Sign in to follow this  
ABYSS

Adventure World's Inferno - downtime and future

52 posts in this topic

Ben said that he thinks they should get family friendly water rides - I agree. He didn't say the park would wind down its spend every two years. 

What I was trying to explain to you is that you're making your predictions based on a false premise - that AW is like the GC parks.

We're not writing in a vacuum - lots of people read this stuff. So if you're smacking down David Bakas or being condescending to Mark Shaw you damage the reputation of these forums and theme park fans, in general.

How old are you, @AlexB? I went to Old Sydney Town and Adventure World in their first year of operation. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm calling a time out because you are both doing my head in.

 

I hate it when people are at your house & ask, "hey do you have a bathroom?"  No not at all we shit in the yard.

A wise man once said that if you resort to personal insults you’ve lost the argument, and this would appear to be the case here.

If you can't play nice I'm going to separate you both.

I'm not taking sides here but I 100% agree with Alex. (oh I just did)

Edited by Skeeta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, iwerks said:

@AlexBBen said that he thinks they should get family friendly water rides - I agree. He didn't say the park would wind down its spend every two years.

I'm really getting tired of this, and as I mentioned, you're clearly reading only what you want to read.

20 hours ago, Roachie said:

Agreed with @AlexB - the park is very well rounded now, it's really not lacking anything major, especially for a regional park. Six Flags showed us explosive growth isn't good for business anyway, so I have no problem if they wanted to take a few years off and go to work on improving their assets to give people more reasons to return during the season.

<snip>

Small spend, solid impact and the more rides you can go on with a group of mates, the more reasons you're giving larger groups to all buy season passes.

 

 

  • He agreed with what i'd said
  • He was ok with them 'taking a few years off' - which in context would be not doing an "MI every two years"
  • He suggested a 'small spend' on some water attractions.
On 23/02/2018 at 3:35 PM, AlexB said:

I predict AW is going to have a very big slow down in their developments... they can still call them "MI" but the M will more likely stand for "minimal"...

A family friendly water ride wouldn't really be a 'maximum impact' attraction. This doesn't mean it wouldn't be an awesome addition. This doesn't mean it isn't something the park really needs. But like we've talked about (and the GC parks comparison is only because it's what's talked about here the most), when one park builds a thirty million dollar hyper coaster, and the other park has most recently installed a flat ride - which would you consider 'maximum impact' ? certainly not a family friendly water attraction. that DOESN'T MEAN ITS A BAD IDEA - But as i've mentioned before to go on with EVERY new attraction as if its as 'maximum' impact as Abyss, or Kraken, or Goliath weakens that 'MI' as a brand. Just go 'hey folks, we're excited to bring to you our newest attraction - the "Calypso Beach lazy river!" - what better way to laze about those hot summer days that in our lush tropical paradise!'

It'd be a great addition. It'd be very family friendly. It'd be a lot cheaper than Abyss. This is all i've been saying. Improve what you've got. Replace what needs it (bounty, inferno), build some nice filler that the park needs to round itself out and take a 'step up' in terms of what it has to offer. This will bring the crowds, and fill the coffers, which in turn will let them turn their minds to the next big thing (a second awesome rollercoaster perhaps?).

Many folks here point to sea world as the park that has 'ride'. It's got two coasters, and while it has more to offer, if you take away 'looking at animals'  -  there's very little else. I love what AW is trying to be. I don't see them continuing to install $8+ million attractions every two years - something's gotta give. By all means, start buying some new water attractions that are 'X hundred thousand' rather than 'X million' - that'll keep filling out the park without breaking the bank - but they will by nature be more 'minimal' developments, and in terms of expenditure - a 'very big slow down' from the millions on coasters and flats.

 

I really do hope that you've actually read this, and realise that I don't disagree with you. I am perhaps not explaining myself as well as I could, or you're only reading what you want to read...

TL:DR - you agree with what Ben said. Ben agreed with what I said. We're saying the same thing. We just don't like the words the other is choosing to use to say it. Let's just have a beer and move on, hey?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To reiterate @Skeeta's point -- let's keep insults and personal remarks out of it. It's an interesting topic of discussion and one I'd like to see continue in a mature fashion.

I am curious @iwerks, given your knowledge of the park and Perth in general. In what sense is Adventure World fundamentally different from the Gold Coast parks? What market conditions or other factors do you see allowing the park to maintain this pace of investment and development?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no way on earth the current rate of capex injection is sustainable for any reasonable return on investment. 

I can not see it continuing, the owner has very deep pockets but everyone has a limit.

Of course the CEO will project that it will continue, and i believe the park will continue to improve and invest in small ways and add small attractions (like kiddie water slides) but expecting major capex and rides in the 10s of millions every 2 years to continue is unrealistic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aside from Abyss though their level of spending doesn't seem crazy high. Goliath isn't something that's a bank breaker, and last year was a Tornado. They've spent a bit updating the place but to me a moderate ride (by GC standards) every couple of years with something cheap like a water slide in the off years isn't totally unreasonable.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not gonna say much on this as I don't want to say anything I shouldn't. However AW is differant as the owners want new rides. The park is owned by a rich mining family who want to invest in the park. They don't take much profit from it. I have heard they frequently visit the park for some rides. They have invested 40 million over the last 7 years and have paid that off. So with all their investments already paid off why wouldn't they keep investing.

Also @joz I wouldn't put Kraken down, that ride always seems to be the most popular ride at the park.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, joz said:

Aside from Abyss though their level of spending doesn't seem crazy high. Goliath isn't something that's a bank breaker, and last year was a Tornado. They've spent a bit updating the place but to me a moderate ride (by GC standards) every couple of years with something cheap like a water slide in the off years isn't totally unreasonable.

So not, for example, an Intamin Giant Drop tower like Falcon's Fury? :lol:

Just now, Tim Dasco said:

Not gonna say much on this as I don't want to say anything I shouldn't. However AW is differant as the owners want new rides. The park is owned by a rich mining family who want to invest in the park. They don't take much profit from it. I have heard they frequently visit the park for some rides. They have invested 40 million over the last 7 years and have paid that off. So with all their investments already paid off why wouldn't they keep investing.

Also @joz I wouldn't put Kraken down, that ride always seems to be the most popular ride at the park.

Joz wasn't putting it down, he was simply pointing to the fact that a tornado - even one as unique as Kraken, isn't an expensive addition 'in the scheme of things'.

As for why wouldn't they keep investing... i think @grrofunger has it:

1 hour ago, grrofunger said:

I can not see it continuing, the owner has very deep pockets but everyone has a limit.

 

4 minutes ago, grrofunger said:

You have to remember the park only opens half the year and even then most weeks only half the week to recoup all this investment 

Sure, the family is rich. Sure, they like rides and build as much for themselves as for a profit... but everyone has a limit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, AlexB said:

So not, for example, an Intamin Giant Drop tower like Falcon's Fury? :lol:

But Falcons Furry costed 6million USD total. So for around 8Million AUD they should be able to get some form of Falcons Furry costing them not much more than Goliath. Which Joz is saying is "Is not a bank breaker".

 

Didn't mean Joz was putting it down. More that after being open 2 years Kraken is still a very popular ride.

Edited by Tim Dasco
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're forgetting that everything costs more to build in Australia. You can't just take the US construction cost and convert it to AUD. Regulations, labour, etc all cost far more than in the American Market. You'd quite easily clear $10M at a minimum... Dreamworld's Giant Drop - if i recall correctly - was about $12Million (although i think this was estimated given ToT already had the tower constructed).

ETA: Indeed, Parkz confirms that figure - and remember - this was in 1998 - so 20 years on, i think you can probably allow for that figure to be a bit higher again...

 

1 hour ago, Richard said:

To reiterate @Skeeta's point -- let's keep insults and personal remarks out of it. It's an interesting topic of discussion and one I'd like to see continue in a mature fashion.

Probably better for PM - but i really can't see anything too personal here - from either side - i'm struggling a little to identify what you or Skeet is actually referring to?

Edited by AlexB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, Adventure World doesn't get a new attraction every year. Except for Abyss, they're all under $10 million.

I think it's good the park has invested so much back in year after year - even before the naming of the Mi-s. Nothing worse than when a park doesn't open new rides and gives you no reason to go back.

AW has also not been guilty of giving away the gate - charging at least $150 per adult for a 7 month season for sometime now (or more for those of us with the platinum pass). They're trying new things, like AW Nights, without seeming to put themselves at risk.   I realise it's not on the same level as the GC parks, but it's steadily plugging away in a fairly monopolistic situation. And Steve Sicerich has no shareholders, but his family to answer to. He is the random factor.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some random maths which mean absolutely nothing but i'm bored at work so lets play....

Open approx 175 days a year

Maximum capacity 5500 (from when they locked the gates december 2015)

Say they got on average across the full season 2000 visitors per day ever day (generous) 

2000 x 175 = 350,000 guests per season

lets pretend 35% of those are season ticket holders and use the full adult rate for each of $169 = $20.7 mill

lets pretend 65% of those day guests paid full adult admission of $58 for 1 day = $13.2 mill

We have gate takings on these wild assumptions of $33 mill

lets pretend each person spent $10 on food/merch etc every single time they visited = $3.5 mill

I haven't allowed the plethora people not buying food/merch, child entry $ values, discounted tickets, etc

In this scenario we have income of approx $37.5 mill

After wages,R&M,advertising,admin,tax etc - all outgoings a profit margin of circa 15% would probably be considered healthy

So we have profit of approx $5.5 mil a year 

I would peg true profit probably closer to $2 mil

cue Mark Shaw to tell me i'm way off...

Either way recovering $12 mill (abyss) and $7 mill (kraken) and $7.5 mill (goliath) and was it half a mill to fill in that old lake? whats that $27 mill just there in the past 6 years?

It aint sustainable - even at $5 mil per year profit  (yes i understand 6 x 5 is greater than 27) 

no way AW is generating $5 mil a year profit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the majority of us on the eastern side of Australia, one thing to note is that Adventure World has never stopped expanding, the park has always kept building rides. They built Rampage, Black Widow, Shotgun, the Aqua Racer and the original kids area all within the space of 7 years. You can argue that this expansion period is bigger than what the park has done while Mark was CEO.

I expect Adventure World to take a small "ad-break" after MI4 and slow down on spending (such as when they built the "Kids Splash Zone", took out Turbo Mountain and put in Inferno between 2007 and 2010) for 3-5 years, perhaps add a few family attractions in that time, before going back to big thrill rides. It is impressive how Sicerich is able to fund two enormous expansions back-to-back and I wonder what we will see in the future.

Also, in regards to a possible replacement for Inferno, I'll take a Larson drop tower anyday over an Intamin one. From my experience I find Giant Drop fairly forceless and Hair Raiser very terrifying despite the latter being less than half the height of the former. Obviously there is low capacity with this type of drop tower but considering how Adventure World's attendance is nowhere near as large as parks on the Gold Coast (the last time I went to the park was just after Kraken was built so it may have changed since then) I don't see capacity being such an issue at a park like Adventure World. If you're going for capacity, an S&S combo tower does the job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, we don't know how much comes from the gate and how much comes from SS's pocket. Let's just say we appreciate his efforts. I have a feeling if it wasn't for him, AW would have long gone the way of Wonderland, and I can only guess how @AlexB feels about that.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Tim Dasco said:

@grrofunger there annual attendance is just over 500,000 a season. Also investment has been 40 million in 7 years.

Average of 2857 per day then, ok, better than i expected. Good !

40 mil over 7 is obviously much more than 27 mil over 6

Not sustainable

I'll reiterate here also that i am a huge supporter of the park have spent a lot of money on season passes, food, guest passes, fast passes etc over the past 4 or so years so i am not trying to nay say for the hell of it or denigrate the place but i feel some expectations here are very unrealistic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, grrofunger said:

I'll reiterate here also that i am a huge supporter of the park have spent a lot of money on season passes, food, guest passes, fast passes etc over the past 4 or so years so i am not trying to nay say for the hell of it or denigrate the place but i feel some expectations here are very unrealistic.

That they keep investing on a regular basis? I'd be happy if it wasn't a spin and spew. 😀🤢

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I made a list of the MAJOR spending that has happened in the Park since Steve brought it in 2000. However in 2010 there annual attendants was only 250,000 a season, now 7 years later its doubled. Which means they make more revenue and passes cost more now also.

1997: Tunnel Of Terror $1 Million

Steve Brought the Park

2001: Rampage $3 million

2002: Power Surge $3 Million

2003: Dragons Kingdom 1: Little Leaper & The Barnacle, Dragon’s Flyer & Dragons Express (Lets say $2 Million for 4 rides)

2005: Super 6 Aqua Racers 1 Million

2007: Shut Gun $500,000- 1million

2009: Freefall (A Lot more than its worth)

2010: Dragons Falls $500,000

2011: Kahuna Falls $3 Million

2012: Dragons Kingdom redevelopment: Yarlis Safari & Yarlis Barrel Spin ($1 Million)

2013: Abyss & new toilet block $12 million

2014: $300,000 retheme of Black Widow and Rampage

2015: Kraken $7 Million and Buccanier Battle

2018: Retheme of Water Moutain, 1.6 million on a new car park

2017: Goliath $7.5 Million & $1.5 million power Line

2018: ????

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, iwerks said:

Yes, Adventure World doesn't get a new attraction every year. Except for Abyss, they're all under $10 million.

I think it's good the park has invested so much back in year after year - even before the naming of the Mi-s. Nothing worse than when a park doesn't open new rides and gives you no reason to go back.

AW has also not been guilty of giving away the gate - charging at least $150 per adult for a 7 month season for sometime now (or more for those of us with the platinum pass). They're trying new things, like AW Nights, without seeming to put themselves at risk.   I realise it's not on the same level as the GC parks, but it's steadily plugging away in a fairly monopolistic situation. And Steve Sicerich has no shareholders, but his family to answer to. He is the random factor.

I couldn't agree more.

17 hours ago, Tim Dasco said:

@grrofunger there annual attendance is just over 500,000 a season. Also investment has been 40 million in 7 years.

I think the math is ok - as stated, not allowing for discounted entry tickets - child, school groups and the like, and many who wouldn't buy food and merch etc. (since you can bring your own picnic). Theres several variables here that can take the figures both up and down, so as an average, I don't think @grrofunger is that far off.

Thanks mate for crunching those numbers, it makes things much more 'real'

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the biggest difference between AW and the east coast parks is i expect majority of the visitors are locals. Sure we have some tourists, but nothing like what the gold coast gets. This means the park really needs to keep innovating and adding new experiences to justify people returning and spending money.

If they stop investing into new attractions they'll be fine for 2 - 3 years and people will get bored and stop going or at least going less.

For example my personal experience - i used to have a season pass every year back around 99 - 2000 ish. However after the Power Surge they invested into the Kids areas, and a couple of water slides - none of which were really epic or a draw card of any sort. So from memory i went once the year after the Power Surge was installed and then i don't think i went again until Inferno was put in. Following that it was another few years until Abyss was installed before i returned.

As mentioned the park only opens for ~half the year, so that would reduce it's operational costs quite significantly in comparison to the east coast parks. Rides are expensive to operate - and running rides with 1 - 2 riders during low seasons or mid week don't cost a whole lot less that running it full to capacity. 

Also given the lack of competition or alternatives people will actually visit whilst the parks open. Basically it's not like they're missing out of alot of business by being closed for half the year, instead those people will come when the park reopens and they run at capacity for those few months.

So TLDR - they need to keep investing to keep people coming back. If they stop investing, people will stop coming.

22 hours ago, grrofunger said:

Average of 2857 per day then, ok, better than i expected. Good !

40 mil over 7 is obviously much more than 27 mil over 6

Not sustainable

I'll reiterate here also that i am a huge supporter of the park have spent a lot of money on season passes, food, guest passes, fast passes etc over the past 4 or so years so i am not trying to nay say for the hell of it or denigrate the place but i feel some expectations here are very unrealistic.

I don't think the level of investment is way out there in consideration of the returns they're seeing. The MI's are done every 2 years right, so that's 2.5 - 3 mil every year being put aside and reinvested into the park. If the park keeps growing and attracting more visitors - and really the only way for that to happen is to keep investing - then it will become sustainable. Especially as theirs no investors queuing up with their hands out wanting a return every year, there's no reason the money can't get all reinvesting into the park.

I expect we'll see the MI's move to every 3 years soon or maybe even 4 years with a smaller attraction added in the alternate 2 years (~3mil). The more rides AW has, the more capacity is has to soak up crowds and thus get more bodies through the doors on the days it's open.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 27/02/2018 at 6:53 PM, grrofunger said:

Some random maths which mean absolutely nothing but i'm bored at work so lets play....

Open approx 175 days a year

Maximum capacity 5500 (from when they locked the gates december 2015)

Say they got on average across the full season 2000 visitors per day ever day (generous) 

2000 x 175 = 350,000 guests per season

lets pretend 35% of those are season ticket holders and use the full adult rate for each of $169 = $20.7 mill

lets pretend 65% of those day guests paid full adult admission of $58 for 1 day = $13.2 mill

We have gate takings on these wild assumptions of $33 mill

lets pretend each person spent $10 on food/merch etc every single time they visited = $3.5 mill

I haven't allowed the plethora people not buying food/merch, child entry $ values, discounted tickets, etc

In this scenario we have income of approx $37.5 mill

After wages,R&M,advertising,admin,tax etc - all outgoings a profit margin of circa 15% would probably be considered healthy

So we have profit of approx $5.5 mil a year 

I would peg true profit probably closer to $2 mil

cue Mark Shaw to tell me i'm way off...

Either way recovering $12 mill (abyss) and $7 mill (kraken) and $7.5 mill (goliath) and was it half a mill to fill in that old lake? whats that $27 mill just there in the past 6 years?

It aint sustainable - even at $5 mil per year profit  (yes i understand 6 x 5 is greater than 27) 

no way AW is generating $5 mil a year profit.

Lol. You are way off. Rev too high, margin too low.  By some distance. That's all I can say. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this