What effect does the potential sale of the Busch parks have on Disney?

[JMagicFink]

Cedar Fair

If the parks go up for sale, I bet Cedar Fair will be right on top of it. A few years back they bought the Ohio Geauga Lake park from Six Flags. A Couple years ago they bought all of the Paramount Parks. The next step would be to acquire a park in Florida (IE Tampa Busch Gardens). My vote is on Cedar Fair buying all of the Busch properties.

 

[tazhughes]

If the parks go up for sale, I bet Cedar Fair will be right on top of it. A few years back they bought the Ohio Geauga Lake park from Six Flags. A Couple years ago they bought all of the Paramount Parks. The next step would be to acquire a park in Florida (IE Tampa Busch Gardens). My vote is on Cedar Fair buying all of the Busch properties.

The article that I had linked to suggested that Cedar Fair was having financial troubles and would not be able to financially afford this acquisition. The Yee article that was linked to suggested that Cedar Fair already acquired a large section of land on 192 in Florida, so I don't know if they would be players or not. Clearly if the properties were being sold in pieces, then it would be financially more feasible for CF to acquire an existing Florida location and modify it rather than start from scratch, but it all will come down to finances.

 

[lscott933]

a fifth and six gate in orlando huh. a third one in california by buying the parks seaworld huh that start that rumor of the gates here.

 

[Giraffe Lounge]

One things for sure, after Manta opens there will be no new rides coming out of SeaWorld or Busch Gardens for quite sometime until the InBev buyout is complete at the very least, but more likely we'll also have to wait for someone to purchase the parks division and then start new plans from scratch.

I'm also assuming HP and the USF coaster drain Uni's capital expenditures for a while.

So Disney might not have much new to compete against in the early 2010's

 

[Fun2BFree]

So isn't it a greater risk for Disney that someone else would purchase BG and created a sizable operation within a short driving distance? Disney would receive none of that revenue and it would seem to me that acquiring this seasonal park and it's revenue is a better play than letting that revenue go somewhere else. (BTW I don't think a seasonal park in Virginia will significantly dent the Orlando empires market share of the northeast, we still will want to go to Florida in the colder months).

That's very true- a dollar for a Disney-owned BG is the same as a dollar for WDW.

 

[tazhughes]

a fifth and six gate in orlando huh. a third one in california by buying the parks seaworld huh that start that rumor of the gates here.

I did not intend for this to be a 5th gate rumor thread and in reality I don't think that Disney would have interest in either the Florida or California properties due to their locations. SW and BG T would be off property and would cause guests to have to travel away from the main property to go to the sub properties and pass all of the other lodging and entertainment options along the way. That would diminish the WDW brand and eliminate the benefits of staying "on property". SW San Diego is just too far removed from Disneyland to be another gate for that property. I really think Disney would only have interest in BG Williamsburg, Sesame Place, and possibly SW Texas (however I can not see In Bev breaking the Sea Worlds apart so I doubt that would be in play).

I personally would be more interested in seeing what Disney could do in Williamsburg either with renovating that property or expanding it. And I would love to see the Sesame acquisition because I can see the integration of those characters into DHS in an expanded Muppet Land.

 

[awalkinthepark]

True, but in a lagging economy I don't think Disney will open their own park that will compete with WDW. New York, New Jersey and New England visitors account for a good chunk of WDW's revenues. Putting another sizable operation within a few hour's drive may only canabalize Florida attendance.

You may see more driving to FL and taking a day or so to explore the VA park before heading down to the FL parks....as much as people are crying over the economy they are still going to Disney....I read other boards where they cry over the cost of milk, they wail about the cost of gas, and they have nervous breakdowns over the cost of health insurance...and then during the same day they are talking about their upcoming Disney vacations...I think a lot of people either don't have their priorities straight or they are only crying over the economy because the nightly news/bloggers are telling them that they should.

I however do not see Disney buying any of the parks...however if Universal could snatch them up at a good price I think it would be a great move for them.

 

[prberk]

As someone who lives 1 hour from Busch Gardens, I hope someone aquires that park who will take care of it. For a seasonal theme park, its aREAL gem and a TOP NOTCH operation. Busch operated their parks with a lot of class. They will be a tough act to follow. Every aspect of the buy out / take over upsets me. It's my patriotism coming through.

I completely agree. As much as I love WDW, I know the BG Williamsburg (not Europe as it is currently tagged in ads) is one of the most beautifully landscaped parks in the nation. It was built with old-growth trees in tact! And Busch's legacy is also interwoven. I think the money-grab (uh, er, takeover) was short-sighted and unnecessary. Busch fought it, but not well enough.

Busch should still run the parks, no matter what happens with InBev. They know what they are doing. But, unfortunately, the debt of the short-sighted takeover could prevent that.

Paul

 

[wickedfan07]

I actually see this is a good thing for Disney. Remember all of those Location-Based Entertainment rumors? This could easily be step one.

These parks were not built with the same show quality standards as a Disney park is. However, if Disney were to acquire the Busch family of parks, they would not necessarily need to rip out everything and start over. These are regional theme parks, and some of them (BGE, Sesame) only operate for part of the year. The Williamsburg property is never going to be a replacement for WDW, whether Disney buys it or not. It oesn't need to be; it is already successful using the current model. Going to Busch Williamsburg wouldn't be the same experience as going to WDW, even if Mickey was there. the Busch parks don't need to be "Disney's"-branded. Thus, in the eyes of most of the public, it's not going to be expected to be on the same level as a Disney Resort like WDW or DL would be.

Buying the Busch parks would be a good move because it captures some of the regional market and puts Disney in places it hasn't explored yet, like Virginia and Texas. They get to expand their influence into new regional markets without cannibalizing attendance at the big resorts. Think of it this way: Walt Disney Regional Parks could be a division of Walt Disney Parks and Resorts. Add to that the much smaller LBE hotels in already bustling tourist areas and Disney is doing very well domestically.

As for the parks that are close to existing resorts, like Busch Tampa and SeaWorld Orlando and San Diego... Disney could buy those as well, operate them for a while and then sell those parks off when the market improves. I wouldn't mind it if Disney bought and held onto SeaWorld Orlando, but it would be a logistic issue because if its distance from the core WDW property. The nearby parks pose a problem right now, but who knows, they might not mind controlling more of the market in Orlando and SoCal.

In any case, I think it would be a good idea. Not everything owned by Disney neds to be DISNEY'S necessarily, and I think this would be one of those cases.

 

[prberk]

It's sad what's happening to Busch and it's a shame the board are a bit clueless and didn't make a bid for InBev first now mass layoffs are only around the corner no matter what they say now. I always wondered why Busch got into the Themepark business, I can only assume it was an intrest of one of the family members? If so hopefully they can get the backing to buy the parks themselves then kick InBev product tasting out of the parks.

I believe the first Busch theme parks were simply adjacent to their breweries, as was the case in Williamsburg, where you used to be able to take a brewery tour as part of the BG experience. That was wonderful.

Anyhow, I believe that it all started from that, and they built on what they loved, using land they probably already had access to. I believe the other parks were later acquisitions once it became clear that they were full-fledged and capable players in the theme park arena, in sort of a Disney sense -- a full theming, and a little sense of education along the way (especially in Sea World and Sesame Place).

In my opinion, Busch is the second best theme-park operator in the world, with regard to theming and a sense of value beyond thrills (theming, education, resorts, landscaping)...

Paul

Edit: As for Disney buying it, I say NO. And I am tired of the cheap, slash-and-burn growth-through-acquisition mentality. I still believe in the formula that Disney has proven so well: build it yourself, and pay attention to it; allow growth to be meaningful and made through real innovation and growth -- not through acquisition. Busch management should continue, and as part of Anhauser Busch, to which so much the parks' legacy is tied.

 

[wickedfan07]

As for Disney buying it, I say NO. And I am tired of the cheap, slash-and-burn growth-through-acquisition mentality. I still believe in the formula that Disney has proven so well: build it yourself, and pay attention to it; allow growth to be meaningful and made through real innovation and growth -- not through acquisition. Busch management should continue, and as part of Anhauser Busch, to which so much the parks' legacy is tied.

You are absolutely right about that. However, InBev may not let A-B do what it wants with the theme parks. I've read that InBev is a ruthless cost-cutter. It seems that they care more about their expanding profits than they do about the legacy of the companies they acquire. Busch may not have the chance to continue that legacy on their own. If Busch Entertainment were not able or given the chance to stand alone as it's own company, I think Disney would be the next best thing. It allows the already great Busch parks to keep operating as they are and it helps Disney diversify its resort-based entertainment. The entire A-B/InBev deal is slash-and-burn as it is. It would be better to see the parks go to Disney than to see them slashed, burned, and destroyed in a very literal sense by someone who probably doesn't give a darn about Busch's legacy of conservation or quality theme park operation.

 

[TubaGeek]

As much as I'd love for there to be a Disney Park closer to me, I think that Disney will just stick to spending money on the parks they've got.
Then again, it would explain the information dry spell...

 

[RSoxNo1]

I was at Busch Gardens Williamsburg last month, and the theming was above average for a theme park. The problem is the mass of steel in the roller coasters detract from the theming. If Disney were to buy this park, and make it there own it would require substantial changes.

 

[uklad79]

I can see Blackstone being intrested via it's Merlin Entertainments Group. Blackstone owns a chunk of Universal Orlando aswell as Merlin.

 

[MickeyJman06]

all i can say is hmmm...?

 

[Shiloh]

Disney will not purchase these theme parks. They like to build their parks frtom scratch.

 

[darthjohnny]

Screamscape mentioned today how Disney was interested in buying some of the SeaWorld parks (not Ohio or Texas) before they were sold to Anheuser-Busch, and the company that owned it at the time, HBJ, didn't want the parks to be split up.

It would be interesting if Disney did acquire all of SeaWorld Orlando because that would mean they would get Discovery Cove, so there would be no need for the rumored Night Kingdom.

 

[DisneyExplorer]

Other than the name "Busch Gardens" there is no reason why the parks can't be sold individually. I doubt Disney has any interest in these parks...especially in light of the economic situation.

I don't know. I love Busch Gardens Virginia! That park is a blast, and the coasters are unbelievable. Everything is so well kept, and the theming, while not Disney themeing, is still pretty good. If Disney still wants to build a Villains park, purchasing Busch Gardens Virginia would be a smart move. The park has five great roller coasters which can easily be rethemed towards a Villains scheme. Unlike Six Flags, this park is already high quality, so Disney would only have to do a little bit of touching up to call it they're own. Plus, they'd tap into the New England/Upper East Coast market, and Virginia is a beautiful place for a theme park resort. You'd get lots of tourists.

 

[DisneyExplorer]

You are absolutely right about that. However, InBev may not let A-B do what it wants with the theme parks. I've read that InBev is a ruthless cost-cutter. It seems that they care more about their expanding profits than they do about the legacy of the companies they acquire. Busch may not have the chance to continue that legacy on their own. If Busch Entertainment were not able or given the chance to stand alone as it's own company, I think Disney would be the next best thing. It allows the already great Busch parks to keep operating as they are and it helps Disney diversify its resort-based entertainment. The entire A-B/InBev deal is slash-and-burn as it is. It would be better to see the parks go to Disney than to see them slashed, burned, and destroyed in a very literal sense by someone who probably doesn't give a darn about Busch's legacy of conservation or quality theme park operation.

You hit that right on the nose. These parks are so well kept, it'd be a real shame seeing a new company step in and not put the same amount of care and effort Busch put into them. With Disney taking over, we'd know the parks would be in good hands. Plus, with Busch gone, we wouldn't have the cleidsdales anymore.

 

[FutureCEO]

I think the money-grab (uh, er, takeover) was short-sighted and unnecessary. Busch fought it, but not well enough.

Busch is the problem here too. Because they wanted more money they allowed themselves to be sellouts and got bought. Money doesnt buy happiness.

If Busch really wanted to keep the business, they would have said no to more money just like Yahoo did to Microsoft.