Kentucky Kingdom (SFKK, KK) Discussion Thread

^ Not to mention the many people who no longer have jobs in an already tough economy in Louisville...

http://www.wlky.com/entertainment/22648197/detail.html

Weeks after Six Flags decided to shut down Kentucky Kingdom, state officials are now involved in a legal fight over the remaining thrill rides.

 

The Chang rollercoaster was removed last year to make way for a water-park expansion. That expansion never started and the Kentucky State Fair Board claimed it was never going to happen. That claim was made in a lawsuit filed by Kentucky officials suing Premier, the owner of Six Flags.

At issue: they want the bankruptcy judge to declare the rides and other attractions on the land owned by the fair board as fixtures, or part of the property. They're also suing for breach of contract and damages caused by Six Flag's removal of any rides. The suit accused Premier of fraud regarding the removal of Chang and the promise of improvements.

 

Earlier this month, when the park closed, the president of the state fair board said he was just as shocked as the public.

"We were surprised by the news release. We weren't notified ahead of time. We didn't receive one," Kentucky State Fair Board President Harold Workman said on February 5.

 

The state is hearing from Six Flags in the form of a countersuit. The company disputed the ownership of the thrill rides and asked a bankruptcy judge to declare that the contested rides are not the landlord's property and the company should be allowed to remove those rides.

 

State officials said there are other parties interested in running the park, so the ruling on who owns the rides is crucial. This case is playing out in bankruptcy court because the amusement park operator filed for Chapter 11 in June 2009. Barring a settlement, the judge overseeing the Chapter 11 case will decide who owns the rides.

They really need to let this park die at that location, if you want to save anything, move it out of the city limits somewhere so they have land and no height restrictions.

They're just going to uselessly spend more money. Just stop, please. lol

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

^They are a little slow in Kentucky.

This story can only end well when it comes to entertainment. What it does make wonder is if the case goes into 2011, will it prevent Six Flags from adding Chang to some park as a 50th anniversary gift?

Before I start let me apologize for any lease spelling and version usage errors. My spell check gave me options I didn't know were even available for the word lease. I'm so confused right now.

Was Chang built by Six Flags or was it on the land before Six Flags leased the land? I am no land lease expert but I would think any ride built before the lease would belong to the leaser not the lessee and any ride ride built during the lease would be the other way around.

This is the kind of thing that I have always wondered when I see a "Land For Lease" sign put up somewhere. When someone leases it and puts up a building who really owns the building since the land it's sitting on is leased?, and what happens to the building when the lease is up?

It is so much simpler if one leases an object like a car or apartment or office building. When the lease is up you either re-new or leave.

Edit: I see now this discussion over who owns what has been going on back several pages, sorry for posting what has already been talked about. Since it was on the front page I thought it was new information. I'll leave it up, but if a moderator wants to remove it please do.

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.

^^Just to claifry any spelling questions here:

"lessor" = "landlord"

"lessee" = "tenant"

We now return to your SFKK thread, which is already in progress.

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.

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.

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

^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?!?!

^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.

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).

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.

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

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?

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

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.

...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?!?!

Correct me if I am wrong but Six Flags was in control of all ride and park maintenance at the time of the accident. Why would the people who leased the land and rides to Six Flags be responsible for any mechanical problems with the ride. That's like saying if you walk into a leased building that is being maintained by the leasee (thank you cfc) and slip you should be able to go after the lessor when they had no control over it at the time. I would think if the ride had totally collapsed to the ground because of a problem during it's construction and Six Flags was leasing the park at the time it would come back on the Fairgrounds and whatever contractor they worked with. That kind of incident would not be a maintenance issue.

This whole mess still goes back to who's in control of what, when and to what extent. Really makes me think leasing land for any reason is a super bad idea!

^They are a little slow in Kentucky.

You're hilarious. Anyways, the expo center should just let this die and forget about the park. And if they do want to keep the park, they should STFU about SF and find a new buyer. By the way, I never cared for SFKK;it was dirty, and the staff was always rude. There are other parks to go to, but I guess they never realized that and gave up on pleasing guests.

Looking at the surface, that was a lil shady of SF to take a ride they didnt install. Personally I think the best thing is to give it back...just sayin'

Wasn't Chang built after Premier Parks took over?

OK let's say you are renting a house, and you put a bunch of stuff in that house.

Then you decide to leave, all that stuff is still yours. So I can see Six Flags' point, but at the same time if say I build a deck on that house I was renting, I couldn't exactly take it with me.