Second, it's pretty arrogant for the team to just say, "We'll buy it." It has to be sale first.

If the property was most recently assessed at $114 million, then I suspect its actual value is still higher, as assessments seem to never quite be true to actual market value (my house is assessed 25% lower than what I could actually sell it for). If you're Cedar Fair and that figure is being dangled in your face, you have to do the math. All of the following have to be true:

1) The selling price has to be greater than the cost paid for it, plus the expenses related to that purchase and any cap ex since.

2) The short term shot of cash is greater than the profit from the park over some term. If they really can reach their goal of paying down the Paramount financing by 2012-ish (I don't know that they've ever publicly said that, but it has always been my understanding that was the goal), then take that six years of profit and make that your price.

3) They're OK with the fact that they won't have the revenue following the term mentioned in 2) after that term.

Regardless of what happens, is this really an issue for something that will be used eight times a year in the off-season?

Now I am not saying that they should build the stadium there but there is potential for both to coexist happily.

The park is built on what used to be the southern part of the San Francisco bay, which over the last few decades has been filled in from the sides to create more land. IIRC they can't dig down all that deep because the water table is pretty high.

What I think is funny is how someone is quoted in the San Jose Mercury News as saying the 49'ers already are getting public money from taxes, yet have money to buy an amusement park!?

That was always like in high school my sister coming home from the mall with tons of new clothes, and then asking my parents for money for her cell phone bill!

This would also put niner's stadium right next to their practice center and team headquarters. Plus, it would bring another professional team to silicon valley. (We only have the Sharks right now.)

I don't see Cedar Fair as the catalyst that would stop the new stadium. San Francisco is still pushing really hard for the Niners to build the new stadium at Hunter's point.

But Jeff! If you build it they will come! We've seen Jacob's Field, RnR HoF, Science Center, and Cleveland Browns stadium, now looking at Cleveland's population booming--- wait. You mean they now have the same population that of Kansas City? It's still dropping? You mean raising taxes on things that they want people to stop doing (i.e. smoking) was a good idea? So when everyone stops smoking where's this money going to come from?

Building Browns stadium without a dome was an absolutely terrible idea. We'll never ever host a Super Bowl, nor will we host anything else other than the 10 home football games until that changes.

This situation though wreaks of Astroworld!

~Rob Willi

"When Cedar Fair concluded that an amusement park and the stadium as proposed could not successfully coexist, Cedar Fair offered the City and the 49ers the option of redeveloping the entire parcel. The next step will be for the citizens and the City of Santa Clara to decide: should the Great America site be used for a new 49ers’ stadium or should the park continue to operate? If the City and its citizens believe that the best use of this property is for a new stadium, then Cedar Fair is willing to consider selling the remainder of its lease and all of its interest and assets to the City or 49ers for fair market value."

Meaning Cedar Fair says "Make an offer, make an offer!!!!"

The whole release seems to be written to subtly get that point across.

Mike

http://www.cedarfair.com/ir/press_releases/index.cfm?current_root=15&mode=story&story_id=138

"You can still enjoy Great America, but in a whole new way... Hours of tailgating fun in the 49er's new parking lot! (PS.: Don't forget to visit our other former amusement park in Aurora OH)"

I don't get this at all. Regardless of whether a football stadium is used for other things, they're generally a waste of money. $900 million buys a stadium that serves its main purpose between 8 and 10 times a year, requires $250 million in upgrades after 12 years and gets slated for replacement after 25. There are no other areas in the Bay Area for the 49ers? An amusement park is going to be lost for this? And, more curiously, taxpayers are going to put up with this? Is this really the only option?

If anything, I think this proves just how far Cedar Fair is in over their head. Supposedly this park makes a decent amount of money. If they're willing to give up long-term profit for a short-term gain, that says they have too much on their plate and would like to get rid of some of it.

They sure could do well for themselves if they play this right.

---

If anything, I think this proves just how far Cedar Fair is in over their head.

---

I say, if anything it proves how low amusement parks are people's lists of things that are important in general.

If you don't think football will beat roller coasters every time - you're fooling yourself.

And more on the amusement park topic:

I cry conspiracy. They knew they were going to sell off the park when they bought it. In fact, I think that's their whole plan with the park purchases they made - kill 'em off one-by-one. With no competition CF is the only major game around. Look out SF, you're next!

Anyway, back to sports... no surprise at all that football beats an amusement park, but why can't there be both? Half the football games- if not more- will take place after the park closes for the season. How many operating days is this going to affect? Four? Five?

I don't smell a conspiracy, just a company that bit off more than they can chew. Cedar Fair is obviously looking to unload a few parks- perhaps because they can't handle what they have- and as soon as they saw the potential for a quick gain, they put up a "For Sale" sign.

Really though, Cedar Fair has already taken into account what properties they could easily get rid of, wether it be competition or profit off the sale of real estate. I am sure that residents of Santa Clara would be greatly pleased to eliminate the park, as the noise from Great America must be an issue. (Not that an NFL game would not be, but no one complains about that.)

---

Not sure why that is, nor do I understand why someone would spend so much time on a site like this when they seem so indifferent to the idea of amusement parks.

---

I'm just biding time until I die.

There is a similar (note the word similar - not the same) situation going on with one of the most profitable and stable company's in the world. Procter and Gamble is considering selling off Pringles, Folgers and Duracell. Three GIANTs that generate significant revenue. P&G is not in dire straits. This is not an attempt to pay off debt generated in an expansion. It is just a business decision.

It appears that CF wants to keep KGA open. However, for the right price they will consider selling. Why not? For the right price they could see the profits now, and reduce their cap expenses over the next few years by re-purposing the KGA rides elsewhere in the chain. Sounds like a win/win if the price is right.

As for the notion of closing parks, I agree to an extent that few parks is a bad thing. However, KGA is not a storied traditional park. It was part of the Marriott chain built in response to the success of KI. Don't bother with the GA and KI do not compete, I know that. The idea was that KI was successful, so why not follow the lead and build more. SF did the same. The closing of traditional parks is unfortunate and sad. The closing of a park like KGA or dare I say even KI, while unfortunate and sad, is not the same. Thirty or so years of history, versus 100 or more years.

Edited to fix spelling*** This post was edited by CoasterDad64 10/10/2007 4:21:36 PM ***

-N

Cedar Fair would not get the rides to redistribute as they are with GL, since they do not own the land to sell, they'd be selling the park "as is" and walking away from it.

But. Maybe they know that Santa Clara wants GA to continue operating and that SC will never agree to a buyout that shuts down the park. So by posturing that, "hey we're willing to step aside if the city wants us to, but the city decided the park stays as is" CF is not the heavy if the stadium isn't built in Santa Clara.

CF holds the aces. Their worst case scenario is they own/lease a profitable park. And by saying no to the 49ers they maintain the Status Quo.

If someone presents them with a better scenario (and GA with less parking is not a better scenario) they will say yes. But they have no need (or ability, really) to force a better scenario into existence.

Lost in this is one fact: the city seems pretty committed to keeping GA open and operating as an amusement no matter who owns/leases the land.

We can't be so naive this time around to say that it's not possible, even if it isn't something we don't want to face, because it clearly is. It's almost as if GA has the issues of Astroworld and GL blended together(parking problems/prime real estate and CF possibly in over their heads)

Don't be surprised if the city buys out CF and forces the 49ers to keep GA open as part of the stadium deal.

Reread the post and maybe you will figure it out, or don't reread it.

Kings Island was successful, so the powers that be at Marriott wanted to emulate the model. Think Moe's and Chipotle, Marble Slab and Cold Stone, BW3s and Beef O'Brady's. Possible competitors or simply users of the same model in either case, Marriott wanted some of the action.

Jazma said: Cedar Fair would not get the rides to redistribute as they are with GL, since they do not own the land to sell, they'd be selling the park "as is" and walking away from it.

It all depends upon the sales contract. To your point, the 49er's probably have no need or desire for the rides - CF would most likely keep the ones they wanted, sell or leave behind the rest.

Anybody know what the average attendance was/is at Great America?
*** This post was edited by Jazma 10/10/2007 10:44:44 PM ***

So from a moderate standpoint, what's more "beneficial"?
*** This post was edited by Hatham Al-Shabibi 10/10/2007 11:53:22 PM ***

---

Rob Ascough said:
If anything, I'm surprised at how many people on a coaster enthusiast website simply don't care when the closing of amusement parks is announced. Maybe I'm wrong but it seems a lot of people are numb. Not sure why that is, nor do I understand why someone would spend so much time on a site like this when they seem so indifferent to the idea of amusement parks.

---

Rob, I've thought about your statement for a while today, and I've really tried to think of a good reply. Except for the few people who think a petition will do any good, the rest of us are becoming all too aware that nothing is safe, and we really don't have any control over these business decisions.

Maybe the trip to the amusement park isn't as fun as it used to be either. When you know you're going to a park and leaving with a much lighter wallet, so to speak, I think people are looking for other cheaper options of entertainment.

You can get angry or passionate all you want but it won't bring back Astroworld, Mrytle Beach Pavillion, Wild West World, Geauga Lake, Coney Island etc. (just to name a few). And I don't think it's that people don't care, it's just that except for a few pockets of America, there are still plenty of amusement parks with plenty of rides in them to go to.

It's obvious we all approach coaster enthusiasm from different place. Some of us like the nostalgia, others like the business aspect. Regardless, I always assumed everyone on this site was here because there is a common appreciation for amusement parks. That being the case, it's strange when an amusement park closes- or is rumored to be closing- and some people seem absolutely indifferent or, in some cases, outright thrilled. I'm not picking on anyone or saying it's wrong to express opinions, I'm just observing and thinking aloud.

In the big scheme of things, amusement park loss isn't high on my list.

Do I dig the parks? Sure.
Does it suck when one closes? Usually.
Are there still hundreds of parks in the US alone to visit? Yup.
Is it going to change my life in any way? In most cases not one bit.
Can I do anything about it beyond useless b*tching and moaning? Nope.
Do I feel it's my place to do anything? Nope.

That pretty much adds up to my usual "Oh well" response.

Even more appalling? In some perverse way it's kind of neat knowing I've been to a park or on a ride that will no longer exist.

Flat out, I don't care enough about any ride or park that I can think of to be angry or upset at it's removal or loss. The only instance where I might be affected is if it's a local park that I visit frequently...and even then we move enough that it wouldn't affect me beyond a season...maybe two.

Remember my hooker/stripper analogies in that other thread. It really applies for me. I pay for a good time not a relationship. If that good time goes away, I'll just pay someone else. There's no strings attached.

I say it's entirely possible (even reasonable) to enjoy parks, be a fan of parks and even come here to endlessly discuss parks, but not be so attached that I get angry or upset when one closes.

Different strokes, apparantly.

Rob, I've expressed your sentiments on here before. I can understand why folks who don't frequent amusement parks are indifferent to their fate. But I thought we, at least, were supposed to appreciate the importance and specialness of these places.

It seems like there is a lot of short-sighted parochialism among enthusiasts. If it's not happening to the two or three parks I visit, it's not important. I guess this is natural and human, but when it reaches the level where people are actually gloating about the rides that a park like MiA or KD is going to receive at the fatal expense of a park like GL, that's where it becomes nonsensical to me.

I especially dislike when an administrator for one of the foremost amusement park enthusiast web sites can only produce an indifferent response about a park closing when questioned by members of the media. There, I said it. Somebody in that position ought to have a better understanding about their responsibility. Such a personage is regarded by the media as representative of all enthusiasts, and as such he or she speaks for all of us. It doesn't matter if the park in question was complete crap. It's still an amusement park, and still deserves affection and support from the enthusiast community. And most especially by people in leadership positions.

I know that the demographics among coaster fans tend to skew toward teens and young adults, and that may play a factor in this phenomenon. I imagine there's a dearth of awareness about the history of amusement parks, or how many parks there once were.

Here where I live, in Cuyahoga Falls, once upon a time we had our own park (Glens), while neighboring Akron had five parks all to itself. In Ohio there were over 80 parks, not so very long ago. I think that without an appreciation of the past, it's more difficult to understand where the industry is going in the future. It's easier to write off the loss of an Erieview or a Conneaut Lake or an Astroland when you don't understand the long view: that these landmark treasure are disappearing, one by one.

When someone here mentioned the disappearance of the family owned amusement park, and somebody else responded that Koch down in Holiday World would be surprised to hear that, there wasn't a whole lot of correction by posters that I noticed. But the truth of the matter is that for every Holiday World or Beech Bend, there are probably 5 or 8 or 10 Bushkills or Lesourdsville Lakes. (That ratio is probably actually declining of late, mostly because most of the damage has been done already, and there simply aren't that many of that kind of parks left to close.) Despite the boom period from about 1960 to 1985 of large theme parks and large theme park companies, the greater trend from the Depression to the present has been the retrenchment and loss of these small, traditional, independently owned parks. That is the battle facing enthusiasts today, and they can't fight it -- or at least speak up about it -- if they don't understand the nature of that battle.

So what I would like to see is more enthusiasts taking an interest in parks far from their home base. I'd like to see folks begin to understand that amusement parks are not a zero sum game. If one park loses, to a degree, all parks lose. And it would be good to see more people aware of the storied and glittering past of these places, to understand that their remnants today are just that -- remnants, that need to be nurtured and preserved.

*Packs away soap box*
*** This post was edited by 10/11/2007 12:33:54 PM ***

As long as Cedar Point opens next year, all is right with the world.

---

Ensign Smith:
But I thought we, at least, were supposed to appreciate the importance and specialness of these places.

---

I apparently missed that memo.

---

If it's not happening to the two or three parks I visit, it's not important. I guess this is natural and human...

---

Guilty (except change "two or three" to "nineteen or twenty" - each year...for the past 7 years). And even when it happens in my backyard, I'd have less of a reaction than some have when a park they've never been to in a different part of the world closes.

---

I especially dislike when an administrator for one of the foremost amusement park enthusiast web sites can only produce an indifferent response about a park closing when questioned by members of the media. There, I said it. Somebody in that position ought to have a better understanding about their responsibility. Such a personage is regarded by the media as representative of all enthusiasts, and as such he or she speaks for all of us. It doesn't matter if the park in question was complete crap. It's still an amusement park, and still deserves affection and support from the enthusiast community. And most especially by people in leadership positions.

---

I'm not even going to touch that except to say I couldn't disagree more. I don't think people in those types of positions have any responsibility to anyone but themselves. Don't media whore just because it's "the right thing to do" and certainly don't act as if you have some cross to bear for the entire community. Blech!

---

I know that the demographics among coaster fans tend to skew toward teens and young adults, and that may play a factor in this phenomenon.

---

I'm in my mid-30's.

---

I imagine there's a dearth of awareness about the history of amusement parks, or how many parks there once were.

---

Nope, I'm pretty familiar with the way things used to be. More importantly, I know how they are now.

---

I think that without an appreciation of the past, it's more difficult to understand where the industry is going in the future.

---

I actually agree. Which leads too:

---

Despite the boom period from about 1960 to 1985 of large theme parks and large theme park companies, the greater trend from the Depression to the present has been the retrenchment and loss of these small, traditional, independently owned parks.

---

Yup. It's been going on forever and it will continue to happen. I understand that in the big scheme of things amusement parks don't seem to matter to people in general as much as they do to enthusiasts in particular. I must be more 'people in general' than 'enthusiast in particular' - go figure.

---

And it would be good to see more people aware of the storied and glittering past of these places, to understand that their remnants today are just that -- remnants, that need to be nurtured and preserved.

---

So because I like to ride coasters with my kids, I also have to be a historian and/or preservationist on the subject? No thanks. Where do I turn in my credentials?

---

*Packs away soap box*

---

*Quits yelling from the crowd*

By the same token, I can appreciate that any publicly-traded company has a duty first and foremost to its shareholders.

What can I really DO that might help more when it comes to keeping rides around and parks operating? Probably just going to parks and spending money there...

This is all a matter of negotiation, Cedar Fair style. Anybody remember how they got the Cincinnati transit company to continue the Kings Island route *without* a subsidy from the park?

What Cedar Fair is saying here is that the park and the stadium cannot co-exist. They are offering to end their long-term lease on the property for a boatload of cash, *provided that* (a) they receive fair market value for their real property, and (b) the City of Santa Clara decides that they would prefer to have the stadium on that site instead of Great America. It isn't that Cedar Fair wants to close the park. In fact, I'd suggest that they are *counting on* that earlier deed restriction and the city's stated desire to have Great America. It means that if the stadium gets built on that site, Great America is history, but the bad guy is not Cedar Fair, but rather the 49ers, and worse yet, the City of Santa Clara reneging on their previous deal. Furthermore, we can get a better idea of what Cedar Fair is really thinking if someone starts throwing numbers around. If their real preference is to operate the park, then the "fair market value" of Great America could end up being very substantial!

This is Cedar Fair playing hardball again. It will be interesting to see how far it goes before the 49ers decide to go somewhere else.

--Dave Althoff, Jr.

---

Ensign Smith sayeth:
I especially dislike when an administrator for one of the foremost amusement park enthusiast web sites can only produce an indifferent response about a park closing when questioned by members of the media. There, I said it. Somebody in that position ought to have a better understanding about their responsibility. Such a personage is regarded by the media as representative of all enthusiasts, and as such he or she speaks for all of us. It doesn't matter if the park in question was complete crap. It's still an amusement park, and still deserves affection and support from the enthusiast community. And most especially by people in leadership positions.

---

Gonch said exactly what I said previously, that I'm not going to be an attention whore and get in front of a camera just so a few curious viewers can see what that CoasterBuzz is all about.

My only responsibility is to myself first, and the news consuming audience of this site second, with preference given to the people who pay for a membership. That's it. I do not speak for the enthusiast community, nor do I have any desire to. As a journalist, I look at the stories out in the industry and post those that I find to be newsworthy. That's my job.

When the LA Times, USA Today or NPR call, I'll give them my observations and opinions, usually in the context of the industry as a business. I get asked what my favorite ride is all of the time, and I never give an answer. After nearly eight years of doing this, that's what I choose to do.

You talk about "damage" done to small family owned parks. Which of these parks are opened as charities with limitless funding? They all open as businesses, and that's just the way it is. Some people, like the Koch's, are really good at it. Kent Buescher is another example of a strong business leader. The Herschends have gone from small players to some of the smartest people in the business. The bottom line is that this industry is like any other. It has winners and losers.

A lot of what you and Rob say is predicated on the notion that enthusiasts have some duty or obligation to care about everything. If that's what you want to do, more power to you, but I'm not interested. Don't get me wrong, I can certainly relate. My ex-girlfriend's family is selling a wonderful historic cottage on Mackinac that will likely get bulldozed within hours of the sale, and if I could do something to prevent that, I would.

But my enthusiasm is very much like Gonch's hooker analogy. Even my beloved Cedar Point, which I've grown up with, I have to be careful about believing it loves me back, especially while it's ripping me off for mediocre food.

The bottom line is, you have no place deciding what role me and my site are supposed to play in the world. This too, is a business, and if you don't like the way it's run, you're free to take that business elsewhere.