Is Mr. Falfas really going back?

I find it quite strange that Catwoman joined pointbuzz just to start this thread.

Out of all the things pertaining to Cedar Point, she chose this to talk about......

And her point wasn't to talk about Falfas. It was to make Kinzel look bad.

The hatred for Kinzel runs deep for some folks around these parts.

It doesn't require much effort to make Kinzel look bad. He did a good job of that by himself in the last 5-10 years of his tenure. But, it saying that people hate him is a bit of a reach. No doubt I hated some of the things he did when I was there and I questioned many of his decisions after I left but I always held a higher respect for him than he held for others.

I doubt there are hundreds of people who want Falfas back. My guess is that most of the FT employees are breathing much better since Ouimet assumed the helm and likely recognize that forcing Falfas back into the equation, even if they really like him, would not be in the best interests of the company as a whole. Shoot; I like Falfas by and large and feel he got the shaft from Kinzel. Even with that strong feeling in his favor I don't think it would be healthy for the company if he was forced back in.

I don't know how this plays out. Maybe there is some middle ground where Falfas could be put back on the Board of Directors but not be forced back into a management position. Then he saves a little face, the company saves a little face, and maybe even Ouimet has the advantage of having a wealth of institutional knowledge at his disposal. In fact, I think one avenue the Board could take to put this to rest is to politely show Kinzel the door for good and move Falfas back. Maybe there would be some justice when all was said and done.

Actually Dick does not need my help to look bad, he can do that all by himself just fine. I was attempting to separate the negative issue from the era that was so bad. But Jeff seems to lump Mr. Falfas into the bad which is really farthest from the truth. You saw what happened to him when he finally stood up to Dick. He was unjustly fired! How can one perform his duties of COO when he was struck down at every turn? Read the book Jeff, you might have a change of mind.

Not speaking for Jeff, but I don't think he was lumping him "into the bad"; he's lumping him into the connection to an era that is over.

He's part of a greater system that is no longer in place.

Even in a poorly running vehicle, there are still individual "parts" that are in superb condition.

And yet, Cedar Fair has moved on. A court-ordered "forcing" of someone back into a position would rarely, if ever, be a wise move for anyone involved, including that individual.

Sometimes it is necessary to toss the babies out with the bath water...for the greater good of the whole

^ Key word "babies" cause that's how Falfas is acting!

How is he acting like a baby? He believed that CF breached the contract CF made with him. CF disagreed so they took the matter to court. The court ruled in his favor. What part about that is acting like a baby?

Time for the beating a dead horse video....I'm too tired to argue this one anymore.

Maybe that's because your argument is lacking. :)

As GoBucks said, it's a pretty simple situation - a contract was breached, and it wasn't Falfas who was responsible for said breaching. I'm not sure how it could have been handled more maturely than through legal channels.

Falfas could cure cancer, but Kevin gets what I was after. He wouldn't fit into the current culture. Sure, the courts believe that he was screwed by Kinzel, and frankly I'm not shocked about that. So what? As long as he's paid whatever he is due, I wish him good luck trying to take over Rye Playland or whatever he's had his hand in lately. They aren't going to pat Zimmerman on the back and have him man a churro cart so Falfas can come back.

The only people at Cedar Fair who want any part of the old regime back are those that can't handle being empowered and given high expectations.

djDaemon said:
Maybe that's because your argument is lacking. :)

As GoBucks said, it's a pretty simple situation - a contract was breached, and it wasn't Falfas who was responsible for said breaching. I'm not sure how it could have been handled more maturely than through legal channels.

LOL...I'm a horrible debater, but Jeff actually hit my thoughts spot on in his most recent post.

I have no idea whether Falfas actually wants his job back at Cedar Fair. Though I suspect he has no actual expecation that he will get it back. His talk and that of his attorney about being ready to go back to work, etc. is to establish that he is ready, willing and able to perform his end of the contract. To the extent CF does not bring him back (and I doubt they will at this point), CF has breached the contract and owes Falfas damages for that breach (based on the terms of the contract). Only way I see him back working at the company is if the company decides they want him back (from what I have seen, for the reasons noted in this thread, that seems very unlikely at this point). So in reality its all about money damages for breach of contract at this point.

Entering into contracts has consequences. If you don't want those consequences, don't enter into one. And you shouldn't be surprised when the other party to the contract seeks to enforce those consequences.

Who should suffer in this scenario is the Board of Directors who allowed this type of Kinzel-culture to go on for too long. As others have said, he made a lot of expensive mistakes along the way and to what end? His retirement is untouched, he is still making money on the Board, and nobody but us nerdy "insiders" know the difference.

You could make the argument that they will be paying for these mistakes for decades to come as he let the infrastructure of many of the parks fall into disrepair.

So, in all honesty, maybe Falfas being put on the Board would be a good way to punish the Board of Directors who were around when this all went down. They should have intervened, they didn't, and now they should experience the discomfort.

Let's put this to rest: Falfas is not being a baby. He was wronged. Several courts agree with him. He deserves restitution for that egregious wrong but going back to work simply wouldn't work for anyone...including him in my opinion. This is about saving face in the industry to some extent (though I'd bet a lot of industry insiders likely are more on his side than Kinzel's anyway) and setting up a few generations of the Falfas dynasty. If I were him I believe I would do the exact same thing.

For the record (and I think most of you get this), I was not calling Falfas a baby in my post at all, just using the expression.

While I agree that Falfas coming back is a long shot and the court ruling likely increases the value of the eventual buyout of his contract, I wouldn't be so fast to rule out his return. Stranger things have happened and it is not unheard of. You have to consider what if Falfas had not been fired by Kinzel and only disciplined? Would Ouimet have forced Falfas out, or would have Falfas fallen into line with the other staff that remained. Was Kinzel the only reason Falfas was employed with the company, were the two really that close? What if Falfas wants to come back, is just happy Kinzel is basically gone, and Falfas transforms into an Ouimet disciple? Sure there would have to be some organizational change but nothing that hasn't been done before and while everyone may not get everything they want, there is enough to go around to make everyone happy.

I don't think you can just chalk Falfas up to being part of a bygone era just because he hasn't been around for a while.

The PointGuru said:
I don't think you can just chalk Falfas up to being part of a bygone era just because he hasn't been around for a while.

Being from "a while" ago is exactly the definition of "bygone". ;)

Regardless, who in their right mind would really want to be the guy who's returning to work because of a court decision, rather than through more organic means?

Hasn't the entire board turned over in the last two years? I don't think you can really leave past missteps (or non-governance) at their feet.

Cleaning up other people's messes goes along with job description of new management whenever there is a shakeup in leadership, no matter what the business is.

I have zero connection to Kinzel or Falfas. It would just seem to me that someone who worked at the same place for 37 plus, years would have developed some sort of attachment to the place, they might even call it home. Winning the court decision doesn't just have financial ramifications. It gives at least to some degree a sense of vindication. I could see how Falfas could want to walk back into a place that he probably loves with his head held high after being forced to leave the place with his tail between his legs.

Before any settlement is reached I'm sure Falfas and Ouimet will have to meet (or at least their attorneys) to discuss what kind of role Falfas would play if reinstated. I'm just saying it could work, probably not, but it could if people could put the past behind them and move forward. It would likely save money for the park in the long run and may not be as bad as everyone thinks especially if Falfas is willing to play ball so he can finish his career in the same place he started.

You make a good point Jeff. I didn't realize the entire Board (sans Kinzel) was "new". Be that as it may, Kinzel's presence on the Board is of little consequence so if this new Board wanted to try to make this go away maybe the extension of my suggested offer would be a means to an end.

I guess it will all come down to what is always comes down to: $$$. Ah, the American way!

Cedar Fair recently reported its third consecutive year of record profits and earnings (EBITDA). And they have said they expect growth to continue in 2013. I suspect there are a lot of boards of other companies that would love to have CF's "problems."