Yeah..... No.
Don't get it confused with the position Ardent was in. Village roadshow had money in capital but were also able to refinance loans if need be, they just said it would be irresponsible (to investors) to take on more debt at this time and were going to run as thin as possible to see out the covid downturn/closures. Ardent were told they have no options available to them, they had nothing to borrow against as they had sold off pretty much everything of value and nobody would issue them any credit. That's two vastly different positions.
Remember theme parks are just a division for village roadshow, they are also one of their businesses that actually makes a profit every year. You aren't going to sacrifice a core of your business when you have the potential to sell off other parts which aren't as/profitable, or borrow more and refinance existing debt. They had to take on more debt following the dreamworld accident and the huge downturn the industry experienced, this included their big spend items at movieworld and seaworld. In effect, what happened in 18-19 financial year is they sold off wet n wild sydney, they sold out of their cinema partnership in singapore and they sold the land movie world and wet n wild are built upon. Not only did they sell off properties costing them money, they received over 250 million from the sale of the above. This meant they reduced their liabilities over 90 million dollars, knocked 120 million out of their loans, earnings within the theme parks division doubled to 76 million (big recovery following the accident), the equity in the company actually went up 50 million, while the debt went down.
The plans over 2018-2019 also allowed them to refinance their loans which provided them with over 100 million to draw down on over the immediate future if need be. The end result for VRL was a net loss of 6.6 million, but if you dig further you'll see that cash flows increased by nearly 4 times to over 80 million, cash flows used for investments and to manage debt went up nearly 30 million, while repayment on their loans dropped over 100 million dollars. So you had a company that sold off underperforming assets, reduced not only their debt, but also their repayments, but were still investing money back into the company.
They were in an excellent position prior to covid, recovery was in full swing, revenues were well up, the equity in the company alone was valued at over half a billion dollars. Why do you think they attracted multiple buyout offers approaching 1 billion dollars if the company was so close to collapse?
At the end of the 2020 financial year it showed covid cost them an additional 70 million dollars. Remember that 100 million they could draw down upon? This is where the covid cost comes from, they drew down 70 million dollars on what is basically a line of credit to cover operational costs with multiple businesses shut and provide them funds to trade through into the next financial year when revenue was basically wiped out. They had more immediately available to them if needed, and that was before looking at refinancing on existing loans they had previous worked to pay down. All this was all before the government reached out with an offer of support too. Since the take over, the continued impact of covid and the fact that their cinema division was still basically shuttered, it cost another 38 million across the 2021 financial year.
They weren't even close to being on their last legs, they were still in a better financial position with lower amounts of debt and lower repayments to their loans even after covid came along and wiped out their revenue streams and generated additional debt due to running costs/overheads. Have a look at the covid 19 report Mittleman Brothers released and why they were unhappy with how much the company was actually undervalued during takeover offers.
If that's all too much to read; have a look at net debt totals across the last 7 years.
2020-2021 - 228.5 million
2019-2020 - 278.3 million
2018-2019 - 219.6 million
2017-2018 - 338.5 million
2016-2017 - 527.1 million
2015-2016 - 534.7 million
2014-2015 - 402.2 million
2013-2014 - 305.5 million
For reference, net debt is essentially gross (all) debt, minus available cash balances.