So you don't want Six Flags to win? I wouldn't mind a new flat. Really, as much as I dislike T2, I wouldn't mind it either. Giving that it receives a new painting and such.
I'll reiterate what I said previously, if the state wins this suit I lose trust in the judicial system.
If Six Flags PAID for the rides, they own the rides. Doesn't matter where you put them. If you lease land you are able to use it, and when the lease runs up you pack up your stuff and leave, that's how it works.
That's not to say they can take all the rides, because they didn't pay for all of them in the first place...
Top 5 wood-5-Goliath 4-Ravine Flyer II 3-Phoenix 2-Voyage 1-El Toro Top 5 Steel- 5-Velocicoaster 4- Maverick 3- Fury 325 2-Steel Vengeance 1-X2 Coaster Count: 444
I personally think that the La Ronde SLC is going to be yet another overused name. Goliath, anything of that nature. How are they going to theme that though?
w00dland wrote:I'll reiterate what I said previously, if the state wins this suit I lose trust in the judicial system.
If Six Flags PAID for the rides, they own the rides. Doesn't matter where you put them. If you lease land you are able to use it, and when the lease runs up you pack up your stuff and leave, that's how it works.
That's not to say they can take all the rides, because they didn't pay for all of them in the first place...
Does Six Flags have the money to return the property to it's original state? With any lease, you must do that if you add something and then remove it. If they remove Chang and do not repair the property, they can be sued for either the ride and/or complete cost of restoring the area before the ride was there.
I am really intrigued to see if the lawsuit over Chang plays out. I tend to agree with the fair board that Six Flags made fake water park plans to get Chang and everything was planned well in advance.
They presented layouts/some sort of plans for Bonzai Beach. They can't prove a thing. I can see them saying they need to replace Chang with something (especially since Chang was not bought by Six Flags). Didn't though Shapiro make it seem like Chang was the previous Six Flags owners property when he said Chang was what was wrong with the previous management? He didn't know why they put it in SFKK with no theme and the Chang name was a bad one?
He meant why the previous Six Flags Managment under Burke would put in such a great ride, and give it such a terrible, name that had nothing to do with the park's theme.
w00dland wrote:I'll reiterate what I said previously, if the state wins this suit I lose trust in the judicial system.
That's not to say they can take all the rides, because they didn't pay for all of them in the first place...
Does Six Flags have the money to return the property to it's original state? With any lease, you must do that if you add something and then remove it. If they remove Chang and do not repair the property, they can be sued for either the ride and/or complete cost of restoring the area before the ride was there.
I am really intrigued to see if the lawsuit over Chang plays out. I tend to agree with the fair board that Six Flags made fake water park plans to get Chang and everything was planned well in advance.
I'll agree with the fact that Six Flags probably screwed the Fair Board royally. I'll agree that the court could easily rule that Six Flags return the land to the previous standards, because Six Flags could do that.
The fact is Six Flags had the legal right to leave the lease, and nothing is going to force them or their property back into Kentucky. I think there will probably end up being some sort of agreement between the two parties before this reaches court, but Six Flags won't be going back there.
Top 5 wood-5-Goliath 4-Ravine Flyer II 3-Phoenix 2-Voyage 1-El Toro Top 5 Steel- 5-Velocicoaster 4- Maverick 3- Fury 325 2-Steel Vengeance 1-X2 Coaster Count: 444
^I agree Six Flags is never coming back. What really bothers me is the fact that going bankrupt allows them to leave the lease. Then again, US bankruptcy laws reward people for being stupid and allow people to buy stuff pennies on the dollar, unlike the rest of the world.
If the lease was like the state says, I pity sf for signing it. First they buy all the rides from previous owners, then they pay property taxes on all rides, then they don't get to keep them. Oh, an the most cost effective income source in the park (parking) you get no revenue from! No-one with a high school education would agree to that! Oh and! Ten days each year sf got no revenue from!
Also bankruptcy laws make perfect sense in this case. It forced negotiations for new lease terms, and Kentucky didn't care enough to keep a park there, so they let them leave. Bankruptcy laws all but force you to shed expenses that have no roi. Sf proposed a no lease for profit share agreement, and the state was too greedy or didn't want to give up guaranteed money for possible money. They care more about cash than jobs or the city.
As far as the water park went, anyone who says they made up bisiness plans to steal chang is oblivious to how business works. It costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to draw up a business proposal like that, and they were still locked into the lease (technically they still are until a ruling comes down). If sf had or does get stuck with kk, they at least have business plans, and courts will decide who owns what. Worst case scenario is sf loses ownership of the rides on state land but gets compensated. Plus the state will have to pay the back property tax that sf had paid for them, and sf will still have what is on it's property. Plus bankruptcy courts can force ammendments to leases, so who knows.....