Nobody is saying Varney was a bogey man or that Scott O’Neil is some sort of messiah. Varney was in my opinion a poor CEO but had the ability to get somethings right. O’Neil is unknown as any changes wouldn’t manifest itself until 2025 from a strategic perspective (In year operational budget decision making I don’t see any sign of a change from Merlin).
The change in CEO simply provides a clear boundary between two regimes, which will always create a change in strategy. You add to that a change in leadership at Towers as well and people will rightly scrutinise any change in said strategy.
Numerous people have alluded to Varney being a bogeyman on multiple occasions. You did it yourself just a few posts back when you blamed Varney for the removal of Enterprise.
Those where not the three Rob was referencing and with the exception of Enterprise which was way beyond end of life all occurred under Varney
The removal of Enterprise happened in the absolute twilight of his years at the helm, and they haven't bothered replacing it in the two years since, and have since removed 3 temporary flats without replacement. It's also likely that this would have happened regardless of who sat in the big chair wouldn't you say?
The single biggest and absolutely most dominant investor in the business before they were taken private, remains the joint biggest investor now. And Investors hold the purse strings. They employ a Chairman to protect their investments, also the same guy who presided over Varney's performance for the 2 years before he left. The CEO is accountable to the Chairman, who now has 4 years service.
Wherever anyone tries to draw some arbitrary line in the sand to argue the case for starry eyed optimism, there is no definitive boundary between regimes. It doesn't exist. Businesses the size of Merlin don't work like that, and it would be bad business practice if they did.
Varney likely wasn't such a poor CEO as you suggested. He upset Thoosies by presiding over an era that left the organisation with the brown legacy that it now has, but I'm sure there are plenty of investors who saw a return on their investments under his leadership who would disagree with that assesment. Those who made a tidy profit when they sold their shares would argue that he did what he was employed to do, which was to earn them money. The corporate governance structures that provided oversight of his work have changed little since he left.
It's the same business. Different to 10 years ago (when most of us would argue things were better)? Partially yes. Changing and evolving as we speak? Definitely. But there are no parallels between this "new era" and the sort of change we would have seen if Alton had been bought by someone else. The impact of "new management" is usually wildy exaggerated. The chairman safeguards investors cash, the CEO reports to the chairman. This is true regardless of whether the bloke who looks after the toilets in Muntiy Bay is successful in convincing Bianca to change the scented urinal cakes after Francis previously said no. So it is indeed not far off from the "same old".
This thread is about a
single flat ride. Just one. That's it. A drop in the "Ocean". To replace multiple. The last of which was binned off
2 years ago, in which time they've since closed multiple attractions, both temporally and permanently. Some sunlit golden era of new Capex investment this is turning out to be. That's the point being made. No one has made false claims about Capex (look back at the thread).
