I am just wondering if all parks are safe or if some might be sold off
I think it was
@Zachary who said early on that quick closures would be unlikely. And I agree. It’s not going to move quick.
I think early on there’s going to be some positioning to see what parks have the long term future. We may see a few go the route of CGA and have the land sold with a lease back for a time period, which allows the park to slow additions, add more to other close parks, and generally transition off that park.
Another
@Zachary idea I agree with is that they should transition some parks to be only a single thing. I wouldn’t mind seeing them do something like SFGA keeps the dry and water park, SFA goes water park only, and Dorney goes dry park only. I know that kinda sucks for people that like doing both in one day.
For the most part though SF and CF didn’t have too much overlap in geographical territories outside the KD-SFA-SFGA-Dorney area so (luckily) not too many decisions will seem “random” based on that but should be more based in financials.
EDIT -
I think something that SF/CF combined should look at and think about is to do some parks in a Knobles style.
I'm thinking of parks like Michigan's Adventure, SFStl, SFDL, SFGE, SFA. Put the water park in a gated ticketed entrance, then what used to be the remainder of the park, just do no gate and have each ride ticketed/credited. What I like about that idea is they can be smart about targeting which rides are more popular so they can reshape the park around rides like that and streamline all the dry park rides. It also allows those parks to see less investments from corporate in terms of major rides and use the information from that to help them decide what rides they should keep, move, scrap, and really only put in new rides when certain types of rides ticketing explode.