Levram__

Honestly, is it just me, or can you two put it to rest!

Im not an expert but... I'd have to agree with @New display name here. Even though a name hasn't been stated, the statement made calls out three suspicious assertions, not exactly observations. That combination can make the person reasonably identifiable within an industry or peer group, which is enough for defamation risk, especially in a relatively tight sector like theme parks. Not too late to edit your post...?

It should be acknowledged that the image may not be AI-generated. This type of layered visual style is well within the capability of professional graphic designers, and similar works have been produced internally within park creative teams.

The position appears to be a combination of both. My understanding is that the area will remain as is until the park determines its longer-term plans for the space. While a number of ideas have been discussed, I am not aware of any active development currently underway. In terms of the broader park presentation, while the overall licensing agreement does carry some significance through the annualised visits from the WB team, I understand the park has also adopted a renewed focus on overall presentation standards more generally.

Cash at rebuild is not an accurate reflection of total investment costs. During that period, cash reserves continued to be deployed across a range of initiatives, including buy-back schemes, which are an example of non-direct investment expenditure. A large-scale investment for a Village or Coast asset would typically sit within the $20M–$30M range. In the current environment, any capital deployment beyond that level would generally require a robust and well-substantiated return on investment case. While it appears unlikely, based on Greg’s comments during the call, if a decision were made in the coming months to proceed with an investment of that scale, and allowing for a 16–20 month delivery and opening timeline, current operating performance of DW/WWW and capital investment trends indicate the business could reasonably absorb up to two-thirds, if not more, of the project costs through operating cash flow, while still maintaining a healthy cash position.

Their cash position is still extremely healthy, not to mention they still ended up reporting a growth in their cash inflow over the 6 months, with the King Claw capital costs being absorbed within operating cash flow.

Well, maybe the guest experience specialist should have it changed? Safety isn't a cop-out; the legitimate length of the parade now means that all elements of the parade can't be consumed inside the roundabout to avoid any double-passing. So, as such, it is unsafe for those older, wide birth floats to pass each other down the street.

Both parks did indeed have production and execution challenges with Pico though.

I agree, i don't know why they didn't just carry over the same queue rails they are installing at King Claw but with a brown powder coated finish. Bit of a miss here..

Batman Exhibit I agree with for Fright Nights, I don't think its a necessity to the offering. However I agree with the view that all other primary attractions should be on offer to manage the guest experience. At the end of the event its all going to contribute to what the average guest perceives the value to be. The ability to quantify the number of rides, experiences and shows on a visit to the parks is often a go to metric for the average guest when considering "value for money". Which I'm sure would heavily impact the NPS score for the event.

Its my understanding the essential infrastructure for the fire ball still remains.

Risk was not the main driver here. In a pandemic recovery period, every significant financial decision was being scrutinised. Unfortunately timing and cost played a key factor in the effects demise. That's also not to say it wouldn't or couldn't return in the future if its creatively considered essential to the new show. In that instance the reinstatement would become a capital cost to the project verse, general R&M.

There would have been equivalent indirect expenses in FY24 and lose of revenue associated with this payout however. Its not a silver bullet... There would also be risk associated with the claim regarding impacts on the premium. Which they also appear to have done a pretty reasonable job at reducing their premiums in the corporate spend space.

I did say "these days" being present tense. Important to note, particularly in QLD significant changes have occurred since 2015 with regards to the legislation and the introduction of the code of practice. There is a greater responsibility on all parties involved in the process, the engineer, the operator and the regulator. Love your optimism though...

Regardless of who the OEM is for a device, Intamin or a cheap Chinese device, these days the risk of such a serious design flaw in a device entering or being installed in Australia is mitigated by a very stringent design registration process. Which requires one of very few, Australian registered and qualified engineers to verify the design of a amusement device in order for the regulator to issue design registration, among many other things. That includes assessing the loads on critical components etc. Most states follow the same guidelines with some minor variation here or there. For example I believe Victoria allows devices pre 1995 to operate without design registration, but that's being proposed to change.