Stitch_101 wrote:^ From what I've read, this distance thing has been a problem before for CW, back when they wanted to build Flight Deck. They had plans with B&M, but B&M had to pull out because of the clause, after building Raptor at CP a year earlier. CW ended up going with Vekoma. But from what I also understand, CW tried to work with CP to try and come up with some kind of exception to the clause, but CP refused. That leads me to believe that Cedar Fair has some say about how the clause is upheld, and now with them owning CP and KI, well, and CW for that matter, that they could say "hey, we want an invert in KI." And arn't clauses like that normally for a set period of year, and not indefinite? Most company's I've heard of ever agreeing to such terms almost never do it on an indefinite period. I could understand a ten year block on similar rides.
Now, I've havnt seen or read anything about Leviathan being built by B&M because of the clause. Could it be that I'm underestimating CF and the whole clause? Yup, I'm often wrong . But is it possible CF just chose B&M to build Leviathan for any number of other reason we don't know about? I don't see why not...
Edit: And kunpc1 already beat me to my point lol!
What you write about Flight Deck was confirmed by park managemenr at Leviathan Bash.
However, your point about why Canada's Wonderland contracted for Leviathan from B&M is pure speculation and has nothing to due with an exclusivity agreement. Exclusivity agreements are done on a corporate level. Now whether Cedar Fair told Canada's Wonderland that they couldn't get an Intamin is a slightly different story. That would be corporate politics. But park management stated at Leviathon Bash that based on the success of Behemoth they choose the go with something they knew would be popular with the patrons.
So while building a B&M invert is the past my have been a problem at Kings Island due to exclusivity agreements, it is not the case today