Originally Posted By berol "Let's do some math..." Nah, you do it while the rest of us nap. There is also grey area spending (hotel/downtown/DL/tickets). If it only takes a few years for the investment to return a profit, sweet deal.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << And yes, some profit is made on the food and merchandise sold in the park. But at the current pricing schedule, the investment will not return a profit for the first few years... >> Why do you make these sort of financial analyses when it is apparent that you have no idea how the Disney Parks generate their income or cash flow? For one, paid admission accounts for only 1/3 of theme park revenues. There is no profit whatsoever in selling admission tickets alone. The food and merchandise figures you say make up "some profit" help to round out the rest of the park revenues, but even then the park doesn't break even. Only after you add in the revenues for lodging and sponsorship agreements does the park show profitability. I'm not surprised that the same poster that manipulates news articles to try and alter reality has the same sort of fantasyland view of the theme park business. You might at least open up a Disney annual report to uncover the actual figures before you make some of these absurd statements.
Originally Posted By Nemo88 "Might God how many of these same posts that rehash comments from seven years ago do we need from you darkbeer. Stop living in the past look forward towards the future. You have actually made this more important than real life issues" Amen Bean,these types of posts were old a long time ago,I am shocked that there are still people around singing this same old song.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By DlandDug If those who irrationally believe that DCA is a successfull park (as opposed to those who irrationally believe it is unsuccessfull) would stop falling back on a couple of standard counter arguments, there would be no reason to constantly bring up old news articles. When it is pointed out that DCA is failing to meet company expectations in its business performance, supporters usually counter that no one can "know" what those expectations entailed. But when those expectations are detailed in articles from the past, the counter argument is that this is all old news, which has no bearing on the present. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.
Originally Posted By DlandDug P.S. Is there anyone here who would be willing to explain to all concerned how Depreciation works, in a business sense? This is one area that no one here seems to understand (including me) and take into account when trying to figure out if DCA is a money maker or money loser. It is quite correct to say that a simple formula of costs vs. gate revenue barely scratches the surface.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << P.S. Is there anyone here who would be willing to explain to all concerned how Depreciation works, in a business sense? This is one area that no one here seems to understand (including me) and take into account when trying to figure out if DCA is a money maker or money loser. >> Depreciation is a metric with little value in analyzing the theme park business. If you want to know the health of a business that requires intensive capital expenditures, free cash flow is a valuable tool in understanding the business. Depreciation affects operating income to a significant degree, but only marginally affects free cash flow. If your entire business is based on making new investments without borrowing money, you need to have good cash flow to support that business model. A company could theoretically be unprofitable due to asset-based expenditures like depreciation and amortization but still have free cash flow.
Originally Posted By jonvn "When it is pointed out that DCA is failing to meet company expectations in its business performance, supporters usually counter that no one can "know" what those expectations entailed." Actually, you don't know. You don't know what the goals were, in what areas, and by how much they were missed if any and in what way. Making these sorts of declarations is pointless. "when those expectations are detailed in articles from the past" The expectations have not been detailed. They just have not. Look, it's impossible to make specific claims based on inspecific or nebulous information. You just can't do it. So when you try, you look a bit foolish.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>Look, it's impossible to make specific claims based on inspecific or nebulous information.<< You bet. That's why I prefer, when making declarative statements, to rely on specific information. And what the Disney Company expected from DCA was well documented in many, many public statements and filings. It's all there, for anyone willing to look.
Originally Posted By jonvn " what the Disney Company expected from DCA was well documented " No, it's not. Tell me where you can find out what the Disney company expected? If it's so well documented, you should be able to point out some information. This is all part of a large mythos that has been built up. People whirl up these ideas out of whole cloth and they have basically nothing to support them with. The best that can actually be said about the place is that it may not have lived up to the full expectations of the management team of ten years ago. Beyond that, you really just don't know, and trying to state that you do makes you look incredulous.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>Actually, you don't know [Disney's expectations for DCA]. You don't know what the goals were, in what areas, and by how much they were missed if any and in what way.<< Ah, but we do. One has only to look at the many public statements, press releases, and actions taken during the time of DCA's planning and construction. One specious argument that has been popping up recently is that DCA was "always" intended to be a second gate... a mere adjunct to the successfull Disneyland. This is simply not borne out by the facts. Many, many statements were made that indicated that DCA was to be a stand-alone park, and a driver of attendance. Park officials publicly stated their concern that DCA would be too crowded. A series of meetings were held with Disneyland cast members to help them deal with the expected hordes of disappointed visitors who would have to "settle" for Disneyland. Among actions taken were to suspend sales of Annual Passes for DCA, on the assumption that honoring them would impact the numbers of "original" guests that would have to be accommodated on a daily basis. The relatively high number of restaurants and shops offered in DCA were based on projected attendance figures. Walkways were laid out and queue lines were established with these same projections in mind. Even merchandising got into the act. In many articles and public forums they proudly delineated their full campaign of souvenir design and production, based on expected attendance. They pledged that, despite heavy guest demand, they would never run out of radio controlled Super Star Limo cars. Of course, things worked out a bit differently. None of this is "inspecific" or nebulous speculation based on personal bias or animus. It is clear cut information that is readily available to all.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>No, it's not. Tell me where you can find out what the Disney company expected? If it's so well documented, you should be able to point out some information.<< Oh brother. I've done this at least one time too many. Do your own homework on this one. I will, however, do this one for you... Credulous: tending to believe too redily; easily convinced. INcredulous would be just the opposite, and not what I assume you intended when you applied the term to me above.
Originally Posted By DlandDug P.S. As stated before, every time someone does provide documented statements about what Disney expected from DCA, they are hammered for "dredging up the past." Lather, Rinse. Repeat.
Originally Posted By jonvn "One has only to look at the many public statements, press releases, and actions taken during the time of DCA's planning and construction." And they said things...such as...WHAT? "DCA was "always" intended to be a second gate... a mere adjunct to the successfull Disneyland. This is simply not borne out by the facts." I'm going to have to pause here for a moment and point out that it IS a second gate by the very physical nature that it IS a second gate. "Many, many statements were made that indicated that DCA was to be a stand-alone park, and a driver of attendance." Well, no, that's not what was said. But it's interesting to see how things have morphed over the years. A whole new mythology is being built up about what Disney expected, what they said, and so on. And then we launch into the story of how they expected this or that, but no real understanding of why. You do realize how superficial this all is, and how the retelling of these stories over an over again becomes a type of oral tradition that is very religious in nature, don't you? The sheer repetition of these STORIES gives them a life of their own, and gives them an aura of truth that they really have no right to. "None of this is "inspecific" or nebulous speculation " Of course it is. You're on the outside looking in, and listening to website rumor mills for your information, that have little basis in reality and print whatever they want with little regard to the truth. When you can start to understand that, you can start to understand what is going on. People tend to want to make things up in neat little packages. And a story has been shaped online by those who wish to wrap it all up nicely, neatly, and simply. Again, not how things work. Not on this planet, anyway.
Originally Posted By fkurucz <<Depreciation is a metric with little value in analyzing the theme park business. If you want to know the health of a business that requires intensive capital expenditures, free cash flow is a valuable tool in understanding the business. Depreciation affects operating income to a significant degree, but only marginally affects free cash flow. If your entire business is based on making new investments without borrowing money, you need to have good cash flow to support that business model. A company could theoretically be unprofitable due to asset-based expenditures like depreciation and amortization but still have free cash flow.>> Correct. In theory, most of DL has been fully depreciated, and no doubt Disney Co has written that appreciation for tax purposes. Still, one would be hard pressed to argue that the fully depreciated parts of DL have no value.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Oh brother. I've done this at least one time too many." OK, fine, so you have nothing to back up your statements. Do you think you're talking to someone who just showed up here last week? The fact is that you simply CAN'T provide this information. You've made up a mythology in your head, and it is unsupportable. THIS is what was said at the time: Braverman, when discussing park planning said they worked backwards from an estimated 7 million attendance figure. That was where the 7 million came from. Disney WAS concerned about crowds, and thought the place would or could be mobbed. To that end, they prepared for that. If it turned out it was mobbed, and they were not prepared for it, it would have been an absolute disaster. To that end, they did not issues APs. I mean, really. You make statements of fact that are absolutely impossible. Such as: "The relatively high number of restaurants and shops offered in DCA were based on projected attendance figures. " And you know this HOW? Give me a break. You don't. Furthermore, you somehow expect Disney to open this park, and not build it for crowds? You expected them to build a park with narrow walkways and no room for lines? You expected marketing to just slink into the milieu and quietly announce a few things here and there to sell? The things you say are ridiculous (a favorite word of mine, I guess). Oh, and thanks for the grammar lesson. I of course meant "not credible." But I'll remember to point out every last single typo or other similar mistake you make from now on. Would that be helpful to you? I'm sure it will.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Let's do the Time Warp agaiiiinnnnn.... it's just a jump to the left....
Originally Posted By jonvn Yeah..... The thing is that at this point, it's taken on a religious tone through repetition. The story gets a bit more baroque in each telling and more concrete in the liturgy. It'd actually be interesting to watch, if it weren't so annoying and stupid.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>You do realize how superficial this all is, and how the retelling of these stories over an over again becomes a type of oral tradition...<< Which is precisely why I choose NOT to rely on "stories," but rather on what is public record as stated by representatives of the Walt Disney Company. Certainly there is a wealth of anecdotal information to show that DCA has not performed to expectations. But the public record is irrefutable. I would suppose that is why every time these are brought up, certain people here clap their hands over their ears and start going, "La la la la la..." >>You're on the outside looking in, and listening to website rumor mills for your information...<< No. I was here from the beginning, attending the seminars, reading the press releases, and seeing what was being done on a first hand basis. It is because I do not trust the web site rumor mills that I prefer to rely on what has been issued by the Company, or I have personally witnessed. >>I mean, really. You make statements of fact that are absolutely impossible. Such as: "The relatively high number of restaurants and shops offered in DCA were based on projected attendance figures. " And you know this HOW?<< Because I attended the seminars in which the DCA marketing mavens told us all about their reasoning for the number of shops, number of restaurants, size of the walkways, percentage of wall space alloted to merchandise, complete campaign for maintaining stocks of SuperStar Limo logoed sunglasses, blah blah blah. I don't make this stuff up, and I certainly don't rely on credulous sources on the internet. >>Furthermore, you somehow expect Disney to open this park, and not build it for crowds?<< Not at all. They clearly stated they built it for a projected attendance, and then did so. Statements and actions. That's the point. >>You expected marketing to just slink into the milieu and quietly announce a few things here and there to sell<< Nope, And that's not what they did. Rather, they made statements and took actions that in retrospect make it very clear that DCA has been a major financial disappointment (disaster, if you want to engage in hyperbole) for the Disney Company.
