Six Flags Looking At Purchasing Busch Gardens-SeaWorld Parks

Paul

* This post was modified at 1/18/13 9:30:56 AM *

Overbanked said:
I hope that doesn't not happen.

WHAT??!!!!

RobLec said:

Overbanked said:
I hope that doesn't not happen.

WHAT??!!!!

Double negatives are fun.

Overbanked said:
I realized the double negative, and tried to correct without going off the site, and of course it didn't correct.

Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb...

and two points to whoever can name the source of that reference.

RobLec said:

Overbanked said:
I realized the double negative, and tried to correct without going off the site, and of course it didn't correct.

Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb...

and two points to whoever can name the source of that reference.

This is a COMPLETE guess/stab in the dark (not kidding:)

Batman (1966 movie based on the TV show?)..Adam West?

I'd truly hate to see my favorite theme park (BGW_ become part of the Six Flags chain. I hope that this does not come to fruition.

alpengeistno3 said:

Six Flags Williamsburg?!? Oh boy, won't THAT be "fun".

Paul

If you think that that,s the biggest problem there are going to be alot of problems much more serious than that.When six flags purchased both geauga lake & sea world ohio & renamed it six flags world of adventures then a couple of years later sold it to cedar fair & because of that look what happened to aurora oh now.

Now i know allready now that this is going to happen.The 3 other sea world parks in orlando, san antonio & san diego will unfortunately meet the same fate as sea world ohio.I know it allready even now that it,s going to happen.& that means no more sea world parks, no more shamu the killer whale shows get ready for the other sea world parks to meet the same fate as sea world ohio.
When busch sold sea world ohio to six flags & now they didn,t even learn from their mistakes & they are going to sell now again to six flags.

While i do agree that a name like six flags williamsburg is going to look funny but the biggest loss is that the 3 sea world parks in orlando, san antonio & san diego will meet the same fate as sea world ohio.I know that allready even now that it,s going to happen.Busch did not learn from their mistakes in ohio & now they are going to do the same thing again?Just had to get this off my chest.

skc2000

beastmaster said:
Batman (1966 movie based on the TV show?)..Adam West?

Yup... two points!

RobLec said:

beastmaster said:
Batman (1966 movie based on the TV show?)..Adam West?

Yup... two points!

Yeah, I remember Batman running around the docks, seeing the ducks, the occupied rowboat, etc, but I had no recollection of that line of dialogue. But it just fit :)

Can I redeem the points for Jen and I to take one ride on Dark Knight on March 23rd?

Mike

* This post was modified at 1/18/13 11:50:15 AM *

Gross...

drachen said:

All of this Batman talk has me really worried that Alpengeist could possibly become Batman: The Ride.

Gross...

If so, it immediately becomes my lowest-ranked Batman invert.

Fatsoccerguy191 said:

Kind of spins your head, doesn't it?

It does when thinking that SF may be the buyer.

But Apollo? Who knows?
Blackstone hasn't done anything too harsh with those properties, as far as I know (which is never very far!).

I enjoyed my visits to the Sea World (Busch) properties in the last few years.

Mike B.

This could work if SF buys into BG/SW only as an investment, and remain at arms length, as does BX. But if SF feels they can involve themselves in the operation of the park, I can only see bad things happening.

I'm all for it as long as they don't take out the coasters. I have gut feeling some of the coasters would instantly go into RRP.

Fatsoccerguy191 said:

I'm all for it as long as they don't take out the coasters. I have gut feeling some of the coasters would instantly go into RRP.

All of BGE's coasters are probably safe from ride rotation thanks to the topography of the land they were built on.

If the deal does happen, I wonder how many of the trademarks Busch would require Six Flags to change. I know Alpengeist and Verbolten and most likely Griffon and Apollo's Chariot are trademarked names. Unlike Paramount or Time Warner, the names are of little value to Blackstone/Apollo if they sell, but they could force Six Flags to change them just "because". If the names are included with the deal, then we won't need to see Alpengeist change to "Batman" (unless they decide they want to do that "Bizarro thing" all over again.)

Paul

The appeal of this sale is not the ride equipment. It's obviously the business, the brands, location of the parks, year-round properties in desirable markets and the animals. Six Flags could easily convert Discovery Kingdom into the more desirable SeaWorld brand, replenish their killer whale pool and possibly expand to year-round operation.

There will be no name changes necessary for any rides. All of those names are trademarks of SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment. Those would be part of the sale. You're confusing the sale of Paramount Parks to Cedar Fair. Paramount Parks was licensing brands from Paramount Pictures. Cedar Fair chose to cancel those licensing agreements at the time of sale and stop using the names.

* This post was modified at 1/18/13 10:14:12 PM *

However, hypothetically speaking here, if SF were to get their hands on the Williamsburg property they could then have reason to sell SFA (if there were any potential buyers).

G-Dog

otoh, playing devil's advocate, I would expect Six flags to either sell their park in Maryland or gut the park for their steel coasters (ride of steel and joker's jinx being their 'better rides' of their steel line up and being sent elsewhere) or perhaps a mix of both gutting and selling what's left.

Paul

Hem, yeah despite the debt, their stock has been doing fairly well. Stocks are almost at the same price before the 2 for 1 stock split.

* This post was modified at 1/19/13 3:57:39 AM *

Cyclone_Phil said:

I join the 'this is a terrible idea' bandwagon. Six Flags maybe doing ok now, but based on their track record, who's to say they won't revert back to the days of over expansion and gutting of their smaller parks? I certainly like the family atmosphere at the Sea world parks over the teens that are at Six Flags. If it had to be six flags or cedar fair, I'd want cedar fair even though at this point they'd need to scale back to prevent from being stretched too thin.

otoh, playing devil's advocate, I would expect Six flags to either sell their park in Maryland or gut the park for their steel coasters (ride of steel and joker's jinx being their 'better rides' of their steel line up and being sent elsewhere) or perhaps a mix of both gutting and selling what's left.

Enough with the wild rumors of SFA being up for sale. The park has never been up for sale nor has SF sought a buyer for the park, ever.

Joe
Great_Ump

They would ruin the parks, plain and simple.

Hopefully they are just shopping around to see if it's worth it and will just make shares available for purchase. Any particular reason why they are looking to sell? I was under the impression that the Busch/Sea World parks do well financially.

Jen

GoYanks34 said:

Not a good idea and as most of you know I'm a fan of SF parks. The Busch parks are an entirely different entity than an amusement park and I would fear, like everyone else, that they would destroy the beauty and uniqueness those parks have.

Hopefully they are just shopping around to see if it's worth it and will just make shares available for purchase. Any particular reason why they are looking to sell? I was under the impression that the Busch/Sea World parks do well financially.

Jen

I feel the same way. I love Six Flags, but Busch Gardens provides a whole different park experience. Busch parks have thrill rides, but in a beautifully themed environment. It's like a Six Flags/ Disney combination. That is what draws me to Busch parks. I would hate to see Busch parks with a Six Flags theme. Hopefully this does not pan out. I would hate to see any change to the Busch parks.

Great_Ump said:

Enough with the wild rumors of SFA being up for sale. The park has never been up for sale nor has SF sought a buyer for the park, ever.

Joe
Great_Ump

Oh please, first off it was just a devil's advocate idea, nothing concrete. Two, if SF were to acquire the BG/SW parks, they wouldn't bother keeping 2 parks in close proximity to each other and would focus on the more recognizable park being BGW. CF gutted GL because they didn't need 3 parks in Ohio when they bought out all the parks from Paramount.

* This post was modified at 1/19/13 6:12:04 PM *

Eric_Gieszl said:

Blackstone Group is an investment firm. There primary business is to increase the value of their assets, not operate theme parks. Based on what I've read it seems they've achieved their financial goals with SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment and now they're ready to sell or cash out in part via a IPO.

I did not know that - makes sense now. Thanks!

Jen

Cyclone_Phil said:

Great_Ump said:

Enough with the wild rumors of SFA being up for sale. The park has never been up for sale nor has SF sought a buyer for the park, ever.

Joe
Great_Ump

Oh please, first off it was just a devil's advocate idea, nothing concrete. Two, if SF were to acquire the BG/SW parks, they wouldn't bother keeping 2 parks in close proximity to each other and would focus on the more recognizable park being BGW. CF gutted GL because they didn't need 3 parks in Ohio when they bought out all the parks from Paramount.

Just think, if this deal goes down, there will be 2 Six Flags parks in San Antonio TX.

Cyclone_Phil said:

Two, if SF were to acquire the BG/SW parks, they wouldn't bother keeping 2 parks in close proximity to each other and would focus on the more recognizable park being BGW. CF gutted GL because they didn't need 3 parks in Ohio when they bought out all the parks from Paramount.

The first statement is pure speculation that doesn't make much sense. Busch Gardens Williamsburg and Six Flags America are not in close proximity to each other. They may be close by enthusiast definition, but not by what the general public would consider. The park's are nearly three hours apart and primarily serve different markets. A three-hour drive to and from a location is not by most standards a day trip.

Six Flags is a "regional" park operator and at one time bragged that they had a park within a days drive of anywhere in the US, but let's be real the majority of their attendance at these parks comes from within a 90 minute drive. Closing Six Flags America would also likely benefit their competitor Kings Dominion more than Busch Gardens.

The second point is invalid as well. Cedar Point and Kings Island had little to do with Cedar Fair's decision to close Geauga Lake.

Six Flags had the arrogance and stupidity to think that they could compete with Cedar Point and Kings Island with Geauga Lake, but Cedar Fair wasn't that stupid. They saw the park for what it was a "regional park" that was prior to the Six Flags branding considered very successful.

When Cedar Fair acquired that property it was clear their intention was to continue to operate it as a regional park. The problem was they paid too much for the now combined parks and failed to see the damage that Six Flags had done. No one also expected the attendance to decline to 25% less than what the park had averaged annually for a decade before the Six Flags re-branding.

The only reasons Wildwater Kingdom survives is because the waterpark (new and old) were drawing the bulk of the business and its hard to scrap something you've just sunk millions in to build.

Cedar Fair paid the price with the Geauga Lake purchase, but it would've been a double whammy and not spoken well of their management team had they'd admitted the new waterpark was a failure as well and closed it too.

* This post was modified at 1/19/13 7:27:33 PM *

frontrow said:

Just think, if this deal goes down, there will be 2 Six Flags parks in San Antonio TX.

No there won't. There will be a SeaWorld and there will be a Six Flags.

Too many of you are failing to realize that if Six Flags were to purchase SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment they won't re-brand these parks. It's not just the properties that are for sale, it's the brands as well. A significant portion of what you're purchasing is the SeaWorld and Busch Gardens names.

Six Flags executive team is not stupid. They clearly recognize the value of the SeaWorld and Busch Gardens brands and know that is a significant part of the sale. Only a fool would attempt to replace the SeaWorld or Busch Gardens name with Six Flags and they're not going to throw away a significant portion of what they purchase. The brands and brand reputation likely accounts for more than half the value of the company.

If the Six Flags name is used it will be a secondary and similar to how Cedar Fair has applied their name to the properties that fall under their ownership.

* This post was modified at 1/19/13 7:29:19 PM *

* This post was modified at 1/19/13 8:55:05 PM *

Based on Six Flags America's needs and operating performance I think the installation of the used ride was appropriate. Only enthusiasts were disappointed.

It's my understanding that under the new leadership Six Flags has switched gears. Instead of the direction coming from the corporate office they've returned much of that responsibility to the local management team. Corporate is apparently taking a more hands off approach and instead is managing the brand, monitoring individual properties performance, setting goals and handling chain wide initiatives.

One of the goals the CEO has apparently set is to offer a new attraction at every park, every year, but he has tasked the local management team to provide the direction for what should be added. Capital improvement budgets for new attractions are also to be based on the specific park's revenues and performance. Multi-year plans have apparently be devised by the local management teams and submitted to corporate who reviews and ultimately approves them.

In other words the GM of a small park can't wish list a B&M Wing Rider unless his park brings in the revenue that can justify that capital improvement. I'm sure on occasion there will be an exception, but this apparently the new direction.

If this is in fact true then I think it is a wise move. It also means that new attractions will probably be more in line with what the local market needs and can support. It also provides incentive for the management teams to try to increase attendance and revenues.

* This post was modified at 1/19/13 9:35:56 PM *

Putting things that way I see what you mean and understand your point.

In short. SW would not be part of the deal. BG/Sesame parks would be up for grabs

Cyclone_Phil said:

Alright fine, I stand corrected then about SFA (on the point about keeping both parks).
But who's to say there won't be any parks put up for sale if SF ends up biting more than they can chew in acquiring the BG/SW parks? The smaller parks of the chain would be the most likely victims. SF already shows how much it 'cares' for SFA in giving them a 2nd hand 2 decade old coaster. If they really cared for that park, why not build the winged coaster there instead of SFGAm? And again, it's just my opinion, what do I know what a major park chain would do months or years from now? I see this as pure speculation, nothing more.

As much as I would love to see a B&M wing-rider at SFA, I don't see it happening anytime soon. I don't think it's because SFI "doesn't care" about SFA, it's because SFA doesn't pull in as many guests as SFGAm. does. I think SFA needs a family coaster. A coaster that people of all ages can ride and enjoy. Maybe if that boosts SFA's attendance, in the future we will see a bigger expansion. They also need to improve on other areas too, not just the rides.

As for the Six Flags Busch Gardens thing, do any of you guys know about the current status of the sale? I haven't heard about it in a while, and I'm curious to know what's going on about it.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-08/seaworld-raises-amount-sought-in-initial-offer-to-500-million.html