Jamberoo Fan

This news article from The Australian appeared on Saturday: While this article from Crikey appeared today (referring to article above): Ardent Leisure's share price on the ASX also dropped by 1% today - not a significant drop but it doesn't help as it is still getting closer to being out of their 2 year trend again.

Well the Dreamworld CEO would have appointed him to develop the plan. Once he has developed that plan, then that is another part of the re-opening criteria ticked off (assuming @AlexB's interpretation of the Ardent Leisure CEO's statement is correct). I might be getting a bit technical but they said 'all rides' so surely this would include Thunder River Rapids, whose safety audit will take longer than the rest of the rides?

It fits all the requirements for an announcement but after the Thunder River Rapids incident, I'd say any announcement will be postponed until MW's safety audit is completed at the earliest (assuming no major issues with the park are found) as well as when the media sensationalism has disappeared & any sudden drop in MW's attendance has returned back to normal.

I think people will know it's lower than TOT II. An 119 metre high tower vs a 61-91 metre high rollercoaster - TOT would still be considered higher in everyone's minds. Who is faster? The Flash or Superman? Yeah, I believe that to be the case too.

Yeah - there are 2 ways to reading that statement. Your interpretation is more likely though.

Dreamworld's re-opening may be a lot longer in the future now. Ardent Leisure CEO, Deborah Thomas, said today:

Dreamworld CEO confirmed it will be inside the park the other day. If there is anything I'm sure about the memorial's location is that it will be in a quiet spot. They may even use noise barriers or special acoustics to ensure the noise of the rides doesn't affect the memorial's atmosphere. I'm unsure if this is of any significance? It is from the Australian Financial Review:

They would need to emphasise the 'full circuit part' if it breaks a record for speed & height in full circuit rollercoasters as we do have Tower Of Terror II just down the road as 'the fastest & tallest rollercoaster in Australia' and that's not a full circuit rollercoaster. They don't need to emphasise the 'full circuit' part if, of course, MW's new rollercoaster ends up being higher than 115m in height & travels faster than 161km/h.

Thanks - that does match it. I predicted in my guess timetable that track parts will begin to arrive in early December but the installation of the tracks won't occur until early March next year. This is assuming it is a Boxing Day 2017 opening.

Post the link but just point out any new information - not any old information.

That's how I've always seen those parks particularly as a rare visitor of the parks. What does ZE stand for by the way?

I never disputed that part of your post. That was new information I believe.

Yeah, that's what I thought - the more regularly a customer you are, the less the park is a 'full-day' park. I agree with that - add in lunch plus browsing through souvenir shops (if you are rare visitor), then it is nearly a full day park.

If you were referring to the Cheap piece of equipment could have prevented Dreamworld accident article, your summary didn't include 2 key paragraphs: It is so far down the article that's why I pointed it out as that article's headline can easily be read as to do with the official investigation findings when it is not - it is just an expert's speculation. The rest of the quotes that you added from the article are not related to the general premise of the article (the limit switch) and is simply old information to make the article look more detailed. If you're referring to Dreamworld tragedy prompts statewide theme park 'safety blitz' amid broader workplace audit article, this part of your summary...: ...had nothing to do with the general premise of the article (QLD Government theme park safety audit) & was already posted in the media statement you embedded only an hour earlier. It's fine to share news article headlines with a summary - I'm just requesting to ensure the summary reflects the article and doesn't contain information that's already posted. The forum topics are very long so it is understandable that it's hard to check to see if that information was already posted (It was within 24 hours of the incident occurring after all) so I just thought I would simply let you know and that I would give you the advice that the media includes old information in articles nowadays to make articles look more detailed than they really are/need to be.

Is that including shows @Santa07 & @bladex? I have only gone during off-peak periods on various days of the week & ended up staying the whole day. Whitewater World I finished halfway through the day before heading into DW to do more rides/attractions (some that I missed during a whole day DW visit too). Until DW confirm Whitewater World is part of DW (which was seeming to occur in the near future), I'd consider Whitewater World a separate park like DW originally planned it as even if everyone considers it part of DW.

Given the situation, I don't think the Dreamworld CEO meant 'looked after' as in just emotional support. He would definitely be referring to financial support otherwise that wouldn't be 'looking after' them in such a difficult time. Anyway, if you read the media statement that @razza1987 recently shared, it does state very clearly that all staff will be paid during the park's closure. Great photo @Theme Park Girl - I haven't seen any other photo that shows this much of the floral tributes etc.

Just for everyone's information, this is not an 'early indication' from the investigation. It is just an expert's speculation, which you can only find out by reading the article (It is mentioned half way into the long article). @razza1987, all the other quotes that featured in that same post of yours have already been posted in other posts that feature the original articles they were mentioned in. Be careful reading media articles as nowadays, they include heaps of old information to make the article look more detailed than it really is. Given the water pumps are at the station, I think it would be very noticeable if the water level was low as the water pumps wouldn't be operating as fast as they would (unless of course the water was being drained from somewhere it shouldn't be). The quote above is from this post. I looked back on archives of Dreamworld's website earlier this week & Thunder River Rapids had scheduled maintenance from the 25th of April to the 15th of May. This might have been what he was seeing. You already posted that in the media statement you embedded.

Yes, I believe a hypercoaster would be the best option due to the Commonwealth Games like you said. Remember, MW has been trying to expand their offering to all audiences with Doomsday Destroyer & the surrounding DC Comics Super Villians Unleashed area etc.. And also regarding the rollercoaster, VRTP's CEO said: They wouldn't point this out unless it is one of the most expensive projects they have ever decided to proceed with. The biggest investment in a Gold Coast theme park in Australia so far has been the Storm Coaster which cost $20 million so for this new MW rollercoaster, we're looking at a price tag similar or probably higher. My guess so far for this new rollercoaster is a price tag of $50 million. Also, MW is a half day park? I thought Whitewater World would have been a half day park?

I've looked through Ardent Leisure's company constitution as well as the Corporations Act 2001 and this, I believe, is what Ardent Leisure had the power to do: Ardent Leisure had the power to adjourn the meeting to another date but it had to be held before November 30 - 5 months after the end of their financial year (June 30) as the Corporations Act 2001 states. Also, according to the same Act, they could request to the Australian Securities & Investments Commission to extend the time period to hold the meeting. Like @Richard stated, proxy voting doesn't force the vote to go ahead until the chairperson calls the vote to be held at the meeting itself. The chairperson could rule on all matters related to the meeting's order of business, procedure & conduct. The rest of the meeting has to respect any of these decisions but on the matter of adjournment, the rest of the meeting, if a majority is in favour, may request an adjournment or decline a chairperson's proposal to adjourn. In the case of adjournment, the wishes of the majority of the rest of the meeting has to be respected by the chairperson by law. From this, I believe not only did the chairperson have the power to defer the vote but prior to the vote being called, a majority of the entire company at the meeting could have decided to adjourn to another date that was before November 30. The company could have requested to the Australian Securities & Investments Commission to extend the time period to hold the meeting too as a last resort. Also: The Brisbane Times is reporting: The ride the article is referring to is Hotwheels Sidewinder.

The news about the park not opening prior to funerals has already been posted. You're not the only one but please try to see if stuff has been posted already. It isn't as chaotic as Parkz was on Tuesday so looking back on posts won't take too long anymore. Please read this post I just made which does answer the question of park staff being paid. Also, Seven News reporting: If the harness referred to by 1 person as 'actually moving' was the Thunder River Rapids harness, it is a vecro strap - it is meant to move. It just must not come loose from the raft.

The ABC reported that the families weren't even contacted by the QLD Police nor could they communicate with the QLD Police themselves. QLD Police's response to the claim was: The Chief Executive Officer of Ardent Leisure (soon to be officially called Main Event Entertainment) has also said (referring to the poor communication with the families): Also from the ABC: Also, the ABC reported from the same article that the Dreamworld CEO said staff would continue to be paid while the park was closed.

Here's an additional part of the quote reported by The Australian: Ardent Leisure's (soon to be officially called Main Event Entertainment) share price dropped again today by 5% this time - not a significant drop in size - but it is nearly back out of the 2 year trend it was in again so it was a significant drop in some way. This drop is likely to be attributed to Ardent Leisure's poor crisis management. Some details about when a potential re-opening could happen from The Australian:

No, I haven't read it. I tried looking briefly for an answer but I ran out of time so I posted the link here for someone else who had the time.

It is in the undercover walkway between the Main Street fountain & The Claw. His exact quote from the transcript was: If anyone wants to check to be absolutely sure of the Chairman's powers to defer votes, here is Ardent Leisure's company constitution.

Yeah, I agree with your definition but not for 'typical theme park incidents' but for 'typical amusement ride incidents' instead. Using the words 'theme parks' made it sound like you talking more broadly than amusement rides hence the small disagreement earlier. You were focusing on ride systems while I was thinking you were referring to general theme park management, which is what the public/media probably would see it as - particularly with the scale of the media's sensationalism in today's world. If the fire wasn't caused by the ride system like the findings said, then it is not a 'typical amusement ride incident' like you said. It could be a 'typical theme park incident' though as it may have been due to staff ignoring park policies or not maintaining the non-ride system electrical systems to the standards of 1979. The findings did state there was a serious breach of duty of care by Luna Park in regards to fire safety which would be amountable to poor theme park management. In the end, when the Ghost Train's enquiry began, no one knew any possible cause of the fire. This is the stage of enquiry that DW is in - no one knows how 1 raft blocked the path of another or why the conveyor belt didn't stop operating. For we all we know, Thunder River Rapids may have had no faults in the ride system or it's operating procedures, which would mean the current incident at hand doesn't meet your definition either. The way everyone is reacting now is probably how they were reacting in June 1979. That's why, at this stage, I think it is fair to compare the Ghost Train fire with the Thunder River Rapids incident as all we know are the basics which are the same in both cases so far - it involves fatalities on a ride at a theme park with only basic details of how the incident occurred.