Now at Cedar Point and Kings Island are sister parks.

Will they alternate big new rides or will it not matter? For example with Diamondback coming in 2009 will CP not do anything major so the attention won't be diverted from the new ride. And visa -versa when CP gets a major new ride?

No one will be able to answer for sure.

They will build all kinds of strange rides in the future.........

The cap ex programs of the two parks have nothing to do with each other.

I wouldn't be too sure about that Jeff. Cedar Fair is a corporation just like any other. They can and probably will control expenditures for ALL their parks. If Cedar Fair is experiencing funding issues they can/will place controls on spending. Which could include spend or not spending at some parks while spending at others.

This isn't to say they will do this. But as a corporation, they sure could.

If they were smart, they'd alternate. Being relatively close to each other, the market overlaps a little bit. Now I know a lot of guests from northern Ohio and Michigan goes to CP, and southern Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana goes to Kings Island, but you also have almost the whole state of Ohio to go wherever. So if you place two new rides at two parks, you're not going to see a huge impact.

Why wouldn't Cedar Fair choose to synchronize cap ex at two of their closest parks? It would be idiotic if they didn't.

cpcoasterhaven said:
I wouldn't be too sure about that Jeff. Cedar Fair is a corporation just like any other.

Actually Um No. Well I'm not entirely sure that Cedar Fair is incorporated per say, but technically it is a Master Limited Partnership which operates slightly differently than a corporation.

However, just look at your park guides, Cedarpoint.com orCedarfair.com. It does not say Cedar Fair Entertainment Corp.... It is Cedar FairEntertainment Company. L.P. The L.P. stands for Limited Partnership.

Someone possibly Jeff would be the best source, but if I am wrong about the incorporated part let me know and maybe Jeff can better explain how a Limited Partnership operates. I find it difficult to explain. I just understand and I think it makes sense. That is why I love my "FUN" shares. :)

That doesn't really matter.

Cedar Fair does determine the annual cap ex budget for the parks, but I believe that it is true that the individual park cap ex budget is determined by how much the park brings in.

That doesn't mean that Cedar Point will always have the highest cap ex budget each year however. Cedar Fair seems to be spending less on cap ex because of the debt load, and the coasters at Kings Island and Worlds of Fun are probably using enough of the total budget that I wouldn't expect a big addition to Cedar Point next year.

So, if you look at the long term averages, Cedar Point will get the most. But it may not for any given year.

CP_Obsessed_Freak1987 said:
That doesn't really matter.

Thats correct. How a company is structured (i.e. Cedar Fair Entertainment Company L. L. P) does not dictate a certain way in which they will operate. I believe that it is still CEDAR FAIR. They established Cedar Fair Entertainment Company to use as their operating name to further define what the company is all about. External to the public they use Cedar Fair Entertainment Company. Interrnally they are still just Cedar Fair.

Whoever said anything about the name. I still call the company Cedar Fair. That is exactly what the company name is. I just said look at the documenttation and look at the L.P. it is not CORP. That is the difference in the "structure" and how they manage their money. I just pointed out that there is a financial difference between a corporation and a limited Partnership. It all revolves around taxes. How you file your taxes determines how you use your money... It is not a structure at all it is in reality just a piece of paper on file.

Cedar Fair as a corporation would be its on entity or person in the eyes of the IRS. Therefore my Buddy Cedar Fair would be responsible for it's debts and not the Shareholders or Governing members. The way a person would be responsible for a Corporations debt is if they were taking money from the corporation.

Cedar Fair is a Limited partnership meaning it is not necessarily considered a separate being. Instead the Partners are responsible for the company. Now there is a difference in responsibilities between the General Partners and Limited Partners. To be a Master Limited Partnership the Limited Partnership needs to earn a large portion of it's income from Real Estate or oil or other similar investments. Cedar Fair is very much a Real estate company (that invests in land for Amusement) and thus the Partners need to manage the company and to benefit both the company and themselves.

A corporation manages for the shareholders, an LP does the same except there is more of a personal need to succeed.

That difference to me describes a higher need to manage Cap Ex appropriatly to provide a higher ROI.

Unlike SF which seemed to decide what they want in each park (e.g. 4 new coasters at Geauga Lake), CF seems to set an approximate capex budget and works from there. Last year CF spent approx $80m in capex, this year approx $88m. I would guess next year they will spend approx $90m, give or take a few m.

If that's true, a $20m coaster at KI and an $8m coaster at WOF means that the rest of the chain would get approx $62m. So CP could get a $25m ride, but that would leave only $37m for the other parks.

That said, I doubt the parks are THAT independant. If CP and KI are each getting MAJOR (i.e. $20m+) new attractions, I'd bet they get "spaced out" into different years to maximize ROI.

I agree with the Captain. Makes more sense to me.

cpcoasterhaven said:
I wouldn't be too sure about that Jeff. Cedar Fair is a corporation just like any other. They can and probably will control expenditures for ALL their parks.

No, really? Gosh golly, I figured they could just spend whatever the hell they wanted to!

My reply falls into the regular response for people who try to connect dots where there are none to connect. See: "3-coaster B&M contract" circa 1997, or any thread in the history of this site trying to find an iron-clad pattern to when they build new coasters. One park building a coaster is not indicative of any other park doing anything.

Kinzel said years ago that naturally the home office approves budgets, and they need to justify any cap ex, but they do so on the merit of the projected return on investment. Kings Island is building a big ride because they're pretty confident that it'll sell enough tickets to justify the cost. Or because Dick thinks every park should have a hypercoaster. Maybe both.