Really feel the absence of ParkFans's rolling-eyes react when I'm using other forums.^the london resort?
Looking at this thread, I see people saying, "I could see Merlin being interested", "I wouldn't be surprised if it was Merlin", "please not a Legoland". Not really a rumor, so much as people chattin' about it.I mean, wasn't there a pretty longstanding rumor that Merlin was eyeballing it? Pretty much just to start it over as a Legoland or something
Was at Niagara Amusement Park today, had a nice chat with some heads there today. Word from Mainland is that ALL of their maintenance and ride operations staff have been let go. Not much of a surprise really but it is what it is.
Also a certain company you're all likely to recognize (and probably guess) was snooping around there a lot last year. NDA's are still tight on who actually bought the place, will be interesting to see if this plays out.
Marineland has so much extra land that will never realistically be utilized for the park. Selling/leasing/whatever some amount of that land could go a long way to providing the necessary capital.It's interesting to see this post and then see everyone speculating merlin. I can't imagine merlin taking a park that has no fuctional rides and ride staff to buy an animal park. I don't know what the future holds for this park, but I DO that with some TLC and capital this park has a real chance to go from stop by while there to a legit need to visit park. It just takes someone willing and able to invest the proper amount of money this park needs. All that said I'm resigned to the fact this park will never come close to reaching it's potential. Call it my internal pessimist but the amount of capital required to really turn this park around is more than I can see any major operator being willing to invest.
they've spent decades refusing to sell the park/land to anyone looking to build homes/apartment complexes/hotels. I can't see that changing now.Marineland has so much extra land that will never realistically be utilized for the park. Selling/leasing/whatever some amount of that land could go a long way to providing the necessary capital.
If the old owners were adamant, I believe they could have stipulated in the sale that none of the land could be used for non-amusement park purposes.^ New owners though, so surely they would not think the same?
I brought up selling the land in the context of "in case they needed money to develop the park". Doesn't matter if they have hundreds and hundreds of acres if they can't afford to do anything with it.They should just keep the land they have. Maybe plant a forest in parts they aren’t using. If they do that, they would never need to buy more land ever again.
I mean they could have, but then why would new-owners who wanted to do that even buy the place!If the old owners were adamant, I believe they could have stipulated in the sale that none of the land could be used for non-amusement park purposes.
The land is highly valuable, and could be used for any number of purposes; housing, amusement, commercial, etc. It doesn't need to stay an amusement park, much as many of us would like it to (animals notwithstanding).I mean they could have, but then why would new-owners who wanted to do that even buy the place!
I believe the old owner's wife is still alive, and she (and her Will) has been adamant that the park remain a park.The old-owner died anyway so whatever he wanted is immaterial now.