Login or Register to Hide This Ad

horsesboy

Silver Donor
Jun 16, 2013
957
2,119
93
#22
Something that Six Flags could do would be to buy the company and run it as a subsidiary rather then just buying the parks. An example of this would be that Kroger own Harris Teater but they are run as two separate companies that even compete against each other in some areas. We have no idea what a SF buyout would look like IF it were to happen. That said SF has some strong points that could greatly help SEAE if they were to buy it out. Examples include much better costumer services as well as a larger marketing footprint. And while I would never want to see the over commercializing of the park as SF dies it also wouldn't kill the parks yo look at add based partnerships as a alternative way to bring in cash. Say what you about them SF has done a better job at keeping their prices affordable for more people then most of the parks snd that is something that Busch could benefit from.
 

Alf33

Silver Donor
Jun 8, 2013
282
862
93
#29
I agree with this article. I just don't see it happening based on the financials alone. Point 2 about SF having to absorb another $1.5B in debt that SEAS has along with it's own just isn't feasible and you still need to add in what the actual sale price would be above the debt figure. And that figure would have to be at least 2.2B higher based on SEAS current market value alone (per The Street website based on current stock price) plus a good amount of profit. It would put SF in a very vulnerable position. Also if SEAS still has their advisory agreement with Evercore then they will be the ones to probably dictate the terms which would be the best for SEAS. And naturally with SEAS stock and market value going up and SF going down that's another negative the article mentions. If they wanted to buy them should have pounced a year ago when SEAS stock was at the bottom. Then you also have to figure in the renewed agreement that SEAS just executed with Sesame Place and all that's involved with that.
 
Mar 16, 2016
1,292
2,608
113
#30
A few things here (IMO):
~ Just talks doesn’t mean it’s gonna happen. Things like this are common all the time.

~ The reports also say “parts of SEAS”. This could mean many things. A big focus of SF’s expansion has been acquiring water parks. Makes me wonder if the talks were for certain water parks.

~ I think SF buying all of SEAS wouldn’t happen. The park I can see them most interested in is SW:SD. I can see the Busch Parks being what’s asked for too. I think SEAS is strong in their stance of not wanting to let them go.

~ We don’t know who called who. This could have been SEAS doing its homework. This could be SF doing it’s homework. This could be SEAS sitting there with an offer from Merlin and trying to figure out if it’s an offer worth taking.
 
Likes: RollyCoaster

Zimmy

Nessie thinks it is not polite to ask her age!
Sep 28, 2013
4,190
6,169
113
#31
I agree with this article. I just don't see it happening based on the financials alone. Point 2 about SF having to absorb another $1.5B in debt that SEAS has along with it's own just isn't feasible and you still need to add in what the actual sale price would be above the debt figure. And that figure would have to be at least 2.2B higher based on SEAS current market value alone (per The Street website based on current stock price) plus a good amount of profit. It would put SF in a very vulnerable position. Also if SEAS still has their advisory agreement with Evercore then they will be the ones to probably dictate the terms which would be the best for SEAS. And naturally with SEAS stock and market value going up and SF going down that's another negative the article mentions. If they wanted to buy them should have pounced a year ago when SEAS stock was at the bottom. Then you also have to figure in the renewed agreement that SEAS just executed with Sesame Place and all that's involved with that.
I love Motley Fool
 
Likes: musicman3204
Oct 7, 2011
507
1,761
93
#33
Gadv's atmosphere was one of the worst I've experienced.
It's not just me, then. Particularly in the depressing ex-parking-lot area where Scream Machine's theming of "scattered red gravel" went out with that ride, so it could be superseded by Green Lantern's theming of "scattered standard gravel." It's almost, but not quite, as low-budget as possible. (Scream at Six Flags Magic Mountain actually manages to put in even less effort, amazingly.)

At least the Superman ride next to Green Lantern has some grass.

I found the Green Lantern ride experience to be surprisingly pleasant and enjoyable, btw, after hearing almost nothing but complaints about roughness since it showed up on the trucks from its original home and was thrown up in GAdv's parking lot. Enjoyable ride. But there's nothing pleasant about that area's atmosphere.

Have you seen Green Lantern at SFGA
Not just GL, either. A surprising number of larger rides at Great Adventure are in self-evident need of paint. The only unifying visual vocabulary in that park is creeping urban neglect -- rather impressive in somewhat bucolic, rural-suburban Jackson NJ.
 

lce729

Cold as lce
Silver Donor
Jan 5, 2018
501
792
93
#34
I was just referring to the very obvious fact that it changes color midway through in a very tacky way
 
Apr 16, 2017
226
449
63
#36
It's not that it's only approved for temporary use it's that redoing it requires a new permit that the county can issue or refuse to issue or put stipulations on if they choose.
highly doubtful, repainting is regular maintenance; the paint does more than just give it a color
 
Apr 29, 2011
2,197
4,202
113
#40
It’s not cheap to repaint rides.
This!

Not only is it expensive to repaint coasters, it’s also an arduous task.

When Cedar Point rethemed Mantis into Rougarou, it took over 500 gallons of paint and almost 2 months to complete for the new color scheme to be added.

Repainting a roller coaster is definitely not a part of regular maintenance. It’s a whole new project to take on.
 
Login or Register to Hide This Ad