Register or Login to Hide This Ad for Free!
This is just conjecture from some "analysts" who, as this article admits, were praising the idea of the merger.

Could some parks be sold off? Sure, and I'd be surprised if no other property changes occurred, but this doom-speak of "they're selling off everything but the MOST successful parks" sounds reactionary to me.
On the flip side, what has happened so far that shouldn’t make us feel doom and gloom?
 
Last edited:
If I had to guess, SFDK and SFGAdv could be contenders to sell off since historically Cedar Fair really wants nothing to do with animal care. If only there was a park chain that already cares for animals-- actually three or four of them...
I'd imagine they'll just relocate the animals out of the parks before selling the parks off entirely if they really were that disinterested, similar to what they did with Geauga Lake. That said SFDK is one of the parks I'm worried about though, I feel like that land might be pretty valuable.
 
I'd imagine they'll just relocate the animals out of the parks before selling the parks off entirely if they really were that disinterested, similar to what they did with Geauga Lake. That said SFDK is one of the parks I'm worried about though, I feel like that land might be pretty valuable.
Except the animals are the core of SFDK and get a HUGE tax break for Great Adventure. It's easier said than done getting rid of them.
 
While Dennis Spiegel is an industry "expert", his conjectures and opinions have sometimes been WAY off the mark.

If I had to guess, SFDK and SFGAdv could be contenders to sell off since historically Cedar Fair really wants nothing to do with animal care. If only there was a park chain that already cares for animals-- actually three or four of them...
maybe spin off discovery kingdom & great adventure into its own company
 
  • Like
Reactions: boston191
Damn. There are folks whose opinions need to be taken with a grain of salt, and there’s Dennis Speigel. For those unfamiliar, Dennis Speigel is perhaps the foremost expert on the amusement industry. Not only is he the nation’s premier amusement industry consultant, but he also has a personal connection to the current Six Flags because he was KD’s founding general manager and later became the head of the original Kings Entertainment parks. His experience and his connections run deep.

For what it’s worth, I actually think it would be wise for Six Flags to consider shedding virtually every fringe park in their portfolio. They consistently refer to the top 15 parks in the portfolio as being the ones that show the greatest returns on investment, and thus the ones that’ll be the subject of most of their upcoming investment. (Ideally, for me as an enthusiast, all of the smaller parks that aren’t in a competitive market would just get spun off as independent parks or get purchased by a low-threat competitor. But what happens to the sold-off parks is a separate discussion.)

Six Flags right now is (predictably) in an impossible position of having to manage and improve some 40 properties. If the top 15 are the real money makers, it might be worth stripping Six Flags down to just those parks. Today’s Six Flags, juggling random small parks from La Ronde to Frontier City, can’t properly focus on winning with their major parks.

But imagine a Six Flags with about 15 parks, where the smallest park is something like Dorney Park and the rest are your Cedar Points, Great Adventures, Kings Islands, and Magic Mountains of the world. Then, suddenly they have a world-class portfolio of parks, the best of the Cedar Fair parks and the best of the Six Flags parks. Then they can focus on actually growing them and operating them like world-class parks.

With a stacked roster and more consistent scale of parks, that gives them the freedom and focus to have one coherent mission for the parks — for example, to make every park the “Disney World” of their respective market. No time or money wasted trying to figure out what random flat ride ends up at Great Escape and Michigan’s Adventure; every waking minute and every dollar is spent building the core parks into the premier theme parks for their market.

It seems to me that in the corporate world, “focus” almost always translates to a better strategy and better execution. Focused strategy, focused attention, focused investments. For better or for worse, I think focus is exactly what Six Flags needs right now.
 
Last edited:
So I like a lot of what you said there @Mushroom and it’s pretty spot on, but I’ll put my one point if “disagreement” in even if its basically minor:

I think chains need smaller parks like La Ronde’s and Frontier City’s where minimal investments still means easy profits. Now - which parks that could be a part of is a call I don’t know enough to make. But like I would like to see them make the trade off of sell MM or Knott’s to someone, while keeping something smaller (Like MichAdv) where they can focus on not having a huge capital investments but enhance things like theme, food, events to pull in people.

This is just my $0.02 take is that those lower level parks that aren’t making as much is more because they get lost in the shuffle as opposed to can’t make money.

The real sad reality to me of what you said though @Mushroom is how many of those parks will we lose forever in this because SF will sell the land and dismantle the park in order to prevent a competitor from coming for them.
 
Six Flags under Jim Reid Anderson neglected its most popular property (GAdv) for years, and now it’s a ghost town with most park goers traveling to Hershey instead. A park that held the record for most money made in a single day in the chains history, and easily had the highest attendance out of all non-year round parks is now no better than Dorney.

Maybe the hilariously bad mismanagement is finally getting to them.
 
Last edited:
Activist investor, Land and Buildings, is back again.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/s...-to-monetize-land-assets-2ece4246?mod=markets

"Activist investor Land & Buildings Investment Management plans to tell Six Flags to spin out or sell its real estate and make other changes to boost its stock price, The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday evening.

Land & Buildings has about 2% stake in Six Flags. It wants the Six Flags to create a real-estate investment trust entity--which the activist investor thinks would trade under a higher multiple--or sell its properties. Land & Buildings believes Six Flags' real-estate portfolio could be worth as much as $6 billion."
 
Activist investor, Land and Buildings, is back again.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/s...-to-monetize-land-assets-2ece4246?mod=markets

"Activist investor Land & Buildings Investment Management plans to tell Six Flags to spin out or sell its real estate and make other changes to boost its stock price, The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday evening.

Land & Buildings has about 2% stake in Six Flags. It wants the Six Flags to create a real-estate investment trust entity--which the activist investor thinks would trade under a higher multiple--or sell its properties. Land & Buildings believes Six Flags' real-estate portfolio could be worth as much as $6 billion."
Sounds like a pretty clear conflict of interest
 
Here is the letter to shareholders that Land & Buildings sent out today.

https://www.businesswire.com/news/h...x-Flags-Substantial-Trapped-Real-Estate-Value

Weather anomalies mentioned, so this writeup essentially includes a full summary of the most recent earnings call.

At least they brought up enhancing park operations in there, something that would legitimately benefit all parties (despite revenue-generating customers being reduced to a parenthetical afterthought in the letter).
 
Consider Donating to Hide This Ad