I guess we investors can either sell or ride the wave. How many others own stock?

That is a sad basis for selling off a park that is making you money when you are 2 billion in debt. I think he is pushing the "family" angle a little too much.

If there is such a big problem with teenagers at the park, hire more security and maybe have a curfue for teens in the park without there parents.

Sfmm, and six flags nj(forgot the park initials) are the 2 flagship parks for six flags. By selling off one of the biggest money makers you have, that is not going to help pay off your debt that will continue to grow without the park.

I love history.

Maybe the board should find a CEO that would be able to guide the chain through their transition and not look at doing quick fixes that would permanently damage the chain's ability to earn money over the long term.

Let's not jump the gun here. Perhaps they will just sell some of the land around the Mountain. FWIW, they look like they are putting in some sort of shopping center or something across MM Pkway from the front gate.

SFMM could definitely use some work, though. They have some old stuff sitting around the park that's not being utilized, such as the monorail and Orient Express. They have a lack of flats as well. What they should do is kick maintenance into high gear, add another children's area, along with some flats, and combine SFMM with SFHH. SFGam is doing well--perhaps they can use that as a pattern for SFMM (included waterpark, more than one kids area, more flats).

That's not what he's saying at all. What he's saying is that the park, as it stands today, does not fit within the bounds of the company's strategy. They're redefining their customer, which is a radical and risky thing to do. It's also the right thing to do, if you ask me.

Selling the park seems a bit too radical to me, but in a market the size of LA, they probably are starting to think about how the brand is perceived. If the comments on this site are any indication, the brand suffers a lot at the hands of Magic Mountain.

Not sure I get how you'd want to give up a park like Darien Lake though, which doesn't have significant competition. No idea how it is viewed in Buffalo, and what kind of numbers they see.

Now assume that they can sell the park's land for similar per-acre price as they sold the Astroworld site (and that's probably a pretty low estimate considering the land price differences between Houston and LA), but based on those numbers they could sell the MM land for $175-200M. $200M dollars today is worth a lot more than $200M over eight years (which is the approximate time it would take to earn the same amount in operating income). So, I can definitely see how that would make sense from a business standpoint...emotional feelings about the park itself set aside.

Or, assuming they could sell the park as is for a similar multiple (10.7 X EBITDA) as CBS sold Paramount Parks, SFMM itself could bring in around $250M. Either way, there's a lot greater potential current value in divesting the park than there is in keeping it operating as a SF.

They've announced that their goal is to get their debt down to around $1.6B (which, will actually be less than CF's...even after the announced equity offering). They are going to need some "big bangs" to make that happen. (Selling Wyandot Lake or other small properties for $2M a pop just isn't going to cut it...)

---

Sfmm, and six flags nj(forgot the park initials) are the 2 flagship parks for six flags.

---

Look at the numbers (specifically, look at attendance vs operating days per year). The only thing that backs up the "SFMM is a flagship" argument is the fact that the former management constantly screamed that. The park's piss poor attendance speaks for itself.

-Nate

What a complete turn around two companies are facing at the same time. Cedar Fair grew it's holdings smartly, with due diligence, etc. Six Flags bought up parks like bottled water before a hurricane. Six Flags threw coasters up like they were pennants. Cedar Fair made slow, precise captial investments each year concentrating on all areas of their business and not just coasters.

Now look at the corner these two companies are turning. I would say it is amazing but the writing was on the wall back in the mid-90s.

"Magic Mountain attracts 2.5 million to 3 million guests a year and is considered a profitable property, said John Cora, a theme park consultant and CEO of Palace Entertainment, which owns Raging Waters in San Dimas and the Boomer's chain of family entertainment centers."

That ranks MM as 2nd or 3rd any given year. If they sell of MM, they lose chain wide a huge chunk of their admissions! Which park in the chain could compensate for that loss?

Even if they cleared 300 or 500 million off a complete sale, the debt drops to 1.8/6 billion, and they also lose a profitable park in the process. They can't pay off the remainder of the debt with less money coming in. The CFO (ex Euro Disney guy) should figure out a way to refinance the debt.

I don't think Shaprio's ideas are universally flawed, but the execution of them, the travel expenses promoting the parks as family friendly and the insulting message to teens that they are not welcome, have clearly backfired. It would have been a better solution to actually place value on the customers they had while pursuing other demographics.

$2 billion in debt is a lot to erase. You're not going to erase it by continuing to dump $20 million rides into an underperforming park.

Amusement parks aren't charities open for the good of the public. They're businesses, and they need to be profitable.

Here are some fun facts:
-Divide the park's attendance by the number of operating days each year to get an "average per day attendance" figure.

SFGAm: 20,500ppd (people per day)
SFGAdv: 18,500
SFoG: 15,200
SFStL: 12,500
SFMM: 10,500
SFEG: 10,200

So SFMM basically performs at the same level as SFEG. That's really great for a park three times that big with a significantly larger operating budget. I don't care what some consultant at another park says. Those numbers are dismal!

-Nate

Add to this the fact that this land is much more valuable as mixed use and this decision is a no-brainer. I see no way anybody steps up to save this place from becoming a shopping mall or like.

P.S. I could go into the reasons that it would be almost impossible...especially in California, to clean up the place, but I'm in no mood for battle. I'll let somebody else take that heat...

P.P.S. The demise of this park falls on prior ownership. The fact that they let this place get the reputation it so rightfully deserves is a tragdy of epic proportions. This indeed proves that customer loyalty has limits...even in something that seems so inelastic like top line roller coasters! People...especially grown-ups who spend their own money...will only take so much crap before they decide to go elsewhere.

I have felt saddened at the loss of every park and every coaster that has ever went away. As for SFMM...good riddance! I can only hope it comes sooner rather than later...
*** This post was edited by Jeffrey R Smith 6/23/2006 3:31:51 PM ***

...ahem....

TAER IT DOWN!!!11!1!!!!11

Seems like a common sense business move for SF.

You would think that when he took over, he might have noticed how much work it would take to turn some of the properties into family places, it wouldn't happen based on adding a parade, raise prices past the competition, and then reverse the reputation in less than 6 months.

They can't turn a a bigger profit off of Magic Mountain with 3 million people only means they are unable to sell products at prices that their customers want.

Seriously, for SFMM to get to the point of being considered a "family friendly" park there will have to be a serious investment of cash (fixing rides, adding flats/shows) and more importantly time (to erase the image of MM being "The Xtreme Park). And at the end of the day, even with the most rosy picture coming true, MM would *still* be a substandard product to Disney. Sure, being a poor-man's Disney is fine for SFGAm which is 1500 miles away from a Disney park. But when Disney is literally right up the road a piece it becomes more problematic.

I cant see what else you really expected them to decide. They could *try* and change the image of MM but really, would it make sense (cents)?
lata, jeremy
--if it dont make dollars then it dont make sense!

Shapiro cannot, cannot not focus on teenagers.

if those million teens are gone, thats a million x 2 visits.

obviously hypothetical, but... ya know? the perfect comparison is with geauga lake and SFWoA. no more teens. but... the family's don't seem to be coming in droves either. well, now you're screwed.

Family includes teens. Teens by themeselves are essentially different customers.

And again, Disney is just down the road. You also have Knotts which is more family friendly as well. SFMM is competing with two family friendly parks (and you cannot get much more family friendly than Disney!) and with their reputation as a teen hangout and less than stellar park maintenance, I know which park I would choose.

Not all teens require extreme thrills to have a good time, either. I expected my son to be bored to tears at Holiday World when we made the first trip when he was 17. Believe it or not, he was very impressed with Holiday World even though they had only the Legend and Raven when we went.

Granted, I'm sure there are more reasons for this move, than just image, but if that really is a big reason for selling parks, I think there are better alternatives, especially now when so many parks are for sale (in all likelyhood, brining all the prices down).

What happened at SFMM was too many high intensity rides with little to appeal to families with younger kids. Naturally the families went to DL, KBF etc and left SFMM to become a family unfriendly teen hangout.

I will state again, a properly designed big park should have plenty of attractions for everyone. They should attempt to draw from all age groups. The problem with the teens and young adults is when they are the only ones attracted to a park.

SFMM is the most obvious example of this problem for Six Flags. SFAW had also become such a park but now it is gone. The big challenge now will be to reshape SFGA which is still top heavy with big coasters.

I remember SFOG as it was back in the early 1980s. It was clearly a family oriented park at the time. There were only three coasters. Family attractions were everywhere. In many ways it was like LC as it is now. Six Flags is likely to return such parks as SFOG to their roots although with more coasters than in the past.

---

But you keep missing the point... the teens weren't going with their families. They were getting cheap season passes and going sans families, not spending any money. The Ohio park was like that in the worst way during the last year. They were getting cheap season passes and going sans families, not spending any money.

---

The point I am trying to make was that they WERE making money. Obviouslly not as much as if those same million teens were now entire families, but the fact of the matter is (with Geauga Lake anyways) was that those 3 million visitors at one time [which were mostly teens] have dwindled down to dismal numbers of "family folk" which didn't make up for all those teens and their season passes.

Lets say 1 out of the 3 millon we teenagers, the fact of the matter is, that's 1 million x $50 season passes, + add in the parking fees they would HAVE to pay to visit [unless they were dropped off]. that's a pretty hefty hunk, even if it's "JUST" teens. Now we are cattering to the families that will vist once, and the attendance numbers just arn't there... of course per capita spending is up (because prices were raised), but if the attendance isn't there marginally to make up for the lost people in the first place, what's the point.

It seems that snyder & co, as well as cedar fair, both underestimated how much they would really be losing.where did all the people go? was it really worth it for them to market to this new group? Of course, in the case of Geauga Lake, the animals were a huge factor as well, but, I think there's a lot more to it than just saying "teen's don't spend money", and it just seemed like snyder & co just read these message boards and is like, oh look, I think jeff is right, teen's don't spend money so lets just eliminate them and charge lots of money for everything!

Why not *gasp* market to both? A park with teenagers in it doesn't have to be some horrible place where families are going to stay away from... not all teen's are horrible people, and not all teens are going to vandalize the park, etc. there are other ways to stop that than simply not trying to market them to the park. THe fact of the matter is, they DID spend the money on the cheap passes, and they DID spend the money to park. Sure they wern't buying souveneirs, and they wern't playing games, etc. but to say they were making the park NO money is completly false, and if the numbers don't replace them, which they havn't, then you're gonna be screwed.

---

As I mentioned before, the best policy for a park is one which welcomes the teens but discourages the use of the park as a teen hangout that becomes family unfriendly. Even some of the family oriented parks are adding more thrills. Examples include parks like KB, LC, IB, and HW. Meanwhile KW continues to maintain that balance that brings in both families and teens.

---

^ he posted this as i was typing. *THIS* is the correct answer, IMO

Yout walk into a park like Paramounts Kings Island or Canada's Wonderland and you see all kind of people, and their attendance numbers are very high (from what i've seen). THey have many large roller coasters and thrills, families visit in drove, but many teens go in large groups, get dropped off, etc. and have a great time. Are these parks in trouble? -- Yes they are being sold, but I think it was for other reasons besides poor park opperations / profits / etc. You walk around and you don't see vandalism, you see lines because their are tons of people, and the numbers always look promising at these parks. Rides are open and well maintained compared to chains like SF, and that keeps people coming back.

// alan j

*** This post was edited by SFDL_Dude 6/23/2006 11:36:14 PM ***

Where Gadv. got seriously unbalanced recently though was this year when there was was one major flat (the Top Spin) and the Vekoma Madhouse left out of the 25-new rides package (minus the kiddie area) from 1999. Gone is the Frisbee (now at SFGam), the Jump (who knows what happend to it), the Zamperla Polyp (?), the double-sided Chance Inverter (?), Evolution (now Excalibur at SFStl), Breakdance (I believe that wound up at SFOT this year, and if that's not the case, please reinstall it somewhere in the park), and I'm sure the Chaos was removed for this season as well. We also lost the Condor to SFGAm (as far as I know), but I can't blame that move on Premier since that was probably part of ride rotation under the old Six Flags.

The thing to remember is that there are some parks that are able to have the two groups coexist. I doubt that Six Flags will start a major coaster demolition project. The main thing is to prevent the parks from becoming a hangout for trouble makers and to make sure that plenty of families are in the parks to create the desired park environment. Getting rid of the teens completely should NOT be a goal. Remember, many families have teens and they want thrill rides including big coasters.

Aug 2003 sales meeting: "Why publish 52 issues a year? Why not publish only 26?" Shortly after he announces that beginning in 2004 we drop to 26 issues.

Aug 2004 sales meeting: "What if you used the same size paper as your sister publication?" Yep...shortly thereafter we completely redesigned the magazine for a different paper size.

So when Shapiro says they're "looking into" the option of selling SFMM and then gives a laundry list of reasons why SF would even considering selling the park -- i.e. "land value" and "doesn't fit our new company family strategy" I'm of the mindset that the decision is already made.

Saddest thing of all: I really don't care. My one visit each year to the park, made simply to renew a really inexpensive annual pass to be used at better parks in the chain on my travels, has been MORE then enough. I always left more frustrated than when I entered. The only exception in the last 5 years was my visit in May to ride Tatsu...I actually enjoyed the park and noticed some steps in the right direction. But will I be sad to see the park closed? Not really....

*** This post was edited by Mamoosh 6/24/2006 8:30:08 AM ***

I love coasters just as much as the next enthusiast, but after visiting this park, I couldn't believe that a park of this size is pretty much just coasters and not much else.

No reason why this park cannot have the same variety as CP, SFGAm, or PKI.

It did admmitedly work very well at PKI though during Beastbuzz. They do have quite a lot of flats, although they don't have many sophisticated flats with the exception of TR and Delirium (not sure how complex Avatar is). That does make a difference. Even with 36,000 people in attendance, we only waited 45 minutes for the Italian Job at about 1pm in the afternoon, which surprised me considering they were only running two trains (I believe). I would've loved to have ridden Tomb Raider again, but with the line all the way outside of the entrance, that wasn't going to happen.

I need to get out to SFMM soon, as I'm starting to feel the park may be done by the end of the year.

---

The point I am trying to make was that they WERE making money. Obviouslly not as much as if those same million teens were now entire families, but the fact of the matter is (with Geauga Lake anyways) was that those 3 million visitors at one time [which were mostly teens] have dwindled down to dismal numbers of "family folk" which didn't make up for all those teens and their season passes.

---

I don't know any real data either, but I suspect Shapiro is on the right track. He does have the data.

I'm going on the record and stating that these rides have provided more thrills and enjoyment per visit than most other parks I have been to.. even the ones in the midwest. Drop the ignorance of my park is better than your park bullcrap, were talking about the closure of a historical park and the possible scrapping of an awesome coaster collection in favor of $$ for possibly a f'in shopping mall or industrial park. The whole thought disgusts me.

As for attendance and stating teens are not making the parks money, honestly it's the chains fault. Bad pricing structure has led to the impending demise of the company. Why would someone go to a park and pay $49 for each day or instead pick up the $89+ season pass and come back as much as they want. Paramount parks (err Cedar Fair parks) are just as guilty of this. Add to this the $9 rice patty "hamburger" and $8 soda at these places, the 10-15 dollar parking and you can see the recipe for failure. Middle america simpy can't afford it. The rising price of gas as well as everything else is starting to eat at the blue collar worker to the point that going to the park for a day with the family is a $200-300 venture and that's just to get into the park let alone feed everyone.

It will be interesting to see if Cedar Fair can maintain their recent acquisitions as well. How would you guys feel if CF decided PKI wasnt bringing in enough cash and that the land and timber would be more profitable. Im sure there would be members on here up in arms.
*** This post was edited by CoasterBearVa 6/25/2006 4:09:39 AM ***

What in the world does any of this have to do with CP?

Even Shapiro admits SFMM has been mismanaged for years, pissing off millions of customers who will never return. Will I miss the park? No. Will I miss the coasters? Other than X, Riddler and Tatsu no, there's not one in the bunch I'd miss. Does that have anything to do with how I feel about CP? Not in the slightest.

The only thing more shocking that this weeks news is how some enthusiasts see coasters and amusement parks! lol

I understand that more than a few of you, $50 plus $15 for parking is a drop in the bucket to what you make. Understand that some of us have to live within a tght budget where $50 plus parking and the food in the parks are a an expense some of us have to do without. I would love to go down to Six flags Over Georgia since that park and I share the same birthday but I can't afford the $35 plus $15 for parking which they will get back in spades by all the other rides they want to you pay for inside the park. Heck, I can afford to drive down to Atlanta which is 120 miles away every weekend to make full use of a season pass if I was to get one. I can see a time in the near future where Six Flags and other parks will raise the price up to $100 and how many of you can afford that for a one day pass. How many of you can afford and will go to an amusement park if the price gets that high?

I feel that in the long run, if they were able to sell the park to another owner/investor... of whom could put a little TLC into the park, they could turn it around in a few years and bring back the charm it once had (did it ever have one?). The short-term answer is that they could make some big-bucks from the valuable land itself, but the long-term answer could be turning it around into a very profitable park that can again compete successfully along with Disney & Knotts.

If someone purchases the park... in less than 10yrs, I'm sure they could easily turn around a profit on the park with small yearly additions that will cater towards the family more & more while retaining the extreme thrill rides. I don't know how the park is laid out, but I'm sure they can easily fit a new kids section, a number of flats, and some landscaping to help beautify the park... add that along with in-park security (a-la Cedar Fair), and you've got a safe & more family-friendly park that anyone can enjoy from 1 to 100yrs old.

But again, that would require someone who has the capital to out-bid a developer who'd want to turn that into real-estate.

Kevin

P.S.What would you spend to go to a well run park with 40 or so coasters.*** This post was edited by kevin38 6/25/2006 10:37:08 AM ***

Regardless if you didn't like the park, it's a slap in the face to the one or two other CB memebers who did actully like the park, for you douche bags to sit here and boast about how happy you are and can't wait until SFMM is gone.

I'm not that big a fan of CP but I would still be mad and disguested if CF decided to shut it down for a possible housing track. I have enough respect to know that the people who grow up with CP might be hurtting and not sit and rub it in there faces how happy I am about their home park being crap and I'm glad it's being shut down. Some of the people on this site really disguest me. I cannot wait until one of your stupid beloved parks met it's day with a wrecking ball so I can spit in your faces like you doing the SFMM fans.

Remember earlier in the year, Six Flags America was considered to be sitting on some of the more "valuable" land in the chain and possibly was in danger of the land being sold?

Has the park performed better so far, or is this just one of a handful of other shocking news bits to come?

SFMM seems to have gone wrong in the following main areas, though:

• lack of flat rides and family flat rides
• lack of maintenance and upkeep of certain rides, buildings, and areas
• lack of good park operations

To turn SFMM around in these 3 key areas would take some time and money, perhaps more than the current management would like to spend. The last management team(s) are to blame for getting SFMM into this situation, and it's unfortunate that it's come to this.

For SFMM to have a lower annual attendance than even KBF is not good. This is one of Six Flags' megaparks, and to have it doing so poorly is unfortunate. When I was there, I didn't notice many families hanging out and doing things, and this is a bad sign. Shapiro wants the families to come, and SFMM isn't attracting enough.

If they were to keep this place, I would suggest corecting the 3 problems mentioned above, plus open up SFHH to SFMM guests--combine the parks like they are in plenty other amusement parks. This will enable them to offer something that Disney, Knotts, and Universal do not offer currently--amusement and water park together in the same park. This could also maybe help with marketing to families.

Too bad the place doesn't make much money, it's all in the marketing.
I would pull a few rides out of their, If I were to buy it. Too many high-maintainace attractions.