[QUOTE=bgwfreak]
Seriously the guy owns an NFL team. What does he know about running an [url="http:///#"]amusement park[/url](s)?
[/QUOTE]Probably more than running a football team. All he knows is business, and an amusement park is more business oriented than a football team.

__________________

My guess is it wouldn't actually run the actual parks...Thats what GMs are for. Usually the owner of a company like Six Flags or Cedar Fair lets their GMs do the job of maintaining each of the parks. But when a park wants to build a new attraction, they'll have to bring it to his attention and of course get it approved. All he'll be doing is handling the business part of the company, I highly doubt he'll be involved in the actual "running an amusment park" part, like I said...That's what the GMs job is.

Well he really needs to be a leader in the sense of having a "vision" for the company.

Look at how Disney has done with Eisner. I'm sorry but he doesn't seem to have any vision for the company like Walt Disney had. In my opinion that has contributed to their floundering as a company in many ways.

They haven't put out a decent animated movie in ages maybe like 8 years now. Their live action movies have been ok. The parks seem to just be doing the same thing in a lot of ways. That's a generalization of course, of course they have been building new parks and such but look at the "success" of DCA. Does anyone actually go there anymore? lol

I'm just using this as an example. A CEO or whatever of a company doesn't make or break a company, but he/she can make a huge difference in getting it moving in the right direction.

__________________

Intimidator Coming in 2010 to Carowinds!

[QUOTE=BatwingFan SFA]
I wouldn't be suprised if SFA's close proximity to Fed-Ex field is the entire reason for his involvement in the company.....he wants to see the park succeed as an increase in attendance at SFA might also mean an increase in attendance at Fed-Ex field as well & with the shape SFA is in right now they need all the improvement they can get.[/QUOTE]

The last time I checked, the Redskins had a Season Ticket waiting list of about 40,000 names. I don't think he's concerned about increasing attendance at Fedex Field. If there is any benefit it would be to parks in which SF and NFL teams already exist. However, From my own experience it's tough to go to a football game and get out of Fedex Field in time to enjoy SFA.

I'm a little concerned about his plans for SFA. I don't like the fact he wants to put a home builder on the board of directors. Especially when the land SFA sits on could very easily fit 2-3,000 single family homes at a minimum prices $500,000 homes on it easily.

I keep saying this and for whatever reason, no one is listening. Listen, you can't judge the record of the Redskins with how Dan Snyder runs a business. You have to look at it like Dan Snyder owns Fedex Field and the Redskins lease the stadium from him. Unless you've been to Fedex Field you can't compare the two especially based on media reports that capture the guys person in two minutes or less. Fedex Field is how Dan Snyder runs a business. I'm not going to say the service is top notch but there is no shortage of employees and everyone knows what their job is and how to do it. The concessions stands have hot dogs ready, the beers keep flowing, people are standing at the escalators making sure if they stop, there started as soon as possible, souviners are stocked and everything is open when the stadium opens. Policies and procedures are in place and are followed. This ensures things run smoothly. Something that needs to be done when you have 91,000 people attending a sporting event.

Another thing I think Snyder needs to look into is getting better security for the parks...With all the fights happening at SFA, SFMM, SFOG, etc., you would think that would be one of this biggest concerns with the parks. These parks are supposed to be for families and not just teenagers, and when fights happen it totally ruins somebodys trip to the park, especially when they close the parks earlier. I think he should take the same approach that Geauga Lake did and try to put together police squads for the parks that have been having these kinds of problems.

That's one thing I will agree on. More parks and not just SF parks should be adding extra security. Increasingly as time goes on, more teens are acting either like idiots or thugs. So if anybody else including Snyder take over, I would hope that would be one change made at SF parks and would like to see at other parks as well.

__________________
YOUR HATRED AMUSES ME

Well just think, if he sells some parks, there would be more money to invest in things like personal police squads for some of the parks. Keep in mind though, some of the parks like SFMW never have any problems like you would see at SFMM or SFA. If Snyder can pinpoint which parks have problems with violence, they can higher squads for those parks and those parks only. It's these kind of changes I'm hoping Snyder can make if he takes over...That and adding more benches to parks like SFMM and overall cleaning up the park and their staff. I really liked how Geauga Lake evaluated all of it's staff before opening to the public back in 2004.

The question no one has addressed is: who is going to buy these parks?
My synopsis (feel free to disagree/agree, etc.)

Cedar Fair: Not likely. They got burned on Geauga Lake (an underperforming SF park), and although they have only owned it two seasons, they may have realized "hey, we really can't turn around these parks very quickly." In sum, they may buy one or two, but surely not the whole lot that may go up for sale.

Paramount: I guess this is a possiblity. I don't see it happening though.

Busch Gardens: Again, this is a possiblity. But they only own a few parks, and I doubt they're looking to more than double their theme park interests.

It comes down to this, in my opinon. If Six Flags' is under the control of Snyder, underperforming parks (and therefore, undesirable parks) will go up for sale. Because there is no [url="#"]amusement park[/url] company as large as Six Flags (CF being the closest), if they even manage to sell these parks, they will be sold at a loss to Six Flags. This will not help Six Flags except in the short term. Chances are, if Snyder is determined to sell SF properties, he may not get the asking price because there won't be adequate buyers. This could lead to park closures. And we, the enthusiasts and GP, lose. This is why I am rooting for Snyder to fail in his takeover bid.

__________________

Why don't you just go to forbes.com, do a little research on the man, then judge for yourselves. The man knows how to run a business.

__________________

Yea I have a problem seeing someone buying the lower ranking parks. I can see small independant companies buying one park and trying to make a profit from it, like an entrepreneur would. And BTW Thunderhawk, I asked that question on the first page.

__________________
I'm going to be in a movie one day about all the people who enjoy riding T2. The movie will be called The Fantastic Four.

^Yes, I know you did. No one answered it though, so I was bringing that to the foreground again. And whipster, I keep hearing people say "The man knows how to run a business." Not all businesses are the same; apples and oranges, people.

I just don't like the idea of Snyder selling off/closing parks and selling off "unused land". This unused land surrounding parks is expansion space. People kvetch about Six Flags not building new stuff at their SF park, but now they're supporting the idea of selling expansion land inherently by supporting Snyder. Where will they build if they sell the unused land? (There is rarely a good reason to take down an older coaster, imo).

__________________

[QUOTE=Thunderhawk]Cedar Fair: Not likely. They got burned on Geauga Lake (an underperforming SF park), and although they have only owned it two seasons, they may have realized "hey, we really can't turn around these parks very quickly." In sum, they may buy one or two, but surely not the whole lot that may go up for sale.[/QUOTE]

First of all, Cedar Fair didn't get "burned" when they bought Geauga Lake...The chain knows that the park has potential. If they didn't think the park had potential they wouldn't have purchased the park in the first place, let alone spend 26 million dollars on it to totally revamp the old SeaWorld side of the park. I'm sure the chain understands that taking the animals out was a big blow for the park, but Cedar Fair doesn't do animals, why would they want to run animals if they haven't done it at any of their other parks. Like the saying says, Rome wasn't built in a day...It's going to take a few seasons and some new attractions to get the GP to really get used to the park and say "Hey, this park is actually pretty good even without the animals". I think the GP are a little hard headed and aren't giving the park a chance to show how much improvement it's made since Six Flags has taken over.

I really don't think Cedar Fair would purchase any of the parks unless they absolutely knew that it had potential to be at the same level as some of the other parks smaller parks like Valleyfair and WoF. I really think the only way they'd actually buy any of the parks is if there was absolutely no competition like at SFStL or SFNO...Theres actually a few parks like this in the Six Flags chain and I really think Cedar Fair could turn some of them around if they wanted to. It's just a matter of, does the chain need/want anymore parks after acquiring Geauga Lake?

As for some other possible buyers, keep in mind that there are other people that buy parks besides the big names in the business. I mean, we didn't know who the Six Flags Euro parks were getting bought buy, heck we didn't even know what Star Parks was, I mean after buying some of the parks Six Flags sold, they basically started their own theme park chain out of nowhere. Really, I wouldn't be surprised if some other NFL owners bought the parks near their teams city. Just think, the Rams could own SFStL, the Saints could own SFNO, the Broncos could own Elich Gardens, heck it's only a few minutes away from their stadium, and the list continues to go on. We might even see some NBA owners step forward and buy a few parks. Really, the amusement industry is booming, and any person would be stupid to pass up the oppurtunity to take over their own amusement park. If I was a trust fund baby and had a ton of money thanks to my parents, I would probably buy an amusement park over a professional sports team any day, unless of course I had the option of buying the Steelers. :p

First off.

if you haven't read this official [url="http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/701374/000091412105001562/0000914121-05-001562.txt"]SEC document[/url] from Synder. You need to. It is very informational.

Synder owns more stock 11 some odd percent than anybody else. over 50 Million Dollars worth. he is not trying to merge the Redskins and Six Flags together, he is just trying to protect and maintain his investment.

don't try to confuse the two.

the reason the stock soared is because he made an offer to buy 28% or so more of the stock at $6.50 a share. so if people bough a buch of shares at 5.50 they would be making a nearly automatic $1 a share profit once it came time to sell.

Also Snyder never says that he wants to sell parks. He said he want to sell a buch of unused land that he says the company has tons of. So we should quash the park selling rumors.

One thing he did say was that building huge roller coasters is part of Six Flags recent problems and is why they haven't met expectations. So if Snyder does take over Six Flags, I wouldn't see him in vesting in any record breakers anytime soon.

I wouldn't call someone stupid for passing it up. If they're not interested in it or don't have the knowledge, there's point for them to do it. There is still a major risk involved in buying a park and I can understand why someone would pass on the oppertunity. Although like you, I would love to have my own amusement park if I had the money. I'd rather start my own though from scratch so I could build it as I wanted and had more freedom on the direction of my park.


[QUOTE=whipster56]Why don't you just go to forbes.com, do a little research on the man, then judge for yourselves. The man knows how to run a business.[/QUOTE]

What does that prove? Geez, why is it so hard for some people to understand? Being good at one doesn't mean you will be at another. If he's so smart as everyone seems to think, then why did he buy stock from a company if he would be unhappy with it and didn't like the direction they were going? That seems pretty stupid to me.

And to further prove my point, look at Vince McMahon of the WWE (World Wrestling Entertainment). Say what you will about [I]pro wrestling[/I], but he is a great businessman. He turned the WWWF (as it was known a long time ago before WWF and eventually the WWE as it's known now) into a billion dollar company. This was with numerous other companies during the early eighties to compete with and the once very successful WCW in the ninties. Flash forward another decade and the WWF has successfully bought the WCW along with ECW.

Since this thread has a lot to do with football, I'll mention that the successful Vince McMahon along with the usually very successful NBC decided to try their hand at their own form of football. You might remember the XFL. Yep, that disaster aired on Saturday nights to horrible ratings after what actually had high ratings for the first couple weeks. So as successful as McMahon is at wrestling, he and Dick Ebsersol of NBC bombed very badly.

So just like Vince knows wrestling, Snyder might know football but as McMahon couldn't carry that success over to football, who knows if snyder can carry that over to the amusement park industry. And what Vince did or tried to do anyway was closer to what he knew than what Snyder would try to do. And Vince had some great support in NBC also.

I just don't see why everyone thinks he's the answer. He would be entering a field I doubt he has much knowledge in. How many time has Snyder personally dealt with Intamin, B&M, Vekoma, Huss, Gravity Group, S&S, etc??? Does anyone here know ifs even been to SFA much less any other SF parks? You want someone who has little experience to come in and possibly set the company back while he's learning the ropes? SF is turning around, why can't people grasp that?

Why does anyone think he can bring that success to Six Flags? People keep bringing up about the Redskins. Do you really want that experience at the park? That stuff costs money and that stuff is easy to afford when people spend hundreds of dollars for the best seats and untold amounts of money for skyboxes and what not. You think food and drinks are expensive at amusement parks, check out prices at the games. Lets not forget about parking. $5-10 at an amusement park, maybe $20 or more at a game. Snyder isn't going to make changes likee many of you are hoping for because there won't be the money for it. And don't think he's going to be dipping into his own pockets to buy new rides and make all those changes.

Last, it's probably not going to happen. He's looking to add more stock but he's nowhere near having a majority of the stock anyway.

__________________
YOUR HATRED AMUSES ME

Why does everyone keep forgeting this guy was a millionaire before the majority of you stopped drinking from a bottle? He had a life before the Redskins. He started his own marketing company and sold it, making millions in the process. He's recruited people like Fedex's Fred Smith to be part owners of the Redskins. They just didn't jump on board because he had a drink with them. He had a vision and they liked what they heard. The same thing with the Mike Shapiro from ESPN and the head of NVR. He's already begun putting th pieces together to form management group. Mike Shapiro has already said, if he becomes President of Red Zone, he will visit 30 parks in 30 days. Something tells me these parks are looking for old dust pans and brooms and looking to clean up before he arrives. Your going to see changes at SF by April of next season, be it with Snyder or Burke. Burke's but is on the line, if SF has one failing quarter in the next year, he's going to be gone.

An interesting article for all to read:

[url="http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2139198"]http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2139198[/url]

__________________

^Uh, Mustang, the news story on the front page of this very site says that Snyder is planning on selling some parks. Thanks for playing, though.

"His plans for the company include making new partnerships, a new marketing campaign, and selling some Six Flags properties."

Suppose your interpretation of that last clause is correct. That still doesn't address what I stated above. Selling unused lands around parks means that expansion space will disappear, meaning less new coasters. I don't know about the rest of you, but his idea of building less big coasters isn't exactly exciting me. I'd rather have trash around the park and have huge coasters than have a disney-esque atmosphere.

__________________

[QUOTE=Thunderhawk]I don't know about the rest of you, but his idea of building less big coasters isn't exactly exciting me. I'd rather have trash around the park and have huge coasters than have a disney-esque atmosphere.[/QUOTE]

I for one don't agree...The main reason I don't like Six Flags parks anymore is because a good majority of them are trashy. The Kingda Ka decision this year also made me lose respect for the company because they spent 30 million on one park and thought people would be happy that a ton of Six Flags parks were getting Tornados. My main reason for wanting Snyder to take over is so he does clean up the parks. For instance, at SFMM I hope he decides to take out all the rides that don't work. For instance, Flashback which has yet to open in a few seasons. I really think straying away from building record breaking coasters will be a good thing for the company. If Snyder can split finds equally between all parks, we would be able to see parks like SFEG or SFNO get new coasters sooner than they would have gotten them with Six Flags current owners. Staying away from record breaking coasters will ensure that no parks are neglected, and will save money to spend on other things such as benches and litter bins which SFI parks need right now.

The one thing I don't think we'll be seeing if Snyder takes over, is SFMM continueing to get new coasters every few years to compete with Cedar Point. In reality thats the only thing Six Flags current owners care about, spending money on their biggest parks so they can gain records they lost over the years. I doubt Snyder is going to be worried about records but rather just cleaning up all the parks. Of course, I'm sure all you SFGAdv fanboys don't want Snyder to win since Snyder isn't interested in putting anymore record breakers in the parks anytime soon, let alone allowing parks to put coasters in every year.

Building one record breaking coaster the past 5 years doesn't mean Six Flags only builds record breakers. When I said huge coasters, I didn't necessarily mean KK size...but Nitro size, etc. I really think enthusiasts focus way too much on records. More likely, GADV and MM get so many coasters because both are in extremely competitive areas. Also, Tornados are awesome. I find riding those to be more fun than some coasters.

SFMM and CP really aren't in competition in the eyes of the GP, btw. They are way too far apart. GP is where the money comes from anyway.

__________________

Just to set the record straight, Six Flags is all about the records. And just so you know, a coaster doesn't have to be Nitro's size to be considered a good coaster. There are plenty of smaller coasters that have great ratings, look at Phantom's Revenge for instance, it's in a relatively small area yet still offers stuff that some of todays hypers don't even offer. Really, I'm sure the parks will survive without getting big coasters, there are things known as flat rides that SFMM has yet to install in years...I'm guessing that's what Snyder should concentrate on when he's cleaning up the parks.

Six Flags is all about the records. What besides Kingda Ka, the three Arrow mega loopers, Golaith, and Superman make you think that? I think that those record breakers spread out at different parks are much better than shoving all of them in Cedar Point. That's "all about records." No one complains about that park.

Wether Snyder takes over or not is no concern of mine. I believe that under him, SFI will make money. My thing is what would be the costs of that sucess? He has a nice outline of general ideas, but how does he plan to execute these plans? Is he going to turn the park into a giant advertisement? I know that I don't want to go to Six Flags Great Adventure: Presented by Tampax:p (or whatever). I'm not rooting for Snyder of Burke, just the greater good of the chain to which my home park belongs to.

Neglected parks. On these boards we had a list of improvements and additions that parks got chain wide. More than half of the parks in the chain recieved something if I remember correctly. Yeah. Neglected.

Neglected parks. I don't think a chain-wide boost in attendance reflects neglected parks. Neglected parks bring the declining numbers we've seen over the last few years.

Neglected parks. I don't think that more spending during this offseason leads to neglect.

I think that the people in change know what they are doing. A chain-wide increase in attendance and a boost in revnues that was I beilieve 6% isn't bad at all. Especially when you have them turning a profit for the first time in three years. Remember how everyone thought SFI would lose tons of money because Ka was closed? Yeah, time to eat your words kiddies.

And a closing thought: Isn't it strange how everyone bashes SFI, even when they do better than normal or even good? Yet, when Cedar Fair does worse than SFI, everyone kisses their feet and praises their name.

__________________

Heh...The fact is, I don't remember the last time Cedar Fair did worse than SFI. I guess they actually have to do worse for that to happen. But anyways, doesn't it tell you something when Six Flags stock was originall 5 dollars a share or something like that compared to Cedar Fair's and Paramount's which stood around 40 dollars a share? I mean, the only reason the price is going up now is because someon is actually buying! And the only reason is is buying is because sooner or later he wants to take over the park.

And yes, park are neglected...Whether you think this or not, a Tornado being put into almost all of the Six Flags parks is not considered spreading the profits out equally. We all know that SFGAdv got 30 million dollars this year for KK and now they are getting a new wooden coaster, really is that fair? Fair to parks like SFStL whos last major ride installation was back in 2000...Or how about SFDL who hasn't received much since getting Superman back in 1999. To me, that's unfair, especially when parks like SFMM and SFGAdv are getting new coasters every year or so. Sure, they are you big money makers, but in my opinion I believe funds should be split and every park should have a right to build a new coaster or large ride. That's why I like Cedar Fair. Not only has Cedar Point not gotten a new coaster since 2003, but Cedar Fair has invested in major attractions for just about every other park in the chain. Knotts recently got Silver Bullet, Riptide and the Screamin Swing, Dorney got Hydra and a Scream in Swing, WoF is now getting a new coaster and Valleyfair is getting a large flat ride next year and this year even got a Riptide ride of their own. And what about Geauga Lake, the company invested 26 million dollars into the park for a new water park and they haven't even owned the park for more than two years yet. Yet, they still had enough money to put new coasters and flat rides in other parks. I just think its extremely sad that the general public of some of the smaller Six Flags parks are really missing out. It's also sad that a park doesn't deserve a new coaster or ride unless their attendance isn't up, yet how can your attendance go up without some incentive like a new coaster?

I want Snyder to take over because like he said, there won't be no record breaking coasters going into any of the parks anytime soon if he takes over...And I think that's a good choice. That will give the company more money to spend as a whole and invest new rides into the parks that need them most.

[color=black][QUOTE=Thunderhawk]^Uh, Mustang, the news story on the front page of this very site says that Snyder is planning on selling some parks. Thanks for playing, though.[/color]

[color=black]"His plans for the company include making new partnerships, a new marketing campaign, and selling some Six Flags properties."[/color]

[color=black]Suppose your interpretation of that last clause is correct... [/QUOTE]Snide comments are not necessary! But commnets on Synder are. :)[/color]

[color=black]You just proved my point by posting that quote. Read the SEC Document that I posted about and it will explain it a bit more. He talks about unused land.[QUOTE=Thunderhawk]That still doesn't address what I stated above. Selling unused lands around parks means that expansion space will disappear, meaning less new coasters. I don't know about the rest of you, but his idea of building less big coasters isn't exactly exciting me. I'd rather have trash around the park and have huge coasters than have a disney-esque atmosphere.[/QUOTE]But Disney is making money and that is what Snyder wants to do. [/color]

[QUOTE=EastCoastn07]Heh...The fact is, I don't remember the last time Cedar Fair did worse than SFI. I guess they actually have to do worse for that to happen. But anyways, doesn't it tell you something when Six Flags stock was originall 5 dollars a share or something like that compared to Cedar Fair's and Paramount's which stood around 40 dollars a share? I mean, the only reason the price is going up now is because someon is actually buying! And the only reason is is buying is because sooner or later he wants to take over the park.

And yes, park are neglected...Whether you think this or not, a Tornado being put into almost all of the Six Flags parks is not considered spreading the profits out equally. We all know that SFGAdv got 30 million dollars this year for KK and now they are getting a new wooden coaster, really is that fair? Fair to parks like SFStL whos last major ride installation was back in 2000...Or how about SFDL who hasn't received much since getting Superman back in 1999. To me, that's unfair, especially when parks like SFMM and SFGAdv are getting new coasters every year or so. Sure, they are you big money makers, but in my opinion I believe funds should be split and every park should have a right to build a new coaster or large ride. That's why I like Cedar Fair. Not only has Cedar Point not gotten a new coaster since 2003, but Cedar Fair has invested in major attractions for just about every other park in the chain. Knotts recently got Silver Bullet, Riptide and the Screamin Swing, Dorney got Hydra and a Scream in Swing, WoF is now getting a new coaster and Valleyfair is getting a large flat ride next year and this year even got a Riptide ride of their own. And what about Geauga Lake, the company invested 26 million dollars into the park for a new water park and they haven't even owned the park for more than two years yet. Yet, they still had enough money to put new coasters and flat rides in other parks. I just think its extremely sad that the general public of some of the smaller Six Flags parks are really missing out. It's also sad that a park doesn't deserve a new coaster or ride unless their attendance isn't up, yet how can your attendance go up without some incentive like a new coaster?

I want Snyder to take over because like he said, there won't be no record breaking coasters going into any of the parks anytime soon if he takes over...And I think that's a good choice. That will give the company more money to spend as a whole and invest new rides into the parks that need them most.[/QUOTE]

Cedar Fair lost money this quarter. They are doing worse than SFI right now. Last year with overall attendance (percentage-wise) Cedar Fair did worse. Both parks broke even on the year, but there was one thing that let you know that SFI was the winner. Cedar Fair gained Geagua Lake, but had the same chain wide attendance. GL made up for 4% of the chain's attendance. SFI lost WoA, yet still made that up with every other park in the chain to break even.

Just because every park isn't getting Kingda Ka does not equal neglect. Every park got additions/approvements that were appropriate for that park and the weight it pulls. Some parks simply don't need something huge and flashy to keep attendance up. All they need is a new flat, or a new Tornado. Just because all of the parks didn't get something for us enthusiast to drool at does not mean that it's being neglected. Again, the attendance has shown that. Yopu really need to take off the enthusiast hat, because it's hurting your thought process on this.

__________________

^It does too indicate neglect & you darn well know it!you're just saying that cuz you don't want the coaster gravy train for SFSB,SFSR & SFSB2 to end.

Your spoiled a**ed park is getting yet another coaster next year under current SF ownership when you just got a very expensive one this year & another one 2 years ago,all the while some of the parks havn't gotten any coasters since 2001 & some as far back as 1999.

Under current management SFI has gone wrong by giving major rides(ie coasters) to these parks repeatetly while leaving a vast majority of the chain high & dry & people are fed up with it,not just the enthusiasts but the GP as well.....I've seen lots of folks at SFA complain about the lack of new coasters & flats in the theme park side of the property.


Burke failed to realize that the chain doesn't revolve soley around the 3 or so parks he spoils on a constant basis,that's partly why SFWOA failed & had to be sold & worse Burke is dumb enough to keep buying parks when he & his idiotic board of management & directors are having enough trouble with what they've got already,I'm all for Snyder taking over the company because it might mean new coasters for the parks that NEED THEM,not just the parks that corporate currently feels DESRVE THEM.


Anyone new can't possibly be worse than Kerian Burke at this point so the sooner he's gone the better.

[QUOTE=BatwingFan SFA]Burke failed to realize that the chain doesn't revolve soley around the 3 or so parks he spoils on a constant basis,that's partly why SFWOA failed & had to be sold[/QUOTE]

The way you worded, I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you trying to say that SFWOA was neglected and that's why it failed??? They got four new coasters in 2000, another in 2001 along with the former SeaWorld. How is that neglect? Just because they didn't build anything for a couple years? They maybe even would've built something for 2003 if the park had been successful. At that point though, it wasn't ans they probably already though about selling it. It would be pretty stupid to build an expensive ride or coaster when you're going to just sell it less than a year later for a loss.

I get tired of people saying that SF neglects their parks. There are only a couple parks that don't get rides or coasters often and that's because they don't bring in the business to do so. It's a waste of money to build new attractions every few years if attendance isn't going to make big jumps. Some of those parks people feel are neglected are in areas with a smaller population and cannot bring that many people into their parks no matter what. So they only add attractions every so often. Look at almost any park that does well attendance wise and you'll see that they're not far from major metropolitan areas. That helps more than anything when it comes to high attendance.

I'm also tired of hearing it because other chains do it too. Don't tell me that Cedar Fair doesn't do the same thing thing. CP and KBF get much of the attention, Dorney gets some CF love and the rest get new attractions every so often. How often do Valleyfair, Worlds of Fun and let's not forget Michigan's Adventure, how often do they get rides? And please, nobody be a dumbass and bring up this year. Because if you do, I'll simply ask when's the last time they did before this year.

But it's not just Cedar Fair either, look at Paramount. They don't give most of their attention to PKI and PKD when it comes to getting the most and also the biggest attractions? C'mon, I understand some people are fanboys of one park or chain or another and some are simply Six Flags [I]hater[/I], but think with an open mind. Otherwise some people come off sounding downright stupid on here.

Also, the talk about Snyder selling off some of the land surrounding some of the parks. Hello! Six Flags is already doing or talking about doing that. They sold the land across from SFGAm and in their conference call just a few weeks ago, they talked about theland near SFA. So what is Snyder talking about that's so different from what's happening now?

Here's the truth for who's willing to listen (those who are smart). Six Flags is already turning itself around and Snyder just wants to be a part of it. I'll give him that, it's a smart move to want to take over a company that is on the way up. Smart move by Snyder there. But to accomplish what he wants to do, he need people to think that SF is still struggling and can't get itself out of a whole as it in now. So he rips on the chain and makes it seems as if they're still doing poorly. That way people will welcome him and hope for his arrival. He is fooling people and many of you also fell for it. Let me take a time out so I can finish laughing at you for doing so.....



.....ok, I'm back. If the company was doing poorly and he didn't think it would come back ,he wouldn't have bought stock in the company, would he? That wouldn't be very smart of him, now would it? That would contradict what many of you are saying about him being a great businessman. Better and more likely, he saw a company that had been struggling but was on the way up. He could buy cheap and soon the stock would rise because of the improvements made at SF. Then shortly after before public opinion changed much, he would try to take over. It's a smart business move. He'll make a ton of money from a chain that is greatly improving and becoming profitable once again. And he'll also get to take credit for it as some sort of savior of Six Flags. He's an egomaniac trying to make money and take the credit for their turnaround. Simple as that.

That's the truth if anyone is smart enough to accept it.

__________________
YOUR HATRED AMUSES ME

[QUOTE=BatwingFan SFA]^It does too indicate neglect & you darn well know it!you're just saying that cuz you don't want the coaster gravy train for SFSB,SFSR & SFSB2 to end.

Your spoiled a**ed park is getting yet another coaster next year under current SF ownership when you just got a very expensive one this year & another one 2 years ago,all the while some of the parks havn't gotten any coasters since 2001 & some as far back as 1999.

Under current management SFI has gone wrong by giving major rides(ie coasters) to these parks repeatetly while leaving a vast majority of the chain high & dry & people are fed up with it,not just the enthusiasts but the GP as well.....I've seen lots of folks at SFA complain about the lack of new coasters & flats in the theme park side of the property.


Burke failed to realize that the chain doesn't revolve soley around the 3 or so parks he spoils on a constant basis,that's partly why SFWOA failed & had to be sold & worse Burke is dumb enough to keep buying parks when he & his idiotic board of management & directors are having enough trouble with what they've got already,I'm all for Snyder taking over the company because it might mean new coasters for the parks that NEED THEM,not just the parks that corporate currently feels DESRVE THEM.


Anyone new can't possibly be worse than Kerian Burke at this point so the sooner he's gone the better.[/QUOTE]

I think you and the others making this argument have forgotten the fact the original SF parks about two years ago one a lawsuit brough against TW that paid them a hefty sum of money when TW didn't invest in those parks per an agreement. Now their building rides and attractions with that sum of money.

You compare adding attractions to 7 parks with adding them in 31? SFSTL has added 3 major attractions, not including the three pay attractions, since 2000. Three have also been added to SFDL since 1999.

Major attractions have been added to SFA in 2005, 2003, 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998, 1997, 1995...

__________________
SFGADV, DP, IB, SFSTL, W.Dells, SFGAM, PKI, HW, SFKK, HHNJ, SFA, Clementon, SFNE & LC in '05

Disneyland, California Adventure, Knotts, SFMM, Dollywood, Rye & Coney Island in '06

[QUOTE=coasterlove]The way you worded, I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you trying to say that SFWOA was neglected and that's why it failed??? They got four new coasters in 2000, another in 2001 along with the former SeaWorld. How is that neglect? Just because they didn't build anything for a couple years? They maybe even would've built something for 2003 if the park had been successful. At that point though, it wasn't ans they probably already though about selling it. It would be pretty stupid to build an expensive ride or coaster when you're going to just sell it less than a year later for a loss.[/QUOTE]

You don't know how happy I am that you brought this subject up about how SFWoA got four new coasters in 2000. But let me ask you something, doesn't Six Flags do that to ALL of it's new parks. Here let me help you with that answer.

Six Flags Inc. started operating Six Flags Marine World in 1999, well within three years of operating the park they installed 5 new coasters and then got that POS Zonga in 2003. How about Six Flags America? Six Flags took over in 1999, and installed three new coasters that year. And with two more years under it's belt, they installed another two coasters. Then you have Geauga Lake, opening season got four new coasters, plus another one the next season. Oh, Six Flags Holland too...Six Flags started running the park in 2000, guess what?! Four new coasters opening season, and another large coaster in 2002. The next park I'm going to list aren't as drastic as the ones before, but when Six Flags New Orleans first became a Six Flags park, Six Flags also installed two new coasters. The point I'm trying to make is Six Flags Worlds of Adventure was not "special" for receiving 5 coasters in a matter of 2 years...Like I said, look around it's a trend for new Six Flags parks. They think if they install 3-5 new coasters it's opening season that they don't have to put any new attractions in the park for the next few years. Do you realize that After X-Flight in 2001, the first attraction the park got was a slide complex in 2003. If Six Flags was wondering why attendance dropped, this might be a reason. Really, I'm going to say the same thing all the Six Flags Great Adventure fanboys said when people were complaining that attendance would drop if they don't keep getting new rides. But, why would it be any different for Geauga Lake, did Six Flags think that people were going to keep coming back to the same old park year after year? I think not, it takes new rides or attractions to attract people to the park. If Six Flags Great Adventure needs new rides year after year to keep attendance up, why wouldn't Six Flags Worlds of Adventure or any of the neglected parks for that matter. Six Flags thinks that attendance is going to rise without offering new rides, and people are just going to wake up one morning and say, "Man I really think Six Flags Worlds of Adventure is a great park, I should go even though they haven't added a new coaster or ride in 2 years". The fact is, Six Flags slaps these Tornados in all it's parks thinking that it's going to pursuade people to come to the park, when in reality it's just a way of Six Flags saying your not good enough for a new coaster.

[QUOTE=coasterlove]I get tired of people saying that SF neglects their parks. There are only a couple parks that don't get rides or coasters often and that's because they don't bring in the business to do so. It's a waste of money to build new attractions every few years if attendance isn't going to make big jumps.[/QUOTE]

Really, I could really name a few parks that haven't received new coasters in quite a long time. And no, I'm not counting used rides because thats just as worse as a park getting a Tornado. And like you said, Six Flags doesn't put new coasters in places that don't bring in business, but like I said above, how can Six Flags expect attendance to jump if theres nothing to bring people to. Isn't the point of a new attraction to get large crowds to the park? Waste of money to build new attractions!? Like I said, the point of putting new attractions in a park is to attract people to it. The only way your going to get jumps is if people have some sort of incentive to come to the park. Look at Kingda Ka, it was all over the media, for one second do you think the park would have done so good if they hadn't advertised it as the worlds tallest and fastest coaster? The general public wouldn't even know that it was unless they advertise it. That's an incentive, SFGAdv is challenging people to come ride the worlds tallest and fastest coaster so people can actually say they rode it. That's the main reason attendance is up, do you think for one second that if a park like SFA got a new coaster and advertised it that park attendance wouldn't go up!? If so you really need to do some research. I have a pretty good example to explain this. Six Flags Marine World put v2: Vertical Velocity in 2001, this season they announced that attendance has rised for the first time in 3 years. 3 years ago will land us in 2002, one season after Vertical Velocity was put in. What does that tell you? Your not going to attract people unless theres something to actual bring them to, it's just common sense.

[QUOTE=EastCoastn07]How about Six Flags America? Six Flags took over in 1999, and installed three new coasters that year. And with two more years under it's belt, they installed another two coasters. [/QUOTE]

Ah, but SFA also lost two coasters in 1999. Python and Canonball. So their net gain was one coaster.

Also, Great Adventure added 3 in 1999 and two more since 2000.

Great America added five since 1999

Magic Mountain has added six since 1999

Over Texas has added three since 1999

Over Georgia has added five since 1999

My point? SFA has addded the same number of new coasters over the past six years as the big five parks have.