Kentucky Kingdom (SFKK, KK) Discussion Thread

P. 968 - Hallowscream to return this year
Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 4 guests
Discuss theme parks, roller coasters, and mules!
Don't make me kick you in the donkey!
User avatar
 
Posts: 1923
Joined: 06 Sep 2007
Location: Toronto, Canada
Gender: Male

Re: The Six Flags Kentucky Kingdom (SFKK) Discussion Thread

Postby rollin_n_coastin » Wed Feb 24, 2010 8:46 am

Please feel free to correct. I think this is standard stuff in lease agreements. Reality15 is on the money. From my old law classes generally fixtures/ leasehold improvements are items or improvements added that can not be removed without altering the basic purpose of what is being leased. In this case, a fair ground. So anything built to service the land and visitors as a fair ground (roads, paving, gas lines, electrical lines, buildings, other permanent installations etc) can not be removed. Obviously it’s not clear as to how permanent ride installations are categorized. Given that most rides at commercial parks are considered a “permanent” installation if not ‘portable/ travelling’ they could very well fit within the definition of a ‘fixture’ built to enhance the leased property and the lessee’s business. They can’t be removed if that’s the case since they made money off of the leased land by installing that fixture. You can look to cases where rides are re-located constantly to argue that they are not permanent fixtures and therefore remain the non-permanent property of the lessee and can be removed. I'm not sure as to who paid for the installation will have any influence. Of course, my understanding is from another country so should be cool to learn more about US laws and see how this plays out.

In comparable situation, I wonder what the agreement is like at La Ronde and what would happen if the city or Six Flags decided to end their management contract. I’m not sure if they lease the land from the city or are third party managers who take a cut of revenue.
Last edited by rollin_n_coastin on Wed Feb 24, 2010 8:58 am.
Image

Don't make me kick you in the donkey!
User avatar
 
Posts: 1923
Joined: 06 Sep 2007
Location: Toronto, Canada
Gender: Male

Re: The Six Flags Kentucky Kingdom (SFKK) Discussion Thread

Postby rollin_n_coastin » Wed Feb 24, 2010 8:49 am

CoasterGuy06 wrote:You would think they would have realized Premier changed their name 10 freaking years ago.


I think the name of Six Flags' owner/ parent company is still Premier International Holdings.
Image

I teach at the school of donkey!
User avatar
 
Posts: 320
Joined: 29 Jan 2009
Location: Tulsa, OK
Gender: Male
Age: 27

Re: The Six Flags Kentucky Kingdom (SFKK) Discussion Thread

Postby Fat-G » Wed Feb 24, 2010 9:11 am

Chang was removed by SF quickly before the lease was up, now SF is saying that the ride is theirs, however Chang was added before SF was in charge and the land that it sat on was originally a parking lot that was for the water park, the state fair board owns that land so the ownership of chang should go back to the state board.

This is ridiculous . That is the only word to describe that "lawsuit." SFI should have the right to remove/ add any of their property. Rides like Chang and T2 should remain in SFI hands. These Kentuckians are just trying to make a quick buck.


Uh, no, we're just trying to save our theme park, what would happen if CF decided to close Kings Dominian and took out dominator and Intiminator, pretty much the same thing going on :devil:

Online
Site Admin
User avatar
 
Posts: 33678
Joined: 01 Feb 2005
Location: Swimming in the Ocean
Gender: Female
Age: 38

Re: The Six Flags Kentucky Kingdom (SFKK) Discussion Thread

Postby SharkTums » Wed Feb 24, 2010 9:15 am

^Not trying to be rude, but do you really think that taking Chang back will "Save" your park?

That park has had issues for a long time, even if they opened the Twisted Twins area back up, got Chang back, got new ownership, how long do you really think it would last?

I really feel that both sides are just being big babies. Yeah, Six Flags did some shady stuff in promising a water park expansion to take Chang, but the Fairgrounds and Louisville wanted NOTHING to do with the park when the chick got her feet cut off, so why do they have the rights to the place now?!?!

Why do I still have a donkey title???
User avatar
 
Posts: 5573
Joined: 28 May 2006
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Gender: Male
Age: 41

Re: The Six Flags Kentucky Kingdom (SFKK) Discussion Thread

Postby ginzo » Wed Feb 24, 2010 9:20 am

^I'm with you on that. It seems like the State Fair Board wants the operator to assume ALL the risk while they just collect the money, keep ALL the capital investments the operator makes, etc.

I'm also skeptical about the 4 companies interested in running the park. Regardless of who is right or wrong on the lease terms, do they really expect me to believe that quality operators are lining up to run the place as they're suing Six Flags?

I think part of the reason that none of the operators have been named is that one of them is Danny Rogers.
Last edited by ginzo on Wed Feb 24, 2010 9:24 am.
"There's nothing wrong with it. It just needs some tweaking,"
Image

My small thing speaks for itself
User avatar
 
Posts: 1566
Joined: 04 Nov 2005
Location: Lubbock, Texas
Gender: Male
Age: 34

Re: The Six Flags Kentucky Kingdom (SFKK) Discussion Thread

Postby AllenA07 » Wed Feb 24, 2010 9:21 am

rollin'_n'_coastin' wrote:Given that most rides at commercial parks are considered a “permanent” installation if not ‘portable/ travelling’ they could very well fit within the definition of a ‘fixture’ built to enhance the leased property and the lessee’s business. They can’t be removed if that’s the case since they made money off of the leased land by installing that fixture. You can look to cases where rides are re-located constantly to argue that they are not permanent fixtures and therefore remain the non-permanent property of the lessee and can be removed. I'm not sure as to who paid for the installation will have any influence. Of course, my understanding is from another country so should be cool to learn more about US laws and see how this plays out.

In comparable situation, I wonder what the agreement is like at La Ronde and what would happen if the city or Six Flags decided to end their management contract. I’m not sure if they lease the land from the city or are third party managers who take a cut of revenue.


As you put it I think the fight would come down to what the actual meaning of a fixture is. I think a strong argument could be made that a ride is not a fixture because of the evolving nature of a park. You could simply bring in a few experts to testify that in the world of theme park management it is common practice to remove older rides in order to build future expansion or because the cost of running the ride was no longer equal or less than the amount of money the park was earning from the operation of the ride. In other words the claim would be that it was costing the park more to have the ride than not to have ride. Now with this said I have no idea if that is actually the case or what the finiances look like. Also in all honesty the fact that I passed my property classes is nothing short of a miracle, so I would only trust my opinion so much here.

In response to the question about being able to relocate Chang to another park in time for 2011 because of this lawsuit, there is no reason why Six Flags isn't going to be able to do that if that is what they want to do. If there was a contract in place saying that Chang must remain on the land (again no idea what is actually there) than at worst Six Flags might have to pay some amount of money because of their breach. The only time where the court can order the contract to be enforced is in a situation called specific performance, which generally only comes up in transactions involving real property (think land).

Why do I still have a donkey title???
User avatar
 
Posts: 4948
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Location: Westport, MA
Gender: Male
Age: 40

Re: The Six Flags Kentucky Kingdom (SFKK) Discussion Thread

Postby Moose » Wed Feb 24, 2010 9:31 am

THis whole mess is really all dependant on the wording of the contract. At first I was siding with Six Flags, but the fact that Six Flags had to ask about removing Chang makes me think that the wording states that the rides are not now, nor ever were owned by Six Flags. If this wasn't the case, they would have never had to ask about removing the ride. The way Six Flags got the board to agree to Changs removal does seem fraudulant to me.

When I grow up, I want to breed donkeys!
 
Posts: 639
Joined: 29 Jan 2008
Location: On my dragon
Gender: Male
Age: 28

Re: The Six Flags Kentucky Kingdom (SFKK) Discussion Thread

Postby coasterking2981 » Wed Feb 24, 2010 9:33 am

Fat-G wrote:Uh, no, we're just trying to save our theme park, what would happen if CF decided to close Kings Dominian and took out dominator and Intiminator, pretty much the same thing going on :devil:


Not really. Last I checked Cedar Fair owned ALL of King's Dominion. If they wanted to remove Intimidator and Dominator, then they could without penalty. There would just quite a few complaints and petitions asking them to stay.

I have to agree with the idea about the wording of the contract, although I'm kinda siding with Six Flags on basis that they were still given permission to remove Chang. If SF was allowed to remove a ride on the land owned by the state fairgrounds, then isn't the ride itself now owned by SF because it is no longer on state fairground property?

Keeper Of The Carnivorous Bees!
User avatar
 
Posts: 14052
Joined: 12 Feb 2005
Location: Baltimore, MD
Gender: Male

Re: The Six Flags Kentucky Kingdom (SFKK) Discussion Thread

Postby Meteornotes » Wed Feb 24, 2010 10:04 am

SharkTums wrote:I really feel that both sides are just being big babies. Yeah, Six Flags did some shady stuff in promising a water park expansion to take Chang, but the Fairgrounds and Louisville wanted NOTHING to do with the park when the chick got her feet cut off, so why do they have the rights to the place now?!?!


Elissa is wise. This totally sums it up. The only people that are going to win here are the lawyers on both sides, who are going to rake in the cash in what is likely to be a very long battle.

dt
Always trying to keep YOU entertained! Now with more Ice Bat!
Image
The world would be a better place if Dave programmed our iPods - Derwood

Don't put that donkey on the floor!
User avatar
 
Posts: 1642
Joined: 24 Mar 2008
Location: Western Pennsylvania
Gender: Male
Age: 29

Re: The Six Flags Kentucky Kingdom (SFKK) Discussion Thread

Postby kidcoaster 2 » Wed Feb 24, 2010 11:00 am

coasterking2981 wrote:I have to agree with the idea about the wording of the contract, although I'm kinda siding with Six Flags on basis that they were still given permission to remove Chang. If SF was allowed to remove a ride on the land owned by the state fairgrounds, then isn't the ride itself now owned by SF because it is no longer on state fairground property?


Well Six Flags did promise a water park expansion in exchange for removing Chang. So if the rides do belong to the board and if they put the deal in writing than it will only help the board.

PreviousNext

Return to Theme Parks, Roller Coasters, & Donkeys!

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 4 guests

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.

All onride 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.

Disclaimer!  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 now!
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.

cron