The-Snapper Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 I was just curious if you were excited about someone else buying the park and or chain? I 'm Really excited about this because I liked Paramount some of the years like 04 (BB), 03' (D,SHC}, 99" FACE/OFF, DROP ZONE! But what the hell! NU??? Also IJST and SOB??? What were they thinking! I'm not saying I dont like NU but the attractions there putting in are a bunch of carnival rides and a powered halfpipe disco lol! Seriously I wish Paramount would let us use more money so we can add 10 new family rides and a super Saterator! But that will never happen! So what do you think?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaggy Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 The truth is... if an independant were to buy the park chain, then there would likely be LESS capitol spent on new product than there has been under the VIACOM branding. VIACOM/Paramount sinks millions and millions into those parks every year. A new investor would likely discourage such spending. Shaggy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flightoffear1996 Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 You are wrong there Shaggy. The private investor whould take most of the money the park made and invest it back into the park. The way it is now alot of the other parks build stuff from the profit of PKI. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoddaH1994 Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 You are wrong there Shaggy. The private investor whould take most of the money the park made and invest it back into the park. The way it is now alot of the other parks build stuff from the profit of PKI. I think Shaggy's right, Joe. As stated in another thread, an investment group is going to come in, raise the value, and sell again. They're going to do this as cheaply as possible, so as opposed to adding new and better attractions, they're going to find more 'efficent' ways of doing things. ie cutting programs. I hope I'm wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaggy Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 "The private investor whould take most of the money the park made and invest it back into the park. The way it is now alot of the other parks build stuff from the profit of PKI. " Incorrect. Each park currently submits a yearly capitol expenditure budget based on their needs and their desires for the park. PP then decides how much of that capitol budget they are granted based on that park's prior performance. Using your theory, the park that made the most footed the bills for the other parks... PKI did not make the most last year, so do you think PCW is paying for NU next year? Nah. If an independant owner would invest in the parks, the investor would likely not sink the same amount of capitol into the park as VIACOM currently does. Paramount Parks has seen a decrease in attendance and revenue. A new publicly traded company would likely avoid immediate costly capitol expenditures in order to lure more investors and increase interest in their profitibility margin. Looking back to when Paramount first took controlling interest.... the first year at PKI saw the addition of Top Gun, which was already purchased and in development by the prior owners. The first full year of Paramount ownership, the park saw only the installation of Days of Thunder in the Action FX Theatre. Bottom line, double... even triple... sometimes quadruple... the amount of capitol was sunk into KI during VIACOM/Paramount years than during any years under previous ownership. Why else would they want out of the business? Their revenue is down, and yet they have set a precident of spending millions in yearly improvements. Thus they want out. Shaggy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RollerNut Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 Actually Top Gun was the first full season with Paramount. The parks were brought during 1992. I imagine that Paramount fiqured, well this attraction is already been annouced, and planned. Let's just change it to Top Gun themed. AFX may have been cheap because each park as two units. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jzarley Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 Actually Top Gun was the first full season with Paramount. The parks were brought during 1992. I imagine that Paramount fiqured, well this attraction is already been annouced, and planned. Let's just change it to Top Gun themed. AFX may have been cheap because each park as two units. The sale of KECO to Paramount Communications didn't occur until August of 1992...for all intent and purposes, the season was pretty much over at that point. Site prep had already begun, and the contracts had been signed with Arrow for "Thunder Road" (or "Swoop" depending on who is telling the story), and at that point it was too late to cancel the project. So, Paramount went ahead with the Arrow Suspended, but themed it to Top Gun. I still maintain (and there's no way to prove it either way <g>) that if KECO wouldn't have been so far into the deal with Arrow, PKI probably would have ended up with a B&M Inverted--a twin to PGA's Top Gun. (Well, either that or we would have ended up with DoT a year early...) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The-Snapper Posted February 3, 2006 Author Share Posted February 3, 2006 "The private investor whould take most of the money the park made and invest it back into the park. The way it is now alot of the other parks build stuff from the profit of PKI. " Incorrect. Each park currently submits a yearly capitol expenditure budget based on their needs and their desires for the park. PP then decides how much of that capitol budget they are granted based on that park's prior performance. Using your theory, the park that made the most footed the bills for the other parks... PKI did not make the most last year, so do you think PCW is paying for NU next year? Nah. If an independant owner would invest in the parks, the investor would likely not sink the same amount of capitol into the park as VIACOM currently does. Paramount Parks has seen a decrease in attendance and revenue. A new publicly traded company would likely avoid immediate costly capitol expenditures in order to lure more investors and increase interest in their profitibility margin. Looking back to when Paramount first took controlling interest.... the first year at PKI saw the addition of Top Gun, which was already purchased and in development by the prior owners. The first full year of Paramount ownership, the park saw only the installation of Days of Thunder in the Action FX Theatre. Bottom line, double... even triple... sometimes quadruple... the amount of capitol was sunk into KI during VIACOM/Paramount years than during any years under previous ownership. Why else would they want out of the business? Their revenue is down, and yet they have set a precident of spending millions in yearly improvements. Thus they want out. Shaggy so since we can have 3.4 million people come through our gates and we use the money from our park which is one of the biggest parks out there and we spend the outrageous 2 million on BB!!!! darn thats a lot of money ummm NOT! Geauga Lakes water park cost 25 million! And look how that park is doing not even getting a million a year????? Its PARAMOUNT that takes our profit and keeps it and uses it for movies and stuff! SO WTF??? Cedar Fair uses the money the parks make for there own parks! Just like Six Flags does! This is stupid because if we would get bought by a new company then we would have more money for us to spend on flowers, food ,m rides ect! How much do you think NU will cost? Not that much lol! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WooferBearATL Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 I think the best bet is to have a private investment group. A group that has the primary focus being running theme parks is the solution. I think we're going to see great things at all the parks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flightoffear1996 Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 Really it all depends on who the investment group is on what happens to the park. They could be purley business or maybe they have some kind of attachment to the park and want to bring it back to its former glory. Who really knows. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Interpreter Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 Snapper, Six Flags uses most of its money to pay off creditors. And they aren't really bringing in enough money to keep the creditors happy...which is one reason you now see Messrs Snyder and Shapiro and not Messrs Story and Burke running Flags. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRickster Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 I would listen to shaggy, He knows his stuff. An investor has no reason for running the park other then raising its value. They'll plan on selling it again in a few years. Thus thinking of running the park simply to sell it again ,meaning not thinking in long term goals. Just what will add alittle more to the price tag. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flightoffear1996 Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 True but to get value up they woudl have to build new things and make the park a nicer place to be Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WooferBearATL Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 This course of thinking is a kin to saying Paramount had no interest in running the parks other than to receive publicity. And, though, in my opinion this is what has happened; I'm certain that many would disagree. I think that it's only onward and upward from here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The-Snapper Posted February 4, 2006 Author Share Posted February 4, 2006 ^^^^ I totally agree with you on this one!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jzarley Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 Yes, I think it's truthful to say that Viacom (a media company) is most concerned with the Media business. And, that a business unit that's never contributed more than 5% to the conglomerate's overall revenue isn't senior management's #1 priority. But, seriously, it's hard to fault Viacom's management of the parks too much when two of their five parks are among the highest attended seasonals in North America. They've added some appealing attractions, and they've been brilliant in their marketing in carving out that "Hollywood in the Midwest" brand, and growing their market share even as competition increased. My biggest complaint with Viacom has always been that they never really seemed to recognize the value of synergy that they could have. Both Universal and Disney have always mopped the floor with them in that regard. I also think that while the parks have never been more than an afterthought to Viacom/CBS, the people who are running the park business really love what they do, and love the parks. While I find the deity-like status Jeff Siebert has attained on these boards somewhat strange, there's certainly no question that that guy wasn't 100% focused on making the park the best possible place it could be. To be honest, the same thing could be said for those of you who are part-time, hourly seasonal employees who are on here everyday talking about a place you love. (Granted, it's a tough love from time-to-time, but a love nonetheless ) The good news is that no matter who (or what) buys the parks...those kind of people will still be there operating them every day. So, bottom line, while I'm a realist and don't expect the new buyer to come in and build 10 B&M coasters next year, I'm pretty sure everything will be just fine... Keep in mind, CBS is selling a successful park chain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Interpreter Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 With any change of ownership, often many of the top people leave voluntarily or exit for other reasons. Jeff, for instance, is already gone. Hopefully, any buyer will have its own talented group of managers, as some of the current Paramount Parks managers and leaders will not stay... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RollerNut Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 I hope our PR department stay, they are the best! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hauntguy Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 This got me thinking... you think Kings Island Entertainment will be brought back. Our shows would be much better and our events would be awesome. Any thoughts? -Hauntguy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The-Snapper Posted February 5, 2006 Author Share Posted February 5, 2006 yeah your right because our shows were really good last year but just a lack of shows ! We need more shows!!! Like we use to! Bring back the Action Zone stunt show! DAMMIT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WooferBearATL Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 I would really like to see a company come in that put a value on live entertainment. Of all the things I miss the most from the Old Kings Island, it's the entertainment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SOB_TOM Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 You might see a decline in show quality. PKI was just getting around to giving more money to the Entertainment dept so that they can have A rated shows. You cant really use BB construction as an arguement against another theme park that built their waterpark from the ground up. BB was just an expansion, not a full scale waterpark construction. If you look at what PKI built completely new in that expansion, it was only the center fountain, a bar, and Taz. Coolengata was nothing more than a retrofit off of an existing ride, and everything else was just new signing. So really, 2 million is right. Its not like the origonal build of WaterWorks. I agree with Shaggy on this one. In the interest of making money, which investment groups are into, they are going to look for every chance to shave money off of the top, save it for later, and sell to the highest bidder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WooferBearATL Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 You might see a decline in show quality. PKI was just getting around to giving more money to the Entertainment dept so that they can have A rated shows. There really is not a lot left to decline from. Looking back over the old show programs, we've fallen a long way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SOB_TOM Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 Ummmm, lets compare Magic of the movies and School of Rock, Toy Factory. Thats what I thought. The quality of the shows has drastically improved over previous years. The managers in charge of the shows are competent enough to run their own shows, and that competency shows everytime the performers take the stage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Interpreter Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 I agree that the quality of the shows has improved drastically in the last couple of seasons. But, there is a LONG way to go before they even approach Disney, Busch, Dollywood or even the best shows at Six Flags (Great Adventure, Six Flags Over Texas). And things, sadly, can always get worse. Much worse. Hopefully, that won't happen. I am keeping an open mind about new ownership. But before I start counting our blessings that CBS may be selling out, I want to see who buys and why they are buying... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reclaimer Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 Agreed completely with Interpreter. I want to know who's buying the parks and what their intentions are. Oh, side note: Has anyone seen the picture on the front page of pkdplace? It's pretty frickin' funny: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beast Freak Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 what would happen if Bush took charge of the parks ??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jzarley Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 what would happen if Bush took charge of the parks ??? George? (Or, do you mean Busch? ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WooferBearATL Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 Ummmm, lets compare Magic of the movies and School of Rock, Toy Factory. Thats what I thought. Let's compare "Celebration" to any show that Paramount has done. Hell, it even had an album that they sold with it at the park! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jzarley Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 Ummmm, lets compare Magic of the movies and School of Rock, Toy Factory. Thats what I thought. Let's compare "Celebration" to any show that Paramount has done. Hell, it even had an album that they sold with it at the park! Celebration was absolutely fantastic! What did it run--three seasons? Celebration was my second-favorite theme park show EVER. (The first being "Festival of the Lion King" at DAK...so that tells you a little something about that show.) I will agree that the Paramount shows have gotten a lot better over the last few years, but I'll also agree that KECO still did better live entertainment. I thought that was one of the oddest things about Viacom/CBS/Paramount's ownership of the parks...how could a company that's entire business is entertainment (and owned Radio City Music Hall no less), not do a better job in the area of live in-park shows? Just another point for that "never fully realizing the synergy" argument I've been spouting for a few years... Although, I'll also give credit where credit is due...they did a great job with the Nick parades over the last few seasons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.