CHANG WATCH: The Official Topic

[onyxhotel08]

Sure they will be fine. MAybe they will just have to put up Bonzai Beach?

[tillenterprises]

Well Kentucky Kingdom isn't letting Chang go without a fight.

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.

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

"removing Chang under false pretenses" was something we all saw coming

[david]

I wonder if they win, will Six Flags have to return Chang to Kentucky? Or, will it go because it is on SF property?

[onyxhotel08]

I think they will keep Chang but will have to put something into that area since it is all mud and dirt now. Six Flags did not buy Chang it is the least they can do to not leave it barren. or at least pay them a bit and have them chose what do with that area.

[CoasterPrince]

If Great America gets Chang, they will then have the record for most B&M's. That is a honor?

[onyxhotel08]

I have yet to see how parks promote used rides. I wanna see the change in Chang not just in name but hopefully in color and obviously theme. I think Chang has great potential here and we ALL know our park has been lacking any major additions since 2005 (We have no Bizarro's or rides added that make up for the loss of Shockwave and Deja Vu). I mean yes we have Superman but not everyone raves about it and we lost a fairly decent mega looper with great history just because families cannot understand you can create new memories.

[CoasterPrince]

A B&M stand up with a storyline sounds amazing.

[rizash]

Why do you guys keep saying sf didn't buy chang? They did buy it from the parks previous owners, as well as all rides on sf property. While the lease may still allow Kentucky to keep rides on it's land, but that is iffy because it sounds like that may not have been in the lease, but thestate is implying ownership due to property value losses of the rides. Two things to remember.... Six flags was paying property taxes on these rides, so there is legal precedent that says sfi owns them (paid cash for them from previous owner + taxes) plus bankruptcy protection prevents lawsuits such as this to prevent companies near bankruptcy from going out of business. The state is just trying to say "fine you got out of your contract legally so we couldn't make profit even while knowing you were losing money, so we'll find another way to pry money from you." sfkk had been losing money and kentucky still wouldn't budge on the lease, now they're stuck with a park nobody will use and they're mad. Thankfully bankruptcy protection prevents bullying and posturing like this. Yes sfi screwed up, but Kentucky decided to bite the hand that feeds, now they're in pr mode to make sfi look like the bad guys. It's the states fault, if the lease had been shorter or had made a new lease proposal this wouldn't have happened. You can't take a park, make them pay insane lease cash for half of it, allow them no parking profits (cutting at least 1/4 their profits) then be unwilling to help them when they're down. If the landlords are that bad/greedy why would six flags ever have put movable ride on state land? No wonder they were going to put a water park there!

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[UWGBdork]

I posted this over at tpr too but is relevant here

Even if premier made up the contracts to purchase chang, Six Flags would have most likely inheareted in the debt and therefore the ownership of the attraction when they took over the lease. When parks purchase a ride they do not exactly pay up front in cash for the ride. It is kinda like a car or house. They have a few years in loans to opperate and make back the money they invested and or loaned out to purchase the ride. I think whether it was Premier Parks or Six Flags that purchased the ride is irrelevant as the debt would have transfered.

Of course this is all speculation as no one here in these forums has access to the actual contracts as well as the wording they contain. In all likelyhood Chang will not miraculously show up and get rebuilt. If anything six flags would have to pay them the market value of the ride as it stands in 2010. Will be interesting to see how it plays out. I wish i was a lawyer making the money from both sides here!!!! hahaha

Really I think the fair grounds think they are entitled to a little cash to line their pockets until they can get someone to run the park

[rizash]

I'm sure sf paid quite a bit to lease those rides on state land. Their rides they purchased from the previous owners would have had to be paid up front in cash, or paid for by business loan of some type. The park they bought it from was broke and couldn't afford to work out a lease to buy type agreement. Trust me, those rides were paid in full after being in sf posession for a decade. But in general yes for new rides they lease to own or finance them, for major attractions anyway.

Again the state had sf in a death grip lease that was perfect for the state. In guaranteed profits for them, and it was locked in for years yet. They took a gamble and lost, and are trying to force sf back to the bargaining table or into giving them rides they don't deserve. Bottom line is if sf wins kk will be hard to reopen with very few rides. Who would be interested in a park with half the rides of a park that failed that gets no parking revenue, and had major issues?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Jcoaster95]

I have yet to see how parks promote used rides.

They could call them "recycled" and call themselves a "green" theme park chain

[david]

^hahah! The GP doesn't need to know it's used. Do they?

[Chitown]

Wherever Chang ends up, it will be advertised as a new ride. Why? Because it will have a different name, theming, etc.

Only reason why Little Dipper is billed as re-located, is because its coming from a local park (with historic significance) that closed down and they saved this coaster.

[UWGBdork]

Here is the thing about the actual ride. It is NOT going to come back. This is 100% about money. The only think that is going to come out of this is the money. It is all about money. If the court rules in favor of KY it will be for the market cost of the ride. Six Flags is not going to pay to move the ride back and re-erect it. The only way it is going to be rebuilt is at another six flags park. I think the Irony about this whole situation is that one of the reasons they are doing this is to add a new attraction to another park cheaply(hopufully in the Chicago burbs ). The irony comes in the fact in the end this is most likely going to cost them more than it will to just commission an original ride.

[david]

If Kentucky wins. God help the judicial system.

[Goku1910]

If Kentucky wins. God help the judicial system.

That has to be the smartest and best post you've ever made.

[david]

Do we know if We'll see any of Chang on Opening Season, or will it all be in an enclosed storage area?

[onyxhotel08]

yes, David, we will see all of Chang layed out in the parking lot and workers prepping the SSA area for construction.

[david]

Haha. Very funny. I mean, will we see any of Chang out in the lot, or will it all be in a storage building?

[DejaVu2001]

^Because everyone knows SFGAm has all these huge buildings that have no other purpose besides storing massive quantities of B&M track, supports, and water mains . . .

[onyxhotel08]

IF it is coming here, I do not expect to see much of anything until August/September when they have to get the land ready and all that. I imagine construction will not begin till September anyway. Everyone knows Gurnee gets hit hard in the winter usually so they should get a head start before the weather gets ugly.

[SammyTheSparerib]

ABC appears to have the first image of the Chang train in storage. Pause the video at 1:05.

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=7347246

[traincrossing9]

^Holy crap he's right. Nice find! Now the question is what will Great America do with the trains?

[david]

Thing inside of me says no chang trains on Wolfie until Chang or whatever it's going to be called is actually installed.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[DejaVu2001]

Anyone else notice at the beginning of the video, they used a image of Blue Streak at CP in the background