monsterfan99 wrote:Apparently the fair owns all of the rides and screwed the fair grounds out of Chang
How the @#$@# do you "steal" a roller coaster? Unless all the Kentucky stereotypes really are true, why would they let Six Flags move their property, especially something as valuable as a B&M coaster, out of the area? They wouldn't have. They would have gotten an injunction to stop the removal of the ride.
I smell a douche here and I don't think it's Six Flags.
"There's nothing wrong with it. It just needs some tweaking,"
I fail to see any logic in the interpretation of a leasing contract that says any rides erected would belong to the state; sounds like a stupid contract to have in the first place...
If Six Flags bought the rides then they should be able to move them out. I can see why the rides added before Six Flags took over could be the fair's, but that's about it. Seems like it would be similar to my landlord walking into my apartment at the end of a a lease and telling me that all the furniture I purchased and added is now his...
^^But if the landlord approved for you to make physical changes to your place (say for example, you put new shelves in your closet)...You'd either be stuck leaving those behind or returning it to its original state. The foundations/footers/etc for rides and their support buildings are actual physical changes to the property.
I'm guessing that's the logic the fair board is using. They may not have a right to the rides themselves that SF put in on their own, but they possibly have the right to force Six Flags to spend extra cash on the ride removals to return things back to how they were (or even force them to leave the rides there if that is the only possible solution). It may very well be a fair argument depending on the wording in the lease.
Hockeydad wrote:They will probably keep whatever rides they can on property, for the state fair. They have been using SFKK's rides for the state fair for years as an up-charge section of the fair. The part I never have gotten was that they would still truck in all the fair rides as well. I'm guessing the state had some kind of contract with the ride company. It is just so weird to be there and see a rides section in the parking lot across from SFKK.
A State Fair is supposed to be that, well at least the New Jersey and Pennsylvania ones I've seen. I think it's the other way around.
The way I read the one article was the waterpark expansion was a nice way for Six Flags to get permission to take down Chang.
uwgbdork wrote: On the note of ride relocation, I would not be surprised in the least if they are NOT able to move any of the rides. Part of me thinks they got Chang the heck off property before the negotiations went down in this event cause then they would at least have a chance to save their Mulit-million dollar headliner. They were able to sneak it out under the guise of a waterpark expansion knowing that most patrons of the park went for the water park not the rides. The only people who really know are the fair board and six flags executives as to the true terms of the lease aggrment. I think getting chang out before the end of the year was a way of cutting their losses.
Hate to qoute myself but i believe a "I told you so" is in order
^You are totally right! You deserve getting to post an I told you so!
As soon as I read the 'lease agreement means Six Flags may not have the rights to all the rides', I immediately thought, wow...they looked at the park, and conned everyone into allowing them to move the most expensive ride out of there under the false pretense of expanding the waterpark!
I don't know whether this was the smartest or most obnoxious thing Six Flags has ever done. Could possibly be both!
First... From what I understand SF did own some of the land. They also invested heavily, and if they can only remove rides from their part of the park, maybe things work out about even? It seems the property owners didn't believe sf would cut their losses and run.... Yes they wanted to pay no lease for 9 years, but how does that weigh against what they were going to give them in a profit share? We won't know because it's a private matter. Also sf may have proposed a plan to improve and update the park in exchange for that lease money. Would you build a house on leased land? I think sf just wante to cover their improvement plans... The property owners could have had a great park but we will never know now.... Please don't attack either side, it's a complex situation.
^It is an odd situation, but I'm not sure everyone is being truthful with what they say to the press.
If Chang really did belong to the fair, why would they let Six Flags remove an asset that is worth millions of dollars? And if Chang did belong to the fair and Six Flags offered to expand the water park in trade for Chang, why wasn't that drawn up in agreement so that the fair would get the multi-million dollar asset back if Six Flags didn't keep their end of the deal?
Also, if Six Flags paid for Chang, wouldn't they get some sort of amendment to the lease allowing them to keep it no matter what.
The whole thing just seems weird.
"There's nothing wrong with it. It just needs some tweaking,"
For all we know that lease may have been signed 12 years ago.... When sf started running it they had a long term lease, and were hoping to make more than they invested in the park and rides before the lease was up. If sf wa still running kk they would have likely run it as cheaply as possible after the 50th.... They were likely going to remove chang to reduce cost and try to turn the park profitable -- water parks draw lots.... When six flags filed for bankruptcy their hands became tied.... It was either get kk profitable now or cut it. They had no say... Sf removed chang with permission because the land owners had them locked in a lease and sf would not remove a ride and replace it with nothing for very long in their own parks.... Hence the water park plan got the nod from the owners, no need to sign stuff... They would get to keep the waterpark and sf was under lease.... Different story after bankruptcy filing.... Will be interesting to see if anything sits on both properties, or if the owners will sue sf to have them complete the water park....
These pages are in no way affiliated with nor endorsed by SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment, Cedar Fair, Legoland, Merlin Entertainment, Blackstone, Tussaud's Group, Six Flags, Universal Theme Parks, the Walt Disney Company or any other theme park company.
photos and videos on this website were taken with the permission of the park by
a professional ride photographer.
For yours and others safety, please do not attempt to take photos or videos at
parks without proper permission.
You need a sense of humor to view our site,
if you don't have a sense of humor, or are easily offended, please turn back
Most of the content on this forum is suitable for all ages. HOWEVER! There may be some content that would be considered rated "PG-13." Theme Park Review is NOT recommended for ages under 13 years of age.