Jump to content
  TPR Home | Parks | Twitter | Facebook | YouTube | Instagram 

Kentucky Kingdom (SFKK, KK) Discussion Thread


Recommended Posts

Deviating from the main story a little. Is American Adventures still associated with Six Flags? It is still listed on their website and looking at the parks page (eventhough its not much of a park) it looks like its closed as well.

 

"Please Note:

Due to circumstances beyond our control, we will be closed until further notice. We sincerely apologize for any inconvenience."

 

http://www.americanadventuresfunpark.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel sorry for those who may have lost something special and close to their hearts. I felt bad too when they were talking about selling/closing Six Flags Magic Mountain to real estate developers and to subsequently relocate rides, etc, and use the land for housing developments, etc.

 

Good thing that didn't happen. Unfortunately that may be somewhat the fate with KK. We'll see how it goes from here on out in the coming months.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Deviating from the main story a little. Is American Adventures still associated with Six Flags? It is still listed on their website and looking at the parks page (eventhough its not much of a park) it looks like its closed as well.

 

"Please Note:

Due to circumstances beyond our control, we will be closed until further notice. We sincerely apologize for any inconvenience."

 

http://www.americanadventuresfunpark.com

Another one bites the dust. But according to their employment application, they are owned by Mega Fun Parks, LLC. So who knows if they still own the place or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't believe how incredibly late I am on this development, but this whole thing can be seen in 2 different lights:

 

BAD LIGHT: Six Flags is shutting down a park for the first time in years and it shows how bad the situation is for them after they declared Chapter 11.

 

GOOD LIGHT: (Hopefully) If Kentucky doesn't actually do anything with the park in the future, the company can haul all/most of these rides to other parks for the big 5-0 in 2011.

 

 

Or do I sound too hopeful and stupid?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not true. American Adventures was leased by Zuma Holdings in 2008. It's now a part of the Mega Fun Parks, LLC chain, though the land it sits on is still owned by Six Flags (next to White Water: Atlanta). They operate small FECs in Kansas, Missouri, Ohio, Colorado, Arizona and Texas in addition to American Adventures. Mega Fun Parks has announced the park won't open for 2010, however, but they are no longer a "part of the Six Flags family."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not true. American Adventures was leased by Zuma Holdings in 2008. It's now a part of the Mega Fun Parks, LLC chain, though the land it sits on is still owned by Six Flags (next to White Water: Atlanta). They operate small FECs in Kansas, Missouri, Ohio, Colorado, Arizona and Texas in addition to American Adventures. Mega Fun Parks has announced the park won't open for 2010, however, but they are no longer a "part of the Six Flags family."

 

Oh I didn't know that. Weird because on the map at American Adventure it still says a Six Flags Theme Park.

 

What isn't opening in 2010?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was under the FAQ section of the letter:

 

What happens to the rides at Kentucky Kingdom?

We are still making those decisions, since we had been hopeful that we could keep the park open. We know that some of the rides and attractions will be relocated to other parks, though the final details are still being worked out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently the fair owns all of the rides and screwed the fair grounds out of Chang

 

After Thursday night's bombshell from Six Flags that it is closing its Kentucky Kingdom theme park at the Fairgrounds, there are no signs of any reversal of that decision.

 

A state fair board spokeswoman says she is not aware of any contact or changes.

 

So what's next?

 

Six Flags has said it plans to "move expeditiously to re-locate several of the more than 40 rides and attractions to other markets.”

But we checked the lease which indicates that those rides are property of Kentucky.

 

Harold Workman, Ky. Fair Board President, said, “Six Flags removed the Chang rollercoaster ride. They requested they able to remove it through me they requested that under the pretense that they were going to expand the water park and after showing me diagrams and pictures of what they were going to expand and what they were going to add and so on. So, we're a little disappointed in the fact they removed a ride but never really moved on expanding the water park.”

 

He said that at that point, the way the lease is worded makes it sounds like Chang could have belonged to the Fair Board because it is affixed to the ground.

 

Workman says Six Flags wanted to pay no rent for nine years remaining on the lease. The offer also included a share of profits, if there was any.

 

http://www.whas11.com/news/business/Whats-next-for-Six-Flags-Fair-Pres-says-rides-might-not-be-going-anywhere-83772172.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My question is this: what is in it for the state to NOT work with Six Flags? Six Flags asking for no rent is slightly ridiculous, but for the state, are they going to make up the tax revenue by using the SFKK property for something else? I'd be curious to know just how much revenue is generated for the state between the income taxes of employees (and subsequent taxes on anything they spend with their wages) and sales tax from stuff sold at the park. Plus I'm sure Six Flags had to pay all sorts of other random taxes/registration/licensing/etc. fees to the state too.

 

It's obvious Six Flags was looking for a way out by offering such ridiculous terms on the lease, but I'm also thinking that the fair board is going to be kicking themselves for not working harder to reach a deal with Six Flags.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^I agree in a seance, but state fair boards tend to have a ton (and way too much) power in southern states. Got to wonder if the city and state had no real power over what the fair board did. The only way I can see the fair boards side is if they get to keep all the rides. I know at one point recent the original owner of SFKK wanted the park back. This would be a chance for them to sell the park to someone and get a new lease. This is all dependent on how much of the park gets to stay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.whas11.com/news/local/Whats-next-for-Six-Flags-Fair-Pres-says-rides-might-not-be-going-anywhere-83772172.html

 

After Thursday night's bombshell from Six Flags that it is closing its Kentucky Kingdom theme park at the Fairgrounds, there are no signs of any reversal of that decision.

 

A state fair board spokeswoman says she is not aware of any contact or changes.So what's next? Six Flags has said it plans to "move expeditiously to re-locate several of the more than 40 rides and attractions to other markets.” But we checked the lease which indicates that those rides are property of Kentucky.

 

Harold Workman, Ky. Fair Board President, said, “Six Flags removed the Chang rollercoaster ride. They requested they able to remove it through me they requested that under the pretense that they were going to expand the water park and after showing me diagrams and pictures of what they were going to expand and what they were going to add and so on. So, we're a little disappointed in the fact they removed a ride but never really moved on expanding the water park.” He said that at that point, the way the lease is worded makes it sounds like Chang could have belonged to the Fair Board because it is affixed to the ground. Workman says Six Flags wanted to pay no rent for nine years remaining on the lease. The offer also included a share of profits, if there was any.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^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!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use https://themeparkreview.com/forum/topic/116-terms-of-service-please-read/