Levram__

Agree, this is a more accurate depiction of an insurers influence. You will often find that the "suggestion" or sometimes influence can come from the risk assessors for the particular underwriter. I've dealt with these particular roles within my role in the industry on a number of occasions.

They have nothing to do with it.

Gosh they haven't aged well!

This is correct accessibility played a part however the arcade was in the mix well before First Aid was even considered being moved. The arcade was originally an Intencity project that was being scoped post pandemic. However its my understanding Intencity dropped it, the site sat dormant longer than originally anticipated and the project was pick up by VRTP as a capex project. The scope then grew to encompass the relocation of First Aid with improved facilities/services, an indoor ambulance bay and new BOH space/offices for other shared services for the parks.

I think the other thing to consider here is that DW aren't trying to be something their not and also why should they. Its often talked about in their shareholder calls that the park scores rather favourably with their NPS and GRI scores, particularly when it comes to their seasonal event offering. This gives them a pretty healthy understanding of what their primary consumer (guest) wants. Personally I also don't think spending $250K plus with someone like an Oracle Liquid (not including the other labour/entertainment costs for the show) is going to improve their overall ROI for the event if a laser light show is primarily what your using as a basis for the difference in offering.

I believe you'll find a lot of their marketing is purely via social mediums and BVOD. Which likely works for them as a seasonal operator. Season passes would contribute to a significant amount of their ticketing revenue/visitation so the need to do broader interstate or intrastate advertising is likely not worth the cost.

The other factor at play here is that each of the businesses that form part of the Major Amusement Park Safety Case are required to outline their own commissioning standard in the safety case outline. Its likely not to state the specific number of cycles in the outline but I know first hand that supporting documents for one particular property does outline a minimum number of cycles as part of the commissioning process. 500 cycles for example may sound like a lot but that figure can be tracked from the initial commencement of commissioning while the OEM still holds ownership of the ride, the figure is also not an unlikely benchmark.

I don't believe you'll find the property shutting down anytime soon. There would also be some complications (not impossible to navigate however) about the lease use of the land to which the site sits on. You can't forget that Palace purchased the park for a bargain. Even better so than their original offer the year prior. Following the acquisition and change over period they drastically right sized their shared service side of the business and slimed down their P&L making it a profitable 'regional water park' in the eyes of its owners. With that being said its likely to continue that way, a regional/seasonal style water park that continues to plot along with occasional commercial capex that has guaranteed ROI. But id be shocked if we saw any sort of significant new investment anytime soon unfortunately.

It will most certainly be a Village operated venue. Its been in serious development discussions since at least 2021. I believe back then however it was being driven more so by the Village Entertainment side of the Melbourne side of the Village business, with a VRTP hand holding. But that has since changed is my understanding with Topgolf being solely under the VRTP corporate structure.

Ohh the SA regulator is a whole different kettle of fish. Particularly how the transportables are considered versus the other states.

I don't have a definitive answer for if or when the last 10 yearly major inspection was completed.

@New display name you're correct it does form part of the new legislation and the code of practice. However the other factor at play with some of these older devices is if a 10 yearly has even been completed previously. The amusement device will have most likely have had, and satisfied all of its OEM milestone inspections over the course of its life, but the level and detail required from a 10 yearly may not have been met. Also an engineer may suggest a change to the interval between inspections, however that would also require support from the OEM and agreeance by QLD WPHS engineering as part of a licensed major amusement facility. Specifically for QLD. This obviously differs state by state.

@Brad2912 your defiantly on the money here, the announcement is believed to be something far bigger than a gyro swing replacement. The Claw now approaching its 20 year anniversary would require either one of two things to occur. A 10 yearly inspection to be completed over the course of the next 12 months which would be a significant closure period. Or depending on the capital spend required as part of the ongoing R&M (10 yearly) it might make sense commercially to replace/upgrade the asset, the latter of the two defiantly being the option undertaken. These considerations where also hinted at in the recent FY earnings call. My money however is on a high thrill new coaster....

Dreamworld have launched date specific single day entry tickets. Tickets are valid for Dreamworld only for the specific date purchased. Pricing can vary from $79. Flexible 1-day Dreamworld entry tickets can still be purchased and used during any one day over the 12 months from purchase date, however at a higher price point. Is this the start of date based visitation for our parks? It seems as though the model serves as a dynamic pricing strategy also which could end up having a positive guest experience impact during busier periods!

I believe its possible the parade floats could soon commence their journey from the show stage, which is why the WWF sign has been removed and new speakers/lighting installed?