• ℹ️ Heads up...

    This is a popular topic that is fast moving Guest - before posting, please ensure that you check out the first post in the topic for a quick reminder of guidelines, and importantly a summary of the known facts and information so far. Thanks.

Blackpool Pleasure Beach: 2024 Discussion

Relife said:
Merlin wouldn't touch the park with a barge pole for obvious reasons.

It doesn't fit thier portfolio either
Click to expand...
Sorry, I have only just spotted this.
I don't see your point, what obvious reasons?
Can't think of any reasons for them not to pick it up, even just the management, like the Tower.
Merlin run half of Blackpool prom already, what makes the Beach unsuitable?
Half their portfolio is a little worn around the edges, why do you think the Beach wouldn't fit?

Edit...sorry, double post, blame shakey and whip him hard...
 
Last edited:
Poisson said:
I'm not sure BPB is particularly appealing to an outside buyer. Large overheads, limited space and ageing hardware.
Click to expand...
If I'm remembering it right, they do have the USP of no planning permission needed in the park. Though that might not be extended to new owners?
 
rob666 said:
Sorry, I have only just spotted this.
I don't see your point, what obvious reasons?
Can't think of any reasons for them not to pick it up, even just the management, like the Tower.
Merkin run half of Blackpool prom already, what makes the Beach unsuitable?
Half their portfolio is a little worn around the edges, why do you think the Beach wouldn't fit?

Edit...sorry, double post, blame shakey and whip him hard...
Click to expand...
Pleasure Beach has a large collection of very old rides, some of them a century old such as Big Dipper, River Caves and Flying Machines, others that are approaching the 90 year mark, and some steel coasters that are rather long in the tooth. It would actually quite a big commitment in terms of maintainance for any theoretical new owner, and there isn't necessarily the scope to really make your mark with new rides in the same way that a park that was more of a blank canvas would be. Whilst it's true that Merlin do own some heritage attractions such as Warwick Castle and Blackpool Tower these feel like a bit of an outlier in their portfolio. I just don't think the park is that attractive to Merlin, and you'd think that they would be more focused on improving and investing in their current theme parks in the UK given the very real possibility of Universal opening up a UK park within the next decade.
 
Shaggy_Dog_ said:
Pleasure Beach has a large collection of very old rides, some of them a century old such as Big Dipper, River Caves and Flying Machines, others that are approaching the 90 year mark, and some steel coasters that are rather long in the tooth. It would actually quite a big commitment in terms of maintainance for any theoretical new owner, and there isn't necessarily the scope to really make your mark with new rides in the same way that a park that was more of a blank canvas would be. Whilst it's true that Merlin do own some heritage attractions such as Warwick Castle and Blackpool Tower these feel like a bit of an outlier in their portfolio. I just don't think the park is that attractive to Merlin, and you'd think that they would be more focused on improving and investing in their current theme parks in the UK given the very real possibility of Universal opening up a UK park within the next decade.
Click to expand...
To be clear, I did mean letting Merlin in to run the park, with madam retaining ownership, and no doubt left in charge of the ice disco show.
And Merlin don't own the Tower, they run it on the owners behalf, the council...so something similar could easily be done a mile down the prom, there has been clear local precedent .
Merlin, as you have stated, already have aged, worn, attractions in their very broad portfolio, in my eyes the Beach would fit right in.
I'm not saying it would be ideal, far from it with the semi monopoly they already hold, but in my faded, jaded, cloudy old eyes, they are the most likely management, if and when mandy realises what a crap job she has been doing in running the place.
The big dangle to mandy would be the many season pass holders Merlin already have on their books.
 
rob666 said:
To be clear, I did mean letting Merlin in to run the park, with madam retaining ownership, and no doubt left in charge of the ice disco show.
And Merlin don't own the Tower, they run it on the owners behalf, the council...so something similar could easily be done a mile down the prom, there has been clear local precedent .
Merlin, as you have stated, already have aged, worn, attractions in their very broad portfolio, in my eyes the Beach would fit right in.
I'm not saying it would be ideal, far from it with the semi monopoly they already hold, but in my faded, jaded, cloudy old eyes, they are the most likely management, if and when mandy realises what a crap job she has been doing in running the place.
The big dangle to mandy would be the many season pass holders Merlin already have on their books.
Click to expand...
With the additional bonus, for all involved, that the CMA won't come sniffing because operating and ownership are different kettles of fish.

Speaking of which, are there any attractions which Merlin actually own outright in the UK anymore? (Presumably just the Sea Life centres, or some of them at least)
 
rob666 said:
To be clear, I did mean letting Merlin in to run the park, with madam retaining ownership, and no doubt left in charge of the ice disco show.
And Merlin don't own the Tower, they run it on the owners behalf, the council...so something similar could easily be done a mile down the prom, there has been clear local precedent .
Merlin, as you have stated, already have aged, worn, attractions in their very broad portfolio, in my eyes the Beach would fit right in.
I'm not saying it would be ideal, far from it with the semi monopoly they already hold, but in my faded, jaded, cloudy old eyes, they are the most likely management, if and when mandy realises what a crap job she has been doing in running the place.
The big dangle to mandy would be the many season pass holders Merlin already have on their books.
Click to expand...
But what would really be in it for Merlin to just run Pleasure Beach? The park would need to have a large amount of money invested in it to bring it up to scratch and add to the ride lineup, it’s not like a Towers, London Eye, or Warwick Castle where it’s more about just operating an existing attraction. Sure, they’ve just opened the new dark ride at Cadbury World but Pleasure Beach would need a massive amount of investment, money that could arguably be much better spent at the four UK Theme Parks that they currently operate.

I think the best hope for Pleasure Beach would be a European company coming in that wants to open a UK park. Compagnie Des Alpes or the Swedish company Parks And Resorts could be very good fits in theory.
 
Last edited:
Shaggy_Dog_ said:
But what would really be in it for Merlin to just run Pleasure Beach? The park would need to have a large amount of money invested in it to bring it up to scratch and add to the ride lineup, it’s not like a Towers, London Eye, or Warwick Castle where it’s more about just operating an existing attraction. Sure, they’ve just opened the new dark ride at Cadbury World but Pleasure Beach would need a massive amount of investment, money that could arguably be much better spent at the four UK Theme Parks that they currently operate.

I think the best hope for Pleasure Beach would be a European company coming in that wants to open a UK park. Compagnie Des Alpes or the Swedish company Parks And Resorts could be very good fits in theory.
Click to expand...
Again, different sacred opinions mate but I completely disagree.
What would be in it for Merlin? Another major attraction on their portfolio, they are empire building, still...very good, quick and comparatively cheap if they are only "renting" again.
The Tower was very clapped out before Merlin started managing the shop...I don't know who paid for the upgrades, but they were done on a standing attraction they didn't actually own.
The development happened irrespective of owner/operator split.
That could be exactly the same plan for the Beach.
The park is on its toes because of incompetent management who don't really have a clue how to run the place.
The place doesn't actually need a massive investment in anything...what exactly would cost on a massive scale, the park needs a couple of modest new rides, say an off the shelf coaster and a new headline flat.
The rest is down to a good scrub up and better day to day running, with decent cost access to all.
Hardly rocket science, and no need for huge investment.
All those shabby, run down coasters have to be 100% safe and solid, or they simply wouldn't be running...
Most likely take over of management, I don't think the family will be selling out fully.
 
The park’s operations are propped up by accommodation revenue in many years. A purchaser of the park alone would not have that revenue to rely on. It makes anyone else purchasing the park alone an even more unlikely prospect.
 
rob666 said:
Again, different sacred opinions mate but I completely disagree.
What would be in it for Merlin? Another major attraction on their portfolio, they are empire building, still...very good, quick and comparatively cheap if they are only "renting" again.
The Tower was very clapped out before Merlin started managing the shop...I don't know who paid for the upgrades, but they were done on a standing attraction they didn't actually own.
The development happened irrespective of owner/operator split.
That could be exactly the same plan for the Beach.
The park is on its toes because of incompetent management who don't really have a clue how to run the place.
The place doesn't actually need a massive investment in anything...what exactly would cost on a massive scale, the park needs a couple of modest new rides, say an off the shelf coaster and a new headline flat.
The rest is down to a good scrub up and better day to day running, with decent cost access to all.
Hardly rocket science, and no need for huge investment.
All those shabby, run down coasters have to be 100% safe and solid, or they simply wouldn't be running...
Most likely take over of management, I don't think the family will be selling out fully.
Click to expand...
I find it interesting and kinda amusing how some Blackpool Pleasure Beach fans like yourself think you have a better idea of how to run the park than the actual park management
 
jesterrace989 said:
I find it interesting and kinda amusing how some Blackpool Pleasure Beach fans like yourself think you have a better idea of how to run the park than the actual park management
Click to expand...
I too find it amusing that a member who can't even keep track of his own house keys does have a better idea of how to run the park.

At the very least, the gardens would be top notch!
 
jesterrace989 said:
I find it interesting and kinda amusing how some Blackpool Pleasure Beach fans like yourself think you have a better idea of how to run the park than the actual park management
Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't he saying they should get a seasoned operator to take over running the place? I don't think he's thrown his hat into the ring.
 
jesterrace989 said:
I find it interesting and kinda amusing how some Blackpool Pleasure Beach fans like yourself think you have a better idea of how to run the park than the actual park management
Click to expand...
Let's be clear, the park management clearly have no idea how to run a theme park.

Hammering to death an expensive ice show no one wants and losing money on every show while the park rots around you is clearly not good business sense.
 
NuttySquirrel said:
Let's be clear, the park management clearly have no idea how to run a theme park.

Hammering to death an expensive ice show no one wants and losing money on every show while the park rots around you is clearly not good business sense.
Click to expand...
Er yeah they do. Otherwise they wouldn't be in charge. They might not run the park the way you and other enthuasists and fans wish they would but it is what it is
 
jesterrace989 said:
Er yeah they do. Otherwise they wouldn't be in charge. They might not run the park the way you and other enthuasists and fans wish they would but it is what it is
Click to expand...
By that logic you can’t criticise anyone. You can’t criticise the prime minister because you’ve never been one. You can’t criticise footballers because they’re playing and you’re not. And you can’t criticise any CEO that’s ever run a business into the ground because they’re in charge and you’re not.

That all sounds very North Korea to me.
 
jesterrace989 said:
Er yeah they do. Otherwise they wouldn't be in charge. They might not run the park the way you and other enthuasists and fans wish they would but it is what it is
Click to expand...
I can own a car, but not know how to drive it (or even legally be allowed to). I can buy a game, but never play it. I can take a GCSE in Business Studies, never turn up, never learn, never revise and fail it. I can be nominated to lead my group of friends on an expedition across LA, because I've played Grand Theft Auto (but crucially have only been to LAX).

I can pay £12, set up a limited company, take out a loan of £60,000 or so to set up my bird feed selling company and then, not actually selling any bird feed, or do anything really. the debt becomes due, I can't or won't pay it back, I declare bankruptcy.

If you own the park outright, and you're the majority shareholder (as is the case with the Thompsons) then quite frankly you can do whatever the hell it is with your park and company that you want (within the realms of legality). No one can remove you. You are literally your own boss. You're in charge, because you were born to be in charge and control was given to you in a will when your parents passed away. A little like another failing hereditary instiruition, now that you mention it.

You can run the company badly. You can run the company terribly. You can run the company into the ground and guess what? You're in charge and no one can stop you even if they wanted to. No one can prevent you from being in charge. Being in charge means diddly squat, you don't have to be qualified in any real way to be in charge of anything. You can be in charge and fail. You could have, I don't know, a Top Shop and oversee its eventual collapse. It happens all of the time.

Edited for typos.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top