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.

__________________
I want to go to John's Park.

[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.