Cedar Fair Might Sell Great America to 49ers

http://www.newsnet5.com/money/14307093/detail.html

Kind of an interesting bargaining point Cedar Fair is going after. Also an interesting idea in a football team that knows nothing about park ownership or operation taking over the park.

Nothing in the article (except the headline) makes it sound like Cedar Fair is going to sell, might sell or is even trying to sell the park.

The football team, because they've chosen a location with minimal parking availability, has said they would buy the park in order to make its parking lot available to football fans on Sundays.

I doubt we'll see a sale.

As I said on CoasterBuzz, there's a big difference between the 49ers saying they might buy the park and the park being for sale. Cedar Fair has not said in any way that they're even considering it. The original articles, prior to the AP story, are linked here:

http://www.coasterbuzz.com/2007-282-545363.htm

I don't see it happening, but given the right price, who knows. It could be a big time debt-reducer. I'm just afraid that if it did happen, the 49ers franchise would have a bad management strategy and eventually run the park to the ground.

^ - if anything, this would be a purchase to close it strategy. The 49ers don't want the park, they want the parking.

Yes, the 49ers could conceivable offer an amount that CF would have to be stupid not to take. But the niners just want parking spaces, and the amount that I think it would take for CF to sell (based on Jeff's description on CB) would be way higher than what it is worth as a parking lot.

What they could do.. the 49ers Organization, that is.. is build their own coaster in a parking lot, or over the stadium, whatever.. and let it be their symbol for the type of the season they'll have.

;)

Haha Yeah. They could name the coaster "The League" and then they could play at the very bottom of it. ;)

Or maybe we could see them purchase the park from Cedar Fair who they are having troubles with because of the parking issue (which is the 49ers problem and decision solely in the first place) and sell it back to someone who they would work with them with parking. Would definetly be an interesting move though if the 49ers franchise owned it.

One of the things that was pointed out elsewhere is that Santa Clara owns the land the park sits on. There is a clause in the lease that the land can not be used for anything other than an amusement park for (I believe) 99 years.

While I'd certainly hate to see another CF park bite the dust, and it sounds like the 49'ers have misconstrued some things that CF has said into a possible sale of the park, this may be something CF would consider in the long run.

I visited the park this past August. It was an extremely nice park with lots of landscaping, and it had an excellent kids area, but the crowds were less than that of Geauga Lake. No, that's not an exaggeration. The water park was the most crowded area of the park, but even that didn't have more crowds than GL's WWK, and from what I've heard, I don't think that this is any different than usual. So if the right price comes along, maybe CF will look at this park as a way to reduce debt.

I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that as it stands now, the 49ers could not buy the park anyway. There is a clause in the lease the city has on the park that states the park may only be sold to "an experienced amusement park operator" and the 49ers are not that. Not that there isn't a way around that clause, but I think things are heavily in CF and the park's favor.

49ers is going to shut down great america if they buy this park from cedar fair but they will not going to sold the park to them becuase the are not in debt in my books. 49ers owners needs to shut up to buy great america.

This whole thing sounds preposterous to me. It would be the same as me (an average-income Joe Smoe) saying I'm gonna buy my neighbor's $500,000 home so that I can park my truck in his backyard.

It just doesn't make sense. I don't have that kind of money and I'm sure the Niners don't either.

This whole thing sounded rediculous until I read the Cedar Fair press release on the subject.

http://www.cedarfair.com/ir/press_releases/index.cfm?current_root=15&mode=story&story_id=138

So basically, Cedar Fair comes out saying they are vehemently opposed to the new stadium. They say the public wants the amusement park there and having the stadium in the parking lot would be too much of a detriment to the guests. They then say that since an amusement park and football stadium can't coexist, they would be willing to leave it up to the public. If the public decides they would rather have a football field there over an amusement park, then Cedar Fair would be willing to sell the land (and sell its lease) so the city could redevelop the area for the purpose of the football field. They then go on to say though that they think the public wants the football stadium.

One of the oddest press releases I have read. I have no clue what they mean. It really almost does sound like they are trying to milk a good price out of this.

If they have any intention at all of selling, then of course they are milking it for all they can get.

This phrase is what is confusing to me:

When Cedar Fair concluded that the amusement park and the stadium as proposed could not sucessfully coexist, Cedar Fair offered the city and the 49ers the option of redeveloping the entire parcel.

What parcel are they talking about. If it is the stadium parcel, why would CF have to give them the option to redevelop their own land. I'm sure they weren't giving them the option to redevelop the park. It's just a very confusing release.
*** Edited 10/11/2007 3:10:31 PM UTC by Tennessee_CP_Fan***
*** Edited 10/11/2007 3:14:38 PM UTC by Tennessee_CP_Fan***

I'll sum up the press release: "We have a price, so what do you have in mind?"

My guess is ten times annual revenue plus the cost of the property (not the land itself, since they don't own it). That'd be my price.

Yes, and I can't see the 49ers being able to do that. Having known some of the inside parties to the process of building a stadium in Nashville for the Titans, I realize how much a new stadium costs...the city does help, but taxpayers aren't gonna want to pay that much for a park that the team will turn into a parking lot.

^^^

Having lived in Santa Clara in the '80s, I was there for all the fun of what to do with Great America when Marriott wanted to close it (remember Marriott? They developed the two Great Americas as twins originally). At the the time, Santa Clara decided they wanted to keep the park open and used eminent domain (I think) to buy the property from Marriott. My recollection of all the details may be a little fuzzy but IIRC, they hired Kings Entertainemnt (King's Island, King's Dominion) to run the park. A few years later, they leased the park to Kings (probably for 50 years - the 2039 lease expiration would make that 1989 which sounds about right) which was swallowed by Paramount and then sold to CF.

As to the question "why would CF have to give them the option to redevelop their own land", the answer is because it's leased to CF as the successor to Kings as the holder of the lease. Generally, when real estate is leased to another party, that party has the right to have the property as is for the term of the lease. Even though Santa Clara owns the property, they do not have the right to modify the property due to the lease to CF.

My take is that this is negotiation through press release. It sounds like the city wants CF to relinquish the lease (or part of the lease) on the parking lot and CF is saying buy out everything (park and parking lot) or nothing.

BTW, if you search for stories about this, you'll find references to "Santa Clara County Assessor Larry Stone". That's not me, I've never met him, but I certainly got plenty of phone calls for him when I lived there.

Is that why you moved?

^

No, but it gets worse. In 1991, I moved up the peninsula (the SF one, not the CP one :-( ) and discovered two more people named Larry Stone. One was a sportswriter for a San Francisco newspaper and the other was the wine manager for a new super-trendy restaurant in SF. Lots of calls for him from people looking for jobs. Fortunately, we had a pseudo-unlisted number (the listed number was the modem line (remember dialup? - this was mid-90s) which we put a recorder on but never answered.

(and today, the listed number is our fax line - call it and all you ever get is the fax "machine" - actually a computer than then e-mails the received faxes so we don't even waste paper on "fax spam".)