rizash wrote: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.....
[ Post made via Mobile Device ]
Two things. First, the US is one of the only (if not the only) that allows companies to break all contracts when bankrupt with no penalty. It rewards them for being stupid. They were dumb enough to sign the lease, they should be held to it.
Second, it's not that hard to provide fake plans. With the sheer amount of water park additions they have done, just add the surrounding land and BS the rest. Plus, if Six Flags is spending "hundreds of thousands" on water park plans, they are wasting money. Business plans are completely different from initial proposal plans used in a pitch.
Business proposals and project plans on someone elses property, for a water park expansion are not crayon drawings on posterboard. Land has to be surveyed, water, ground, and FAA regulations must be checked. Water ride companies have to be contacted and ride specific plans must be drawn up. The local power company must be contacted, city county and state building codes and standards must be checked. Then the fiances have to be checked and secured, since no-one will approve a project without proof of financial viability. This is especially true with a near bankrupt company. Trust me, sf had planned a water park expansion, this wasn't "hey, do you guys care if we tear down chang for a water park."
So forcing companies that are bankrupt to keep running failing parts of their business makes sense? Then why have bankruptcy? Why not just let them take their rides, sell all their parks and land, and close all their parks. Get real... Would japan let toyota or Honda close up shop instead of letting them bail on a few bills? I doubt it. Trust me it would be worse if sf were forced to keep paying the lease because it would either become all water park, or would end up an empty lot for the remainder of the lease. The water park would likely drive the sf franchise out of business, and you would lose the use/jobs/park if they just closed it. Perfect example is general motors. Gm would not have needed a bailout if ac delco had not needed to be bailed out by gm. Same thing with six flags, if you force them to keep running a dying park, the chain closes an nobody wins.
The more I read the less it seems like it was in the contract to let the fair keep the rides, otherwise there would be no need to sue six flags for ownership. In truth this is a perfect example of a government project biting the hand that feeds. Instead of helping sf out they drove them away, how stupid.
Even if another park bought the land/rides from sf and leased it from the fair, does anybody think they would pay half of what sf did? No way... And even then the new owners would not invest a dime in the rides, why would they? The state fair should pony up a few hundred million and buy the rest of the park and rides from sf.
