Guest rcfreak339 Posted February 11, 2010 Share Posted February 11, 2010 I failed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Interpreter Posted February 11, 2010 Share Posted February 11, 2010 Now, now...cheer up. Anything can happen. I doubt it does, but one can hope. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mav86 Posted February 11, 2010 Share Posted February 11, 2010 You would be surprised how many theme parks and waterparks are on leased land. It's not as uncommon as people might think. I would love to see what was in the lease between the SFKK and the Fair Board. You can't tell me that all the conditions were not spelled out in the lease. I have seen a few lease agreements and they spell out the conditions in great detail as to who owns what, what happens if either side breaks the agreement, who pays taxes, the list goes on. It's not as simple as each side is trying to make it seem. I was talking to an old friend I hadn't seen in a while, and we got to discussing amusement parks. I told her SFKK closed, and she was upset because she and her fiance had wanted to go. I told her about the lease, and her reply was "That was their excuse? Don't most amusement parks OWN the land they're on? That sounds like it wasn't a good idea to begin with. It sounds like the park was temporary, like it was doomed from the start." I hate to say it, but I see her point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Interpreter Posted February 11, 2010 Share Posted February 11, 2010 And all of those terms can and often do go out the window when the lessee goes bankrupt and, with approval of the bankruptcy judge, rejects the lease. This is so even if the lease spells out what is to happen if either party files bankruptcy. In fact, many leases say the lease terminates at the time judgment is entered in the bankruptcy or the land is condemned by a governmental entity. Bankruptcy judges and other courts have considerable power to modify the terms of those leases and do what is in the best interests of the creditors, the lessor and the lessee...particularly if it appears that the lease was in any way a contributing factor in the bankruptcy or unfairly favored one party or the other or was negotiated in a way so as to defraud creditors. No matter what the lease says about the property, if under state law certain things are real property and others are personal property, the judge may defer to state laws as opposed to the lease terms...especially if that would recover more assets for the creditors or improve the chances of the bankrupt continuing business as a going concern. Six Flags has filed a motion to reject the lease. The bankruptcy judge, as of this writing, has not appeared to grant or reject that motion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Interpreter Posted February 12, 2010 Share Posted February 12, 2010 Metro Council Passes Resolution Supporting Kentucky Kingdom: ...The council unanimously passed that special resolution, urging the fair board to keep the amusement park open somehow, some way."To make sure that Kentucky Kingdom, in whatever form it operates under, stays open here in Louisville, Kentucky," said David Tandy, the other original co-sponsor, at the meeting. The resolution began with just two co-sponsors, but eventually passed with the names of all 26 council members attached to it.... http://www.wlky.com/news/22539019/detail.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cory Butcher Posted February 12, 2010 Share Posted February 12, 2010 Does this possibly mean that Metro Council is saying, "Hey, fair board, except the profit sharing lease or some other equivalent!"? It seems that if Six Flags does still own the rides regardless of where they sit, then a new lease would have to be negotiated to meet the council's wishes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastersRZ Posted February 12, 2010 Share Posted February 12, 2010 Who does the fair board report to? I mean, it is the State fair board, so I would imagine that a local ordinance passed by the Metro Louisville council will not do much to persuade the fair board in their stance on the positions (Louisville`s government structure is a little unique in that the city and county combined their governments a few years back into Metro Louisville). I mean, I would love to see Kentucky Kingdom be saved in some form or another. Its sad to see a park close. Especially a park that I have visited before, though that was before the Six Flags days. I`m not optimistic that the park will be able to be opened this year, let alone by the originally scheduled opening day of April 24th. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erosarrow05 Posted February 12, 2010 Share Posted February 12, 2010 Given how "easy" the Fair Board has been to deal with (ask Six Flags or virtually any of the vendors there), I somehow don't hold out a great deal of hope for this one. IF I were a park company, I would insist on owning any property I developed at the Kentucky Kingdom site. Given the site's access, location and assets, I would think there are far better choices for development by a new entrant into the US market. I can also think of similar distressed properties on the market...such as Freestyle Music Park, which has some of the same issues, but not all of them. Kentucky Kingdom also has some issues that Freestyle appears not to, such as the height restrictions due to the airport. The US theme park business is a mature one, and I doubt any company will give the Fair Board the financial bonanza it is probably hoping for. Perhaps this lease rejection by Six Flags was a wake-up call, but I doubt it... Height has never disuaded, most notably, Alton Towers from building quality attractions... Is that because a height limitation is in fact a 'limitation on creativity'... or nothing more than an excuse for mediocrity...? I refuse to think anything but the latter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cory Butcher Posted February 12, 2010 Share Posted February 12, 2010 Height has never disuaded, most notably, Alton Towers from building quality attractions... Is that because a height limitation is in fact a 'limitation on creativity'... or nothing more than an excuse for mediocrity...? I refuse to think anything but the latter That was worded very well...I feel the same way. At least one person here greatly enjoys the Georgia Cyclone, another Adventure Express, still another yet feels that Thunderhead is the best wooden ride he has ever ridden and that Kumba is is his favorite roller coaster overall. Seems to me, height should have absolutely nothing to do with it. Some of the most over-rated rides in the world are over 300 feet tall! I think if you asked most which they preferred, "Drop Tower" at KI or "Tower of Terror" at Disney World's Hollywood Studios, their answer would be instantaneously in favor of the latter! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Interpreter Posted February 14, 2010 Share Posted February 14, 2010 Negotiations With New Kentucky Kingdom Operators May Start In March: ...Workman declined to elaborate on the companies that might take over the Kentucky Kingdom property, but he says the fair board will be looking for a new operator. It’s also unclear how long it would take for a new operator to open a new park at the site. http://www.wfpl.org/2010/02/14/negotiations-with-new-kentucky-kingdom-operators-may-start-in-march/ (that last statement is certainly an understatement!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaggy Posted February 14, 2010 Share Posted February 14, 2010 Negotiations With New Kentucky Kingdom Operators May Start In March: ...Workman declined to elaborate on the companies that might take over the Kentucky Kingdom property, but he says the fair board will be looking for a new operator. It's also unclear how long it would take for a new operator to open a new park at the site. http://www.wfpl.org/...start-in-march/ (that last statement is certainly an understatement!) I'm sure Mr Workman also has a few acres of land in Florida he'd like to sell... There's probably been inquiries... but little else. It WREAKS of political posturing to me, he's trying to save face by throwing a bone to the public. Oh, and if anyone believes a new "park" can be open for the 2010 season then I have some land in Florida to sell them. ;-) The brewing argument of who owns the contents of the park itself will tie this thing up in court for quite some time. If Shapiro is feeling evil enough, he could send in the bulldozers next week. But something tells me his silence since the initial announcement, as well as the non-activity on the site are doing all the talking for him. The Mayor and Mr. Workman are on the news virtually every day scrambling around trying to come up with "solutions" and making statements such as the above. SF just refers people back to their intial crafted closure statement. (Which explicitly says many of the rides would be relocated.) The mere suggestion that another operator could just move in, hire staff, fire up the rides and make everything hunky dorey by May demonstrates that Mr. Workman either A.) Is completely out of touch with the reality of what it takes to operate an amusement facility, B.) is completely ignorant when it comes to the legalities of who own the properties and the time it will take to sort that out, or C.) he's full of S&%t. Guess which one I'm leaning towards... Shaggy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Interpreter Posted February 14, 2010 Share Posted February 14, 2010 I do not believe those alternatives are mutually exclusive. I choose a....and b.....and c. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaggy Posted February 14, 2010 Share Posted February 14, 2010 Bingo! We have a winner! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDCOASTERFAN Posted February 18, 2010 Share Posted February 18, 2010 That explains why they ripped Chang out last year.They probably never had any plans to expand the waterpark at all & just wanted to shut the place down to redistribute the rides. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sccard01 Posted February 18, 2010 Share Posted February 18, 2010 Rite, it kinda looks like when the park get a new owner, the KFEC will take Six Flags to court to get Chang back and re-install the ride because Six Flags lied to the KFEC and closed the park and didn't have any attentions of expanding the water park by the way it sounds. Chang was also on the KFEC property and Six Flags so its sort of 50/50. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coaster_junky Posted February 18, 2010 Share Posted February 18, 2010 ^six flags had blueprints of the expansion drawn up, i'm not saying that you're wrong, but i don't see why you would pay the money to have blueprints drawn up and then decide to close down that park. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sccard01 Posted February 18, 2010 Share Posted February 18, 2010 It was all apart of Six Flags plan, fool the KFEC and have evidence in possibly opening up a new water park expansion with the proof of blue prints and take Chang out of the parks picture as quickly as possible and then throw a bomb in the picture by closing the park. and it seems they had attentions to close the park. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coaster_junky Posted February 18, 2010 Share Posted February 18, 2010 yea, but your missing something big, those blueprints don't just magically appear, you have to pay a company or someone to draw them up, print them off and hand them to you. i don't see them just wasting money to have them made just to close down a park. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sccard01 Posted February 18, 2010 Share Posted February 18, 2010 which do you think cost more? a 12million dollar coaster (which could be worth more today) or Blue Prints? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Interpreter Posted February 19, 2010 Share Posted February 19, 2010 Sccard01, you seem to forget the little matter of bankruptcy court. Also, if you know all this of your own knowledge, perhaps the Fair and Exposition Center Board can call you as a witness should they decide to sue the bankrupt Six Flags (and get what, exactly?). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coney Islander Posted February 19, 2010 Share Posted February 19, 2010 ^Nevertheless, the fair board is the reason why Six Flags is leaving. They increased the 'rent' on the leased land, without no real reason, and without very much notice. Six Flags likely did originally plan on the expansion... but not at those prices! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shark6495 Posted February 20, 2010 Share Posted February 20, 2010 well blueprints are not a sacred gold item. I mean even mister brady lost his at KI..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diamondback96 Posted February 20, 2010 Share Posted February 20, 2010 ^Well, maybe they are still there. Maybe they are lost in a temple garage somewhere in KI. (Yes, I know it's cheesy.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Interpreter Posted February 20, 2010 Share Posted February 20, 2010 I'm trying to figure out what is encrypted in your message... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diamondback96 Posted February 20, 2010 Share Posted February 20, 2010 ^Well, maybe they are still there. Maybe they are lost in a temple garage somewhere in KI. (Yes, I know it's cheesy.) Wait, that's even confusing me! That is why I should not stay up past 12 on Fridays. What I meant to say: The blueprints may still be at Kings Island. Maybe they were thrown into a certain temple garage in Rivertown! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Interpreter Posted February 20, 2010 Share Posted February 20, 2010 ..where they are in-crypt-ed... Terpy, not easily confused...usually Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sccard01 Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 Kentucky VS Six Flags Court Case! WHO OWNS THE RIDES?! http://www.canadianbusiness.com/markets/market_news/article.jsp?content=D9E1EE085 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Interpreter Posted February 23, 2010 Share Posted February 23, 2010 More on this: http://www.louisvillemojo.com/blogs/Louisville_Blogs/85063/Beshear_Administration_Seizing_Six_Flags_Rides Please note the referenced site is a blog and may well contain opinion masquerading as fact, and vice versa... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Interpreter Posted February 23, 2010 Share Posted February 23, 2010 And more: http://blogs.wsj.com/bankruptcy/2010/02/23/kentucky-sues-six-flags-over-thrill-rides/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cory Butcher Posted February 23, 2010 Share Posted February 23, 2010 Now, when it comes to estate transactions I know that "improvements" made to land can make that land become the property of the person who made the improvements. I have also seen the other scenario, which is where a certain person makes improvements to another person's land and did not keep the paperwork necessary to prove it, at which point the land improvements have reverted to being property of the land owner and NOT the person who made the improvements. I would think that Six Flags would have all necessary documentation to prove that improvements were made to the land by them, and subsequently the capital upon the land should be Six Flags. I think a bankruptcy judge would approve this as well, regardless of what the lease with the state of Kentucky stated. That being said, without us seeing the contract, it is very possible that the State of Kentucky required improvements as a part of the lease, which could work against Six Flags (as the improvements would attach to the property)...or not... 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.