfan Posted January 22, 2006 Share Posted January 22, 2006 Sorry, I just thought that was funny... But, yea, one park down (SFAW). Who's next, bitches!? Ok....I dont get it! You are on Theme Park Review, and you are saying "one park down..." I joined this site because I like theme parks. I am not wanting to rid the earth of them. Its sad to see any of them go...especially when its your home park. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eunuch Provocateur Posted January 22, 2006 Share Posted January 22, 2006 ^ Sorry, it was a joke... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BiCoastal Kid Posted January 22, 2006 Share Posted January 22, 2006 I don't mind a park getting closed down if it isn't that great. I'd rather see Six Flags just keep maybe 5-6 of their parks, and close the rest if it means those few parks will be excellent. SFMM SFGAdv SFGAm SFoT SFoG All the others except for maybe SFNE would probably do a lot better under another company. Those 5 get the most attention out of any, and that's because they cover the major markets well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astroworldfan Posted January 22, 2006 Share Posted January 22, 2006 I dont care who runs it. I just want a park that I can go to thats nearby. Southern Cal has several. Houston has none Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cameraman Posted January 22, 2006 Share Posted January 22, 2006 Apparently some analysts fail to see that while unloading parks sounds ideal, it's not going to solve the debt issue. I think it's pretty clear that the Astroworld sale is not going very well and will do very little in the long run for paying off the debt. Even when Six Flags sold a park in tact, SFWoA, the amount of money proved to do fairly little for the debt since the park had to be sold relatively cheaply for a buyer to be interested. The same would go for just about the rest of the parks in the chain. I don't see how they could get a buyer interested in purchasing a park for what they're really worth. And when you talk about selling the smaller parks, they're worth even less than a park the size of SFWoA. The current management obviously sees potential in every single park to maximize profit. Six Flags needs to turn in a real profit, and that is how they're going to do it. 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