Six Flags and Cedar Fair Merge

[windshawne]

Going off topic a little-I’ve been to the park twice this fall and I’ll have to say I’ve had good experiences both times.  That being said, DB seemed shaky and I’m guessing it needs wheels. Orion-holy heck that was great!  I’ve kinda changed a bit the last few years and just kinda appreciating good when I can find it.  There are a couple I’m avoiding, but I’ve been impressed with the engagement of the staff.  (Unpopular I know lol)

[BeeastFarmer]

Yikes ...two industry experts are giving a very frank opinion:

What’s next for Six Flags? Cedar Point parent faces park sell-off, possible bankruptcy - cleveland.com https://share.google/pcBea8M1gcQqXNvRT

[disco2000]

^in other words, going like many of us predicted....

[Losantiville Mining Co.]

Tower Topics has reported that two names have popped up in Six Flags' search for a new CEO to replace Richard Zimmerman: Michael Colglazier, a Disney executive and former president of the Disneyland Resort, and Bob Chapek, former Chairman of Parks and Resorts for Disney and former CEO of the Walt Disney Company.

Honestly, if they can right the ship and bring some of the fun back to the parks, I don't think I'd really mind seeing either come into the position. Every day that passes now is another day until Richard Zimmerman is no longer CEO. Some of the company's bad decisions haven't been his fault, but I think the new head honcho will have a good opportunity to fix some immediate things and improve how people see Six Flags. Maybe we could even see that SFEC name changed to something that isn't cursed; although I might be getting a little too ahead of myself.

[brenthodge]

11 hours ago, Losantiville Mining Co. said:

Tower Topics has reported that two names have popped up in Six Flags' search for a new CEO to replace Richard Zimmerman: Michael Colglazier, a Disney executive and former president of the Disneyland Resort, and Bob Chapek, former Chairman of Parks and Resorts for Disney and former CEO of the Walt Disney Company.

Honestly, if they can right the ship and bring some of the fun back to the parks, I don't think I'd really mind seeing either come into the position. Every day that passes now is another day until Richard Zimmerman is no longer CEO. Some of the company's bad decisions haven't been his fault, but I think the new head honcho will have a good opportunity to fix some immediate things and improve how people see Six Flags. Maybe we could even see that SFEC name changed to something that isn't cursed; although I might be getting a little too ahead of myself.

I thinkn Colgrazier could be an improvement and might be able to see the way to save this is through redefining the brand and getting back to a solid guest experince. Chapek would be more of the Zimmerman same in that he was basically running that game at Disney. He only saw cost synergies as a way to a heathy bottom line. 

[SonofBaconator]

I’ve always assumed this was the endgame when the merger happened, no matter who was in charge. Factually, the Six Flags name was kept for its national recognition and licensing power, while Cedar Fair took the reins on operations - not sure if this is still factually accurate considering current events.

Cedar Fair’s parks are mostly in mid-sized regional markets (Sandusky, Cincinnati, Richmond, Kansas City, etc.), while Six Flags gives them anchors in massive metros like New York, LA, Chicago, and Dallas. That combination wasn’t an accident.

What we already know for sure is that not every park is safe. Six Flags America is closing after 2025, and California’s Great America is set to close after 2027. Analysts are openly saying the chain might have to sell off 10-12 more parks to cut debt. If a property doesn’t have strategic value - either because of location, attendance, or land value - it’s a target to be sold or shut down.

That said, I don’t think this means the chain is going to liquidate every park it wants to part with. Some parks could easily be sold to private equity or to another operator. What’s happening with Six Flags America and California’s Great America won’t necessarily be the standard. If a company like Hershend, SeaWorld/Busch Gardens, or another chain is willing to pony up the cash for a park that doesn’t fit Six Flags’ long-term strategy, I don’t see Six Flags ignoring that offer.

My take: I can’t break this down mathematically, but it makes sense that the chain might actually generate more revenue long-term by diverting some of their assets. Fewer parks means they can funnel more capital and attention back into the flagships - the ones pulling 2-3 million+ visitors a year. If I were running it, I’d rather have a leaner chain of higher-quality, higher-attendance parks than a bloated portfolio where a bunch of properties don’t move the needle.

It’s the same logic you see with Disney, Universal, or even Busch Gardens/SeaWorld - they don’t need dozens of properties spread across the country to dominate. Sometimes less really is more.

[jzarley]

Obviously the stock price is impacted by the recent bad earnings news, but I also wonder how much is due to short sellers in the market driving down the stock? I was at SeaWorld during the worst of the stock performance (at one point the stock price hit single digits) and I remember our leadership saying at the time the biggest issue wasn’t company performance but was the number of short sellers in the stock who made money when the stock price went down. I didn’t really buy that at the time, but lo and behold once they started shaking out the short sellers the stock price went up—and now routinely sits in the $50/share range. Short sellers are like sharks (to use a SEA analogy)—once they detect a struggle they go in for the attack. The stock price at SeaWorld raised a lot higher than the actual performance results did…

I’ll also say that Chapek would not be a bad fit for Six Flags—they need a cost focus discipline guy that knows theme parks and that’s definitely him. His biggest issue at TWDC was just that he was not Bob Iger (with that style and charisma) and didn’t have the deep relationships with the Hollywood community that Iger has. People outside of Disney tend to think of the company as the parks first, and while they are an extremely important part of the success, the heart & soul of the company is still the studio.

[Losantiville Mining Co.]

Which parks could still be considered Six Flags' 4-8 flagships/be in the top tier? I'm more familiar with how the Cedar Fair parks ranked, but not as much with the legacy Six Flags parks ranked. 

I'd assume it's (in alphabetical order):

• Carowinds
• Cedar Point
• Fiesta Texas
• Great America (IL)
• Great Adventure
• Kings Island
• Knott's Berry Farm
• Magic Mountain

I'll admit my top tier for the company could be missing something or have a park where it doesn't belong. I'd assume the top tier parks would be safe as long as the company doesn't declare bankruptcy.

[DonHelbig]

1 hour ago, Losantiville Mining Co. said:

Which parks could still be considered Six Flags' 4-8 flagships/be in the top tier? I'm more familiar with how the Cedar Fair parks ranked, but not as much with the legacy Six Flags parks ranked. 

I'd assume it's (in alphabetical order):

• Carowinds
• Cedar Point
• Fiesta Texas
• Great America (IL)
• Great Adventure
• Kings Island
• Knott's Berry Farm
• Magic Mountain

I'll admit my top tier for the company could be missing something or have a park where it doesn't belong. I'd assume the top tier parks would be safe as long as the company doesn't declare bankruptcy.

Six Flags Over Texas and Six Flags Over Georgia are in what the company considers its top tier of parks. They like the potential upside each park has. 

[SonofBaconator]

4 hours ago, DonHelbig said:

Six Flags Over Texas and Six Flags Over Georgia are in what the company considers its top tier of parks. They like the potential upside each park has. 

Also, one has to remember the markets they’re in: one is between Dallas and Ft Worth and the other is in Atlanta- they’re not going to give up those territories.

[DoomPlague]

Months back the chain said they would focus on their top 15 parks and yesterday I heard something about the top 16 parks account for 90% of revenue or something along those lines. Over Georgia and Over Texas are easily in that category, though I believe both are owned by a holding company and not completely owned by the chain?

As far as the top 15, I'm assuming these 14 are included:

Cedar Point, Knotts Berry Farm, Kings Island, Canada's Wonderland, SFGAdv, SFGAm, SFMM, Carowinds, Kings Dominion, SFOG, SFOT, SFFT, SFNE, SFM

I recall Dorney being the more profitable of the lower tier CF parks but that may have changed. No idea about Discovery Kingdom or St Louis or LaRonde.

[Losantiville Mining Co.]

One of the goals for the merger was to get to a place where they could buy back the land from the holding companies for Over Texas and Over Georgia IIRC. I thought they were already able to buy back the land for one of their parks (maybe SFOG?) and were working on the next one. Part of me wonders how much money Six Flags gets from managing parks like Frontier City and La Ronde (and soon SFQ). A lot of people have commented that those would be easy to cut from the lineup, but if they're easy money I don't see why they'd get cut first.

[super7]

I don’t think a Disney executive could even save this sinking ship.
 

The problem is cheap season passes, and meal plans, and then having to cost cut  to make up for the low revenue leading to a lower customer experience and decreasing attendance.   Plus, they also try to make up for the loss in revenue of the cheap season passes by overcharging for everything else, and that leads to lower spending.  
 

they also have the problem that they only install attractions for trail, riders and little children, so they can’t operate most of their assets when school is in session. These parks said vacant almost half the year.
 

in order to right the ship, they would have to lose a significant amount of money for quite some time and invest in a very high quality customer experience.    That includes investing in more midtier attractions that everyone can do like dark rides, transportation rides, and live entertainment.

 

That would lead to an increase in attendance and the ability to raise season pass prices to a realistic prive.  and eliminate the meal plans.   It would also bring in a guest that would spend more at the park.
 

They also need to reduce the in park prices for food merchandise, etc.To reasonable prices so people will actually spend   if they are attracting more people and a higher quality customer than the spending will happen if the prices are reasonable
 

 

but they can’t do it because they don’t have the cash to do it and they are too far in debt so it’s a downward  spiral.   
 

instead, they keep following the formula of cheap season passes, meal plans, high prices on everything else and only having attractions for low spending thrill, seeker and little children.  It’s definitely not a recipe for success.

[CedarPointer]

Pre-merger Six Flags tried eliminating meal plans. Didn't work. You are NEVER going to get passholders to pay full price for food in the park again once you got them used to enjoying two meals every visit for one price. Just look at the widespread backlash with the Haunt money grab.

I just can't believe that giving away the gate, constant ride closures, dirty parks, poor customer service, and taking away things people already paid for hasn't been a formula for success. Really shocking.

[BeeastFarmer]

8 hours ago, Losantiville Mining Co. said:

One of the goals for the merger was to get to a place where they could buy back the land from the holding companies for Over Texas and Over Georgia IIRC. I thought they were already able to buy back the land for one of their parks (maybe SFOG?) and were working on the next one. Part of me wonders how much money Six Flags gets from managing parks like Frontier City and La Ronde (and soon SFQ). A lot of people have commented that those would be easy to cut from the lineup, but if they're easy money I don't see why they'd get cut first.

They have said they are going to exercise the option to buy the investors of OG when the options come due, which is sometimes in the next few years. I can't remember specifically, but to do that, it was hundreds of millions. Texas options come open a few years after that. Also hundreds of millions. 

If they can't manage to clean a park or have consistent entertainment, how would they have the money to invest in this? Borrow more?  Given the tenuous situation they are in now, would lenders be willing to do so?

I also remember when Saleem caused the spiral into chaos, there was discussion of a land sale of all of the LSF parks with a leaseback. This rarely works and is often a sign of desperation for a company...see Frisch's. 

[DispatchMaster]

1 hour ago, CedarPointer said:

Just look at the widespread backlash with the Haunt money grab.

Where are we seeing "widespread backlash"? I've seen a few news pieces explaining that the parks will be charging for haunted house access, but nothing more than your typical amusement park announcement coverage.

I do agree, however, that giving away the gate has been a disaster, which is frustrating, because it was totally foreseeable. Cheap season passes were a terrible idea from the beginning, and their bizarre "strategy" of doubling and tripling down on it has not been helpful, because as a result they are attracting the "wrong" type of customer, which may be why the Q2 per cap at the legacy CF parks barely keeping pace with inflation.

[CedarPointer]

48 minutes ago, DispatchMaster said:

Where are we seeing "widespread backlash"? I've seen a few news pieces explaining that the parks will be charging for haunted house access, but nothing more than your typical amusement park announcement coverage.

I do agree, however, that giving away the gate has been a disaster, which is frustrating, because it was totally foreseeable. Cheap season passes were a terrible idea from the beginning, and their bizarre "strategy" of doubling and tripling down on it has not been helpful, because as a result they are attracting the "wrong" type of customer, which may be why the Q2 per cap at the legacy CF parks barely keeping pace with inflation.

It's pretty widespread on social media, I can't imagine how many complaints the various parks have been fielding about it. It's going to be even worse when Haunt starts and you have the people who don't follow every nuance of the park's website showing up just to find an employee with their hand out asking for $99 for something that's been included with their passes for years. Yes, the website didn't necessarily say they were included when renewals went on sale in 2024, but no one would have expected it to- mazes have been included with event admission for decades.

Of course, you're going to have the park cheerleaders telling everyone how paragraph 17 subsection 12 of the terms and conditions says they can take away whatever they want whenever they want, but that really only makes things worse. The fact is that, at best, a lot of people feel they were misled when they purchased their passes, especially since many people already paid for 2026 passes before the changes were publicized. Excuses from the parks and their supporters aren't going to help with that.

Teaching people that you may or may not get what you paid for when you make a purchase from their company is not a good move.

[disco2000]

1 hour ago, DispatchMaster said:

Where are we seeing "widespread backlash"? I've seen a few news pieces explaining that the parks will be charging for haunted house access, but nothing more than your typical amusement park announcement coverage.

I do agree, however, that giving away the gate has been a disaster, which is frustrating, because it was totally foreseeable. Cheap season passes were a terrible idea from the beginning, and their bizarre "strategy" of doubling and tripling down on it has not been helpful, because as a result they are attracting the "wrong" type of customer, which may be why the Q2 per cap at the legacy CF parks barely keeping pace with inflation.

[disco2000]

5 minutes ago, CedarPointer said:

It's pretty widespread on social media, I can't imagine how many complaints the various parks have been fielding about it. It's going to be even worse when Haunt starts and you have the people who don't follow every nuance of the park's website showing up just to find an employee with their hand out asking for $99 for something that's been included with their passes for years. Yes, the website didn't necessarily say they were included when renewals went on sale in 2024, but no one would have expected it to- mazes have been included with event admission for decades.

Of course, you're going to have the park cheerleaders telling everyone how paragraph 17 subsection 12 of the terms and conditions says they can take away whatever they want whenever they want, but that really only makes things worse. The fact is that, at best, a lot of people feel they were misled when they purchased their passes, especially since many people already paid for 2026 passes before the changes were publicized. Excuses from the parks and their supporters aren't going to help with that.

Teaching people that you may or may not get what you paid for when you make a purchase from their company is not a good move.

They just ban people calling too much 

While there is a lot of chatter on social media, the real test will be once the events begin.  FB is full of people commenting that never even visit the park.  And trolls, and whatever else.

[DispatchMaster]

44 minutes ago, CedarPointer said:

It's pretty widespread on social media

Social media is not real life. A quick perusal of park-centric "social media" would have me believe that literally every ride at every park is closed for several hours every day, and when not closed, almost killed their father's, brother's, nephew's, cousin's, former roommate due to a restraint malfunction, etc. It's all meaningless nonsense propelled by algorithms designed to trigger outrage.

As pointed out above, the only thing that matters is whether the parks are still pulling in revenue on Saturdays in October. And there has been absolutely zero indication that the parks will have any difficulty doing so.

I agree that the messaging strategy regarding now up-charging for certain attractions was poor. But the fact of the matter is that it has never been cheaper, in my lifetime at least, to visit the parks. If anyone is so so price-sensitive that they're going to complain about the value proposition, previous fall attendance trends suggest that there are literally thousands of others who will happily take their place, ready to pay extra for access to haunted houses.

[I...am SteVe]

21 hours ago, Losantiville Mining Co. said:

I'd assume it's (in alphabetical order):

• Carowinds
• Cedar Point
• Fiesta Texas
• Great America (IL)
• Great Adventure
• Kings Island
• Knott's Berry Farm
• Magic Mountain

I feel like Great Adventure fell out of the top tier when Ka closed, but the company probably doesn't agree.

[windshawne]

On 8/31/2025 at 10:59 AM, BeeastFarmer said:

Yikes ...two industry experts are giving a very frank opinion:

What’s next for Six Flags? Cedar Point parent faces park sell-off, possible bankruptcy - cleveland.com https://share.google/pcBea8M1gcQqXNvRT

Honestly I was shocked great america is going away-used to live in Santa Clara years ago….

[windshawne]

3 hours ago, CedarPointer said:

It's pretty widespread on social media, I can't imagine how many complaints the various parks have been fielding about it. It's going to be even worse when Haunt starts and you have the people who don't follow every nuance of the park's website showing up just to find an employee with their hand out asking for $99 for something that's been included with their passes for years. Yes, the website didn't necessarily say they were included when renewals went on sale in 2024, but no one would have expected it to- mazes have been included with event admission for decades.

Of course, you're going to have the park cheerleaders telling everyone how paragraph 17 subsection 12 of the terms and conditions says they can take away whatever they want whenever they want, but that really only makes things worse. The fact is that, at best, a lot of people feel they were misled when they purchased their passes, especially since many people already paid for 2026 passes before the changes were publicized. Excuses from the parks and their supporters aren't going to help with that.

Teaching people that you may or may not get what you paid for when you make a purchase from their company is not a good move.

A lot of things like this are par for the course-look at how everything is the past couple of years.  UN inspiring.  I still have no opinion of the merger, in “wait and see” mode.

myself, I am skipping haunt-real life is scary enough!

[Losantiville Mining Co.]

4 hours ago, I...am SteVe said:

I feel like Great Adventure fell out of the top tier when Ka closed, but the company probably doesn't agree.

I think they misjudged something important about Great Adventure was in the rankings when they closed Kingda Ka. They're clearly trying to make up for the fact that they made a series of massive mistakes at Great Adventure and it isn't happening fast enough.

[DoomPlague]

Giving away the gate, in and of itself, is not a terrible strategy. In fact, its a tried and true strategy that parks started a long time ago because the real money was in concessions and merch, etc etc. But now they basically give food away (to locals that visit often at least) and that's a big chunk of the revenue.

Of course if we're being honest: It's not like KI or CP or KBF or the other top parks are losing money. The real problem is that successful parks are being used to pay off a debt that they didn't create to and to subsidize struggling parks.

Since the dining plan came up, I think it would have been smarter to offer a food discount add-on instead of the dining plan. That is, to pay like $70 or something to get 50% off any and all food items in the park up to a certain amount per visit. I doubt many would see the appeal but it would work better for those of us that can't visit the park as regularly and it guarantees that the park gets not just up front revenue but revenue for every use.

[DispatchMaster]

6 hours ago, DoomPlague said:

In fact, its a tried and true strategy that parks started a long time ago

When has this strategy led to long term, sustained success?

A fundamental issue with low admissions pricing is that it invites the wrong kind of customer - frugal or price sensitive families, parents looking for cheap summer day care, etc. - who are unlikely to spend frivolously regardless of how things are priced inside the gate.

Giving away the gate also squanders a unique advantage these regional parks have, which is that they are down market of Disney-level entertainment options, so if/when economic conditions lead to a softening of demand on the higher end, they can absorb that business, giving up the lower end customer to FECs and the like.

Another fundamental problem is that it takes a long time and effort to build gate integrity. Demonstrating to customers that your product is worth the elevated price point you're charging can take years, even generations, and all of that is completely undone in an instant by lowering the gate price. Once the gate integrity is destroyed, declining revenue and per caps, and attendance when the economy softens, make it virtually impossible to correct course before bankruptcy is the only option.

[disco2000]

18 hours ago, DispatchMaster said:

Social media is not real life. A quick perusal of park-centric "social media" would have me believe that literally every ride at every park is closed for several hours every day, and when not closed, almost killed their father's, brother's, nephew's, cousin's, former roommate due to a restraint malfunction, etc. It's all meaningless nonsense propelled by algorithms designed to trigger outrage.

As pointed out above, the only thing that matters is whether the parks are still pulling in revenue on Saturdays in October. And there has been absolutely zero indication that the parks will have any difficulty doing so.

I agree that the messaging strategy regarding now up-charging for certain attractions was poor. But the fact of the matter is that it has never been cheaper, in my lifetime at least, to visit the parks. If anyone is so so price-sensitive that they're going to complain about the value proposition, previous fall attendance trends suggest that there are literally thousands of others who will happily take their place, ready to pay extra for access to haunted houses.

This kinda sums up the social media backlash crowd LOL:

Everyone claims they bought their passes EXCLUSIVELY for Haunt, but when they start charging $10 for the mazes suddenly all of the haunted houses are run-down run-of-the-mill boring snoozefests that aren't worth a nickel out of their pocket. If that's the case, why did they buy a pass just to go?

[Tr0y]

6 hours ago, DispatchMaster said:

When has this strategy led to long term, sustained success?

A fundamental issue with low admissions pricing is that it invites the wrong kind of customer - frugal or price sensitive families, parents looking for cheap summer day care, etc. - who are unlikely to spend frivolously regardless of how things are priced inside the gate.

Giving away the gate also squanders a unique advantage these regional parks have, which is that they are down market of Disney-level entertainment options, so if/when economic conditions lead to a softening of demand on the higher end, they can absorb that business, giving up the lower end customer to FECs and the like.

Another fundamental problem is that it takes a long time and effort to build gate integrity. Demonstrating to customers that your product is worth the elevated price point you're charging can take years, even generations, and all of that is completely undone in an instant by lowering the gate price. Once the gate integrity is destroyed, declining revenue and per caps, and attendance when the economy softens, make it virtually impossible to correct course before bankruptcy is the only option.

I agree, the pricing has not kept up with inflation in regard to season passes and add-ons. I also think they also suffer from too much reliance on analytics and market research. In a lot of ways, I don't think they actually understand their customers or what a customer experiences.

 

[SmartCat7162]

     The future of FUN is no longer looking that bright. It is going to be really hard to come back from this. Investors are ****ed and are looking into suing the company. If that happens more loses will ensue monetarily and debt will not be able to be repaid. The product quality has decreased for former CF Parks. But a few pre-merger six flags parks have had an increase in quality. That truly does show how far behind the pre-merger six flags parks were behind the CF parks. If parks do start to get sold I would love to see KI sold, but it is too much of a cash cow for them to probably sell.

   Things are not looking good especially with how they did haunt. They should have set the price of passes $30-$40 more and just had the mazes included with park admission. There is literally no point in giving away the gate. When things get so cheap people look down on it. That is the opposite of what they want to happen but they managed to achieve that. I do not really know what to say. I think at this point the company either needs to sell some parks immediately or just declare bankcruptcy. Investors have lost hope with the board and the only way to bring that hope back is to start fresh.

    At the end of the day I hope that I am proven wrong and that they make it out of this without having to sell parks or declare bankruptcy. What is the C-Suite actually doing on a daily basis this company is in free fall and someone has to take the reigns or else it is going to get away. I've spoken about being hopeful, but at this point in time it is hard to have that outlook. I really think selling parks is the way to go and that is what the company should be doing they need to find buyers. 

 

 

[johnjniehaus]

All I'm going to say is that I think liquidation of some parks is inevitable at this point. They can't afford to keep running the ones not bringing in high profits. Unfortunately, instead of giving another company the opportunity to right their wrongs, Six Flags will most likely close any and all parks that are within any potential competition distance of their other properties. It makes sense to eliminate the competition but it SUCKS for everyone else! Why not sell SFA? Well because it's too close to KD and Dorney Park. Why not sell CGA? It's too close to SFDK. Six Flags doesn't care if all of your memories go to heck when your park closes or if you have to drive 2-3 hours to your nearest park. Both companies were in a lot of debt pre merger and their issues have only continued. It's very disheartening to think about more parks closing. SFA sucks so I'm not too upset about that one but I was just at CGA and there's no argument that it's better than every other park in the Bay Area.