I was trying to find a article released a while back right after the acquisition of the Paramount Parks... It was the one that had the rare disclosure of both attendance and revenue for each park. I can't seem to find it.

Thanks for your help.

www.ipetitions.com/petition/geaugalake

1.) El Toro 2.) Millennium Force 3.) Goliath - SFoG 4.) Maverick 5.) X 6.) Deja Vu
7.) Raptor 8.) Top Thrill Dragster 9.) Tatsu 10.) Scream! -- Thrills Around the Corner!

On today's paper "Norwalk Reflector", had an Article saying that there will be Rides from GL coming to CP.

I'm sure that the Norwalk paper would know about such things before the park publicly announces it. I'll believe that when I see a pig grow wings and fly.

As to Top Thrill's question...I think I remember the one you're talking about. Have you taken the time to look through the news archives here on PB?

Blue Streak crew 2007
ATL Matterhorn Tri. 2008
Three things you need to fix anything in the universe: duct tape, WD-40, and a hammer. Duct tape if it moves and it shouldn't, WD-40 if it doesn't move and should, and the hammer as the last resort.

I still could see CP finding a place for Villain.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/joshwozny

Not sure if this is the article you're talking about, but it does give some attendance and revenue numbers for each of the parks.

Kings Island had more visitors, Cedar Point more income in '05

*** Edited 9/27/2007 11:59:37 AM UTC by Mark Small***

Dragster Rides=524 (RB=18) / Maverick Rides=136 (My 200th coaster)

Geauga Lake pulled in $7 million more than Michigan's Adventure. Interesting.

2 questions I want to ask about that:

What was GL's Operating Calendar in comparison to MiAdv? MiAdv doesn't open until late May. They opened for the 19th and 20th this year, and then were closed until the 24th and then open from there for the season.

What is the expectation? Is MiAdv hitting their expectations while GL was coming in 5 million (or more) short?

Goodbye MrScott

John

Goodbye George. You will be missed.

A revenue reporting doesn't include expenses, does it? Isn't it just the amount of money they brought in? So, maybe the operating expenses, etc... put them in the red?

If that's the case, that's what I don't understand. If they were able to bring in $7 million more than one of their "huge successes" (according to Jeff), why couldn't the park be a success if they were able to lessen the operating costs of the park by removing more coasters? That's really where I thought the park was heading.

That's what I was trying to remember. Was that the number before or after expenses?

It could be that the removal of 2 coasters hurt their income/attendance quite a bit this year. Remember the backlash both here and on CB, and while the enthusiast community is very small and emotional, I don't doubt the GP noticed the removals as well.

When your first attempt at cutting costs causes it to be offset by a loss of income, it doesn't take an MBA to figure out that cost cutting is not going to do the trick.

So what's next? Your biggest expenditures are in maintaining and operating rides, but removing rides causes less people to come through the gates resulting in lost revenue (through both Per-cap and gate revenue). Not to mention, now your other rides are putting through fewer riders because the people that ARE showing up are just going to the water park.

I think Cedar Fair found themselves in a really bad position and their attempts to turn the park around just weren't working. There are also enough fingers to point the blame at about 10 or 11 different "mistakes" made over the last 10 years.

Goodbye MrScott

John

Goodbye George. You will be missed.

Jugga, your argument is logical -- the claims of folks that GL's attendance was up this year notwithstanding. On the other hand, I'm not sure that you could extrapolate some sort of lock-step correlation between pulling rides and loss of customers. You can't say, for example, that for x number of rides withdrawn, y fewer people will show up.

I firmly believe that if CF had carefully planned a smaller, smarter park configuration, and worked methodically over a few seasons to bring that about, there would have been one or more 'sweet spots' where revenues would have exceeded costs. I think this would have resulted in a smaller park than they care to operate, and this is probably a big factor that went into the decision to close. Now whether that realization came before they bought the park, or only with the experience of running it for a couple seasons is a matter for conspiracists like me . . .

Mike
R.I.P. Geauga Lake: 1888-2007.

Mike - What you're talking about requires a lot of planning and creative thought. It also requires someone to actually WANT to make the park work. Like, a lot! I'd go as far as saying you'd need to have someone very passionate about the park to WANT it to survive.

I just think Cedar Fair decided they didn't want to make it work anymore. All of their resources are working on the Paramount Parks now so they didn't have time to work on Geauga Lake.

I see this all the time for any difficult project. Sometimes it is just easier to give up and move on than try and work something out. That's actually why I love being a designer. I get difficult problems and have to come up with really creative solutions to make things work. It's fun. I love it.

Mike - I don't think you can say "If we remove X, we'll have Y fewer guests". But I'm pretty sure you can look back and say "We removed X, and had Y fewer guests."

Are other factors at play? Sure, but if you watch the numbers on your remaining rides drop, its pretty obvious that removing rides had a negative impact on the park.

**EDIT - Spelling**
*** Edited 9/27/2007 4:21:15 PM UTC by JuggaLotus***

Goodbye MrScott

John

Goodbye George. You will be missed.

John - Don't forget after they removed X, they left nasty scars on the park. So, that's a big factor in the Y guests not coming. Had they removed X and cleaned up the area with Z, those Y people may have come back.

edit because I know someone will say something: In my equation, Z does not equal a ride or coaster. Z is merely an investment of some sort. Shop, landscaping, interactive fountain for the kids, anything besides a big scar on the midway. *** Edited 9/27/2007 4:23:45 PM UTC by halltd***

But they would have had to WANT to clean up and care about the park in the first place to care if people came back.

They couldn't have thought they'd be anywhere near the black leaving the park look like it did this year.

eat. sleep. ride! - Coaster apparel and accessories!

Ride on, MrScott!

Obama '08!!

I can't believe that the conspiracy angle is still being considered even remotely realistic by some.

Where in this entire thread do you see any mention of the "conspiracy" angle? I see none. I see educated discussion about the possible reasons why they pulled out. I see no mention of "this was the plan all along".

halltd said:
It also requires someone to actually WANT to make the park work.
...
I just think Cedar Fair decided they didn't want to make it work anymore.

You're implying CF didn't want the park to work.

Decided...indicating that they once wanted to and then changed their mind and gave up. That's not a conspiracy theory. That's looking at their efforts in getting the park to succeed and clearly seeing that they could have tried harder. That's totally different than "OMG they bought Geauga Lake just to close it down and make Cedar Point the only park left open in the free world."

After reading all the posts, articles, and looking at the numbers available for the park, I believe they at first wanted to turn it around. Otherwise, why invest that much into the park? But, after the Paramount deal and more research into Geauga Lake, they realized it would either be too much work or just something they weren't interested in doing any more. Something "better" came along for them to work on - and that was Paramount. That's when they decided they didn't want to make it work anymore. I hardly consider that a conspiracy theory.

Well, then that's my misunderstanding. However, the first sentence quoted above certainly seems as though you're 'implying' they didn't want to make it work.

You guys just enjoy "misinterpreting" my posts. It's ok though. It's helping me convey my thoughts in a more thorough manner.