Discuss theme parks, roller coasters, and mules!
Sun Feb 14, 2010 10:57 pm
At least four companies have approached the Kentucky State Fair Board about taking over the Kentucky Kindgom amusement park property. But officials aren’t likely to meet with those companies until next month. In early March a bankruptcy judge is expected to rule on Six Flag’s request to reject its lease on Kentucky Kingdom.
While he doesn’t expect the lease to stand, Fair Board President Harold Workman says he won’t speak with any potential new operators until the ruling. “I think it’s just prudent on our part not to be out immediately soliciting a new operator while you still have a contract in place; i.e. Six Flags’ contract is still a good contract,” he says. Workman declined to elaborate on the companies that might take over the Kentucky Kingdom property, but he says the fair board will be looking for a new operator. It’s also unclear how long it would take for a new operator to open a new park at the site.
Mon Feb 22, 2010 2:44 pm
FYI - The State of Kentucky has filed suit to prevent Six Flags from removing any rides.
DOVER, Del. (AP) -- Kentucky officials are suing bankrupt theme park operator Six Flags Inc. over ownership of rides and equipment at a shuttered amusement park in Louisville.
State officials contend that the rides are considered fixtures to the land on which Kentucky Kingdom sits, much of which is owned by the Kentucky State Fair Board.
In a Delaware bankruptcy court filing, Kentucky officials are seeking a declaration that the state owns the rides, and an order preventing Six Flags from removing them.
The state filed the lawsuit late last week after learning that Six Flags had positioned trucks to begin removing equipment. It preceded the lawsuit with a letter to Six Flags instructing the company not to remove the rides.
Six Flags has filed a countersuit, claiming that it owns the rides and that the lawsuit by Kentucky is prohibited by the bankruptcy code. Six Flags is seeking court permission to remove the rides and a permanent restraining order prohibiting the state from trying to take possession.
A pretrial conference in the dispute is scheduled for April 14.
Kentucky officials have said at least four companies have expressed interest in taking over Kentucky Kingdom, and that a new operator could be in place by summer.
Mon Feb 22, 2010 3:19 pm
I would think this would pretty easily be on the side of Six Flags this time around. From my perspective it seems like just moving from one rental property to another, you bring your own furniture. If Six Flags bought the rides and paid to have them installed (probably paying state tax fees anyways) there is no reason I can see that they wouldn't be entitled to removing the rides and/or relocating them to other parks.
The only thing I can think of is that the land owned by Kentucky might have had a clause in their lease that would claim ownership of anything built on the property, but not only would that be stupid of Six Flags, but also extremely naive on their lawyers part...
This is besides the question of what they would do with all the themeing...would a new operator not have to buy a license to all of the different IPs?
Mon Feb 22, 2010 3:39 pm
I agree with you but if the rides legally don't belong to Six Flags than they shouldn't be allowed to take them period. But rides like Greesed Lightning, Road Runner Express, and what ever else they put in than I feel they should be allowed to take those. But really all we can do is agree or disagree but there will be no facts unless they better explain the lease agreement.
Mon Feb 22, 2010 3:43 pm
Not to oversimplify the situation, but I would bet the contract states that permanent structures/rides are the property of the farigrounds and that Six Flags is saying that if they can take a structure/ride apart and move it, then it is not permanent.
And now it is up to the lawyers the defend their definition of "permanent"
Mon Feb 22, 2010 5:59 pm
kidcoaster 2 wrote:I agree with you but if the rides legally don't belong to Six Flags than they shouldn't be allowed to take them period. But rides like Greesed Lightning, Road Runner Express, and what ever else they put in than I feel they should be allowed to take those. But really all we can do is agree or disagree but there will be no facts unless they better explain the lease agreement.
Greezed Lighting is the only ride and USED ride from another park! that Six Flags has added. Road Runner was added by Ed Hart (Kentucky Kingdom original owner) after a 10 year investment plan from 1990-2000. Road Runner also took the place of the former coaster Vampire which Six Flags took out in 1999. I believe that Six Flags don't have any rights to any rides but T2, Blizzard River, and also Mile High Falls, because those are the only rides that are fully on their property. Remember that every ride that Six Flags had added replaced a original Kentucky Kingdom ride, besides Greezed Lighting. The park also had dozens of rides when the park went under the Six Flags name, but the ride count had went down year by year in the past decade and most rides wasn't replaced that Six Flags has took out.
Mon Feb 22, 2010 6:50 pm
I would imagine that anything that was added under Ed Hart world be considered a Premier/Six Flags addition since their "purchase" of KK was likely just taking over the park's lease from Hart. The fairboard might have rights to any rides that were installed prior to the reopening in 1990, but checking the parks Wikipedia entry it doesn't look like many of those rides are still around.
Mon Feb 22, 2010 6:56 pm
Ed Hart Invested From 1990-2000
When SIx Flags Took out a Ride They replaced it. Like Tonado Replaced the quake and Deluge replace Choas and The Great Race. Most rides were never replaced such as thriller bees, tea cups, and many more. Also mainly every flat ride in the park that was added was by Hart. Six Flags only added 2 flats which were small kiddie rides.
Mon Feb 22, 2010 7:04 pm
If that's the case, then Six Flags would own all of the rides. Not a single ride is left from the original 1987 season, because the only two rides that re-opened with the park in 1990 was the Starchaser and the Tin Lizzies. The Starchaser was repurchased by Ed Hart, and then was sold to Darien Lake in 1995, but all that remained of the Tin Lizzies was the track, new cars were purchased by Ed Hart.
I'm taking a tourism property law class right now, and if they go by a literal interpretation of the law, then (as long as it was a very basic contract), Six Flags can take anything that doesn't damage the land. For example, if you lease an apartment, it comes with nothing, much like Kentucky Kingdom did when Ed Hart began the lease. You move in your furniture, much like Ed Hart did with the rides. He sold the rides and the lease to Six Flags for $64 million (which I think is for the additional land and buying the rides), similar to if you sold your furniture to someone who agreed to sublease from you. Now, your landlord is saying your furniture is his property.
Technically, anything that doesn't cause a permanent change to the land is considered personal property, and should be the property of Six Flags. However, anything that makes a permanent change to the land is considered a fixture, meaning that Six Flags would have to leave it or remove it and turn the land back to its original state.
The way I see it, Kentucky doesn't have ownership of anything but the land, buildings and other infrastructure on their property. I don't think Six Flags is trying to remove any of that, they just want to get the rides off the land and give it back to the fairgrounds.
Mon Feb 22, 2010 7:28 pm
Ed Hart added all the rides from 1990-2000.
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
phpBB Mobile / SEO by Artodia.