Browntggrr

^ Yes. Which is the exact reason why Chef said this: At this point, it would actually benefit Paramount more by just letting CF keep the ride names for free. Again, free advertising is better than no advertising.

Common knowledge? Perhaps after the fact. But that decision has since been rectified. Even without the people that supposedly could have shared their knowledge about the markets. Again, nobody is perfect. And there will be some decisions that will be wrong. But it is funny that hindsight is usually 20/20.

I do understand where he is coming from, and when it comes down to new management there are positives and negatives to both sides. You can let some people go and try to change the way things are ran on a day to to basis as well as change the personality of the park by bringing in new people and fresh ideas. -or- Leave the people where they have been for years to try and ease the transition as well as learn on how things go certain times of the year. But which way is better? That can only be answered after the decision has been made a few years down the line.

Everyone has had rather intresting points as to why seatbelts are or are not necessary. I'll take the easy one(s): - Lower insurance premiums with the use of belts. The park can use that extra money somewhere else in the park. - Easy insurance. Sure restraints are supposed to be "fail-safe". But with a belt, it makes it even more "safe".

^ Sure they let a whole bunch of qualified people go. It happens with many businesses around the World. New management, new ideas. Some employees just can't shake the policies, work ethics, or traditions of their former boss (not that their former boss was wrong in the decisions that were made).

Good thing that Carowinds is not in TX! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draught_beer (I normally would not comment on a simple typo, but that one is funny!)

^ I really think you are putting too much stock into what the general public thinks about the naming of rides. Many of them probably don't even know that Paramount does not own the park anymore. And for that matter, some don't even associate the ride name with a movie. We have already seen that here where some did not know that Face Off and Drop Zone were movies. Can you really see a person actually saying; "Nah, I'm not going to Kings Island. They changed the names of their rides." And if naming rides after Paramount movies did attribute to increased revenues, Paramount would have just let CF keep the names of the rides. Certainly free advertisment is better than no advertisment.

If there were changes made, they don't seem to be very drastic. The site looks the same to me. http://www.visitkingsisland.com/#actions

blue streak at Cedar Point is like that to Did ya miss this?

Did the snow actually accumulate?

Quite honestly, I love having all 4 seasons being well defined. Wearing shorts at Christmas, or not worrying about a St. Patrick's Day snowstorm just wouldn't feel right.

I honestly could really care less what the names are changed to. It is not going to change the ride experience in the least bit, nor is it going to change the way I feel about a ride (i.e. "Man the name of this ride $ucks, I'm not going on it.) There are much bigger & more important things to be upset with.

Referring to what?

Note my #2 thing. If you don't buckle up on a ride, you may never enter ride that ride again. Note your #2 what? It means absolutely nothing.

What makes you believe that? Or are you just making up stuff again to hear yourself talk? Note the "Or at least Should be." IJST is a waste of space. Ok, you were just saying things to hear yourself talk. Thanks for comfirming it.

Absolutely. But there is a tremendous difference between investing in CF and comparing CF to what SF has done. And as of right now, CF is nowhere near the condition SF is in. CF is 18 months into the PP aquisition, and so far they have done rather well. Sure they are going to stub their toe, but nobody is perfect.

Ok, not trying to be arguementative, but now I'm REALLY confused. You said that this is not a SF vs. CF thing nor do you believe that CF is in bad shape, but now you are bringing up the main points of what SF has done wrong as well as compare them to what CF has done. And since you did bring it up... When SF expanded to other parks, they were not it great financial shape to begin with, CF was in good shape. Sure $1.24 billion seems like a lot of money to us, but none of us know without a doubt if they overpaid or not. In addition, lenders would have never of given CF money if the selling price did not actually compare with what the PP land and assets were valued at. SF never purchased their parks the way CF did. Sure CF has installed thrilling rides, but no where near the pace that SF had done. - One SF park opened a new coaster every year (with the exception of 2001) from 1999 to 2003. Or a total of 8 coasters from 1996 to present - One SF park opened 4 coasters in 2000 and added another in 2001. - One SF park opened 5 coasters from 1996 to present - One SF park opened 8 coasters from 1996 to present, with another coming in 2008 and another that opened during that time and is currently closed - CP has opened 6 coasters from 1996 to present. When it comes down to adding rides, Dick Kinzel has made the statement numerous times that CF does not purchase the ride, but the individual park purchases the rides. I am assuming that SF has not done the same. Comparing the uptime (maintenance) between the two chains was well defined in Duane's (RCDB) comment about SFMM reliquishing the coaster crown. CF has done what is necessary to keep the ride operating. TTD and SoB are excellent examples. The four letters: SBNO is as famous as SFMM. And as far as general maintenance, when was the last time KI ever looked as good as it did in 2007? And as far as compensating people: anytime there is a major purchase, there are going to be employees that do not like the new owners, and the best excuse for leaving is making comments about insufficient pay. Perhaps CF expected more from their managment than Paramount did and in return those that were with Paramount expected a higher salary. But on the other hand, perhaps Paramount did not have their management do enough. If CF was losing management at their other parks, not just those that had Paramount ties, I could agree with you. CF may not believe that some in middle managment are necessary. It has not hurt their other non-Paramount parks. Let's scream danger when an article comes out about CF cutting back the way SF has done. Until then it is just second guessing and adding hindsight to every decision CF makes.

Well sure... By having such stringent rules, ACE can pull a the "classic" signification at the drop of a hat. So now they have a good excuse to come back again for free gravy and biscuts and give another plaque.

Why should the zoo be disciplined? The wall was not at the recommended height. There has been nothing mentioned about a required height. If I was the zoo attorney, my first question would be that if the wall was 38" higher, or the recommeded height, would that, without a doubt, have stopped a provoked tiger from escaping? Now combine that with the fact that the tiger attraction has been around for "x" amount of years without prior incident, and I find it very difficult to find complete neglegence on the zoos part.

I guess I took your comments of CF: having money being in short supply and creditors being paid, the wrong way.

No it is not a SF vs. CF thing. But I also believe it should be made clear that while one company has come forward with financial issues with their intentions on cutting things back, the other company is only believed to be in as bad of a situation, and nothing has been made public.

Yeah, because the economy is in this position because of whom? We probably don't want this to turn into a political ****ing match, blame can be put onto the shoulders of many people encompassing many groups. And I though it was SF that made an announcement to cut costs, not CF.

^ And that could exactly be CF's purchasing point to those at Nickelodeon. Give us a good deal, and we will keep the Nick characters. Or you can make an offer that requires an extreme amount of money, and we will switch to something we already know and have. Now there is no doubt that Nick can survive without having themed rides in amusement parks, but they are also better off with those same themed rides. CF does not need Nick, and Nick does not need CF.

So these three decided to burn a few, hit some Absolut, and drive to the zoo... On Christmas no less. Now there are witnesses claiming that they were taunting other animals, and there is proof that they were standing on some kind of railing that is just above the tiger enclosure, behind some bushes where you are not supposed to walk. The zoo attorney is going to chew them up.

This is an absolutely classic quote: