Only weeks after Six Flags announced that Kentucky Kingdom would not be reopening, Kentucky state officials have filed a lawsuit against Six Flags.
At issue: the state wants the bankruptcy judge to declare that all the rides and other attractions on the land are owned by the fair board and not by Six Flags.
Chang was removed last year and Six Flags had claimed there was a water park expansion in the works, but the suit accuses the theme park operator of fraud in regard to the removal of Chang because the water park was never built.
The state board is also suing for breach of contract and damages caused by Six Flags’ removal of any rides.
Earlier this month, when the park closed, the president of the state fair board said he was just as shocked as the public.
“We were surprised by the news release. We weren’t notified ahead of time. We didn’t receive one,” Kentucky State Fair Board President Harold Workman said on February 5.
The state is hearing from Six Flags in the form of a countersuit. The company disputed the ownership of the thrill rides and asked a bankruptcy judge to declare that the contested rides are not the landlord’s property and the company should be allowed to remove those rides.
State officials said there are other parties interested in running the park, so the ruling on who owns the rides is crucial.
Barring a settlement, the judge overseeing Six Flags’ Chapter 11 case will decide who owns the rides.
For more information visit WLKY.
Tags: Chang, Six Flags Kentucky Kingdom
I doubt anyone thought this wouldn't be sent to he courts. while i would like to see an outcome that comes out in both parties favor. i know that won't happen.
I didn't want to see Chang at SFGAM even as a storage yard ride. Just get it to where it needs to be.
Im not shocked that Six Flags closed another park for no reason. This makes 3 for no reason. They kept closed SFNO due to not wanted to fix the park up after the hurricane. They could of used the insurance money to fix the park up. That led to a lawsuit by the city that i think is still going. They closed Six Flags Astro World for no reason. Now SFKK. I think that the CEO needs to go. Hes screwed up enough already. Six Flags could of sold 2 of the 3 parks and made money on it. This crap they are pulling is gonna put them more into money trouble. They already had to pay out for the drop tower accident to that girl. And that was lifetime care plus the money. Six Flags has had money trouble since they sold Geagua Lake. We had a waterpark in Columbus, Ohio that was owned by Six Flags. They sold it after the 2006 season. It was a rundown park. Now, its better then it ever was since The Columbus Zoo bought it. I wouldnt be shocked if Six Flags closed Magic Mountain.
SFI has downgraded their chain dramatically in teh last decade. rarely was ti done right. From what I had heard there was a potential buyer for SFKK. if that was true they should have taken that option. So many of the attractions can't or just aren't worth moving. a new company could have used them as a base and moved on form there. SFI could have been in a situation to make money instead of spending money.
Another thing is moves like this make SFI look bad. It hurts customer loyalty and in the long run could affect them negatively in teh long run.
The only closures that the CURRENT Six Flags board oversaw was that of SFNO and SFKK. Nitro Luvr did a good job talking about SFNO's reason for closing, so I won't go there. As for SFKK, that's all on the Fair Board. People want to say that Chang's removal was the bell tolling for the park. This is slightly misplaced logic. Yes, the bell was tolling, but for the park in it's current state, NOT as it's status as a Six Flags park. We know that Chang was removed after Six Flags showed the Fair Board plans for a massive Water Park expansion. Now ask yourself, would any company sit there and waste the time, energy, and ultimately MONEY to create a business plan that they KNOW they will NOT use? On top of that, the company is in Bankruptcy Court. Not the time to play silly games with your money. The park was heading the way Geagua Lake was heading, not the way it is heading now. Six Flags clearly wanted to try a different angle and go for the Water Park angle since the theme park wasn't bringing in money in that market.
Now, the reason I put the blame on the Fair Board is because they decided to call SFI's bluff. Six Flags came with their offer and the KFB decided not to budge. If they didn't like the proposal, which usually happens in negotiations, then you come to the table with your first compromising offer. If the KFB didn't even want to come to the table, why should SFI stick around? The KFB was stupid, and now they are trying to deflect the blame. However, from news article comments, most Kentuckians are wise to the game and know the KFB is to blame.
Lastly, it is inaccurate to say that the current Six Flags board has driven the chain down. Since they have taken over, Guest Satisfaction Surveys have been at an all-time high, AND Six Flags finally made a profit for the first time in a very long time! That is a company on the rise, not on the fall. The debt was crippling however, so they basically HAD to take the issue to court to clean it up so that they can survive and thrive as a company in the future.
The shareholders led by Dan Snyder voted out the former CEO and the current management team that is leading the rebound came into place right after Astroworld closed. The new board wanted to save Astroworld but the wheels were already too far turned in its demolition. Astroworld was one of the first ever attempted theme parks so it was smaller than what most current amusement park models turned out to be. It was like a dinky first generation Honda Civic, too tiny. Astroworld has its importance in theme park history. I wish they planned the initial model to be somewhat bigger, that the park would have already had the land before the development came behind it and surrounded/landlocked it. Who would have known? It was part of the AstroDomain so by design it was going to share parking with the Astrodome and the Convention Hall across the 610 Interstate. I just have that Astroworld as a vacant flatted lot credit.
SFKK is too weird with a road running through it. My first impression was that it was a State highway running both ways, not an entrance boulevard to a Convention State Fair complex. That was the case with Dorney Park before I was born I believe. I'm glad they closed that in and moved the state route out of the park connecting the park continously on both ends. The state road ran between Thunderhawk and Dominator. It would have went diagonal right under Steel Force's second hill, crossing the ponds. If SFKK comes back with a new operator I bet they would play the boomerang coaster card down the line, it would return.
I'd have to say that from a business standpoint -- and this coming from someone who grew up going there time after time -- it was quite reasonable to close down AstroWorld. The park was way too small, there was virtually no room to expand, they didn't have their own parking lot (always shared with the Astrodome), and not much had been invested in the park. By dismantling the park and selling off the land for more practical uses in the future, Six Flags reduced their debt load and financial burden of maintenance.
And when the park was built in the 1960's, no one would have anticipated Houston's tremendous growth explosion since then that engulfed the park. If the park had been built further out from the city where space was abundant, it may be that the park might still be here today.
From the information they had, the decision to close the park was the right one, but they ended up getting about half of what they expected for the land, I believe, which still sits vacant, 4 years later.
It was Premier and it's management that bought the parks and yes they grabbed everything that went in front of them. after that they bought SFI. After that the over spending went from parks to ride additions.
in 2002 Astroworld had 1.8 million making it a medium performing park within the chain. They tore it apart because they thought they could sell the land for a huge profit. Like mentioned above that was not the case. The fact it was land locked meant little to nothing. Technically Magic kingdom is land locked. The quality of the park has a lot to do with survival. A Park with a great atmosphere can sit on ride longer and have few additions and still pull crowds. But Quality was not what SFI was about at the time.
SFNO was poorly built in teh first place. The land should have been built up to help prevent flooding they new it would flood that's why everything was build up on boardwalks. but, they were obligated by contract to operate the park and rebuild anything damaged for any reason. I under stand and partially agree with their choice but legally they were in teh wrong. They were even more in the wrong to start shipping off rides.
SFKK - to get back on topic. i agree the fair board has some blame. but We have no idea what percentage of the Straight profit share that SFI proposed was offered. If it was around 5-10 percent I might also have said no. The fair board was apparently getting 1.1 Million in rent as a park SFI was likely making out great in that deal. But if the goal was to convert it to a water park then they needed to cut down what they would pay out.
SFNO was Jazzland at first, Alpha Parks' failure.
Was is the monetary value of Chang if Six Flags is ruled to compensate for it? hmmm.
That's a good point that coaster is likely still worth 15-20 Million. Most of what they have added to the park there isn't worth anywhere near that.