I'm going to sit on the fence a tad here and admit that I can see both sides of this argument.
On the one hand, I do agree with the sentiment of wanting to support UK parks. It's a difficult time for the industry right now for a smorgasbord of reasons, and as fans of the industry, surely we should be shooting for parks at all levels to succeed and trying our best to give them the best shot at success possible? I agree with
@Nicky Borrill in saying that I'd struggle to say that I've had a day at a theme park I haven't enjoyed or found positive moments in to at least some extent. Yes, the day I only got on 3 rides at Alton, or the day I only got on 2 rides at Thorpe, or the day where everything seemed to go wrong for me in Universal Orlando were very frustrating days that I don't look upon too fondly compared to other park days, for sure, but they were still better than no park day at all, and I would still say I found positives in all of them. To link that back to the topic at hand; while some UK parks might not be at their best right now, us going and supporting them might help them along towards giving them that bit of ambition to put a bit more back in when financial circumstances get better. You also never know quite what you might be missing at a UK park you've never been to, even if it might not look that special on the face of it.
I'm also going to agree with Nicky in saying that I feel the rock bottom rhetoric surrounding Merlin in particular is overcooked at times. Don't get me wrong, I think it's fair to acknowledge that the parks have issues that need addressing, particularly in the arena of ride availability in the case of some, but they still do a lot right. With the way some people talk, you'd think the Merlin parks had devolved into third rate roadside funfairs, but I personally feel that they are still strong parks that do a lot well, even if they aren't without flaws.
On the other hand, I do understand the arguments of cost and "why go to a mediocre park when you can go to a better one for the same price?". Parks are not charities, and we are consumers, so they should work for our custom to some extent. And despite what I said above about the current difficult operating climate, I'd be lying if I said that I didn't think at least some of many UK parks' current woes were self-inflicted. Do I feel that the demise of Oakwood was self-inflicted, for example? To a significant degree, yes; they didn't invest into maintaining a good experience and keeping the product fresh, and it eventually came back to bite them. Beyond Oakwood, the lack of prosperity of many UK parks can be attributed at least in part to a lack of investment when things were, relatively speaking "better", I feel. And from most people's personal standpoint; money is limited. Logically, why would you return to a park that hasn't invested when another one is rolling out the red carpet and investing in fresh new attractions?
I don't think you have to feel too bad about sitting on the fence here. I think all of those points are sensible.
I obviously agree with the first 2 paragraphs. But I also agree with the last one. I've spent my entire gooning life visiting parks with the best hardware, or parks I've never visited, to try hardware that 'might' be decent. As mentioned earlier in the thread. I can't criticise anybody else for doing that. And, for some parks, many of the issues they are now facing, with these current economic woes that are outside of their control, have absolutely been compounded by the poor decisions they made, when the going was good (or better, at least.) They have certainly had better times, in which they could have invested more into hardware, guest experience and, upkeep, but they didn't, and now there's less money to do that with. Paulton's are the perfect example of this (Ian is going to love that.) They've invested, they have a good level of equity, and I think they'll do well, (however, they're not immune!)
I think I should also make something else clear. Not to you Matt, as such, but to the thread in general. I don't think these troubles will be limited just to parks that haven't invested, nor to small parks, so it won't just affect parks that have made things worse for themselves. We won't know for a year or two obviously, as accounts are submitted so long after the fact. So this is all theoretical, and (semi) educated guesswork. But I am fully expecting last year, this year, and next year, to have been very difficult, if not loss making, for many parks. Including some of the ones we tend to think of as successful, or parks that have done fairly well up to their 22/23 accounts. I obviously don't know how their public accounts work, or how to access them, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the story is similar in Europe too, over the next few years. (Minus the effects of our own previous budget, of course.)
So by all means, if you 'only' want to support your favourite parks, then do that. Because I wouldn't be surprised if they really needed the support right now too. Everybody is working under the same economic conditions after all. Even Paultons 22/23 accounts wiped around £1.6M off their profits, as well as their equity/balance, that's not chump change, and we're yet to see if that continued in 2024. So even the best placed parks will be hoping for better times.
But I personally remain mindful, that a lack of competition has never been a breeding ground for innovation or advancement. And that I personally don't want to look back, if we lose a load of UK parks, with any regrets. That's a personal choice. Everybody else can make their own.
(Some may even think 'good riddens, more guests for the other parks means more money to invest for the survivors,' I hope nobody else raises that point, as I have no answer, honestly.
That may well be the case, as long as there's still 'some' competition.
)
At least we're talking about it, that is a good thing. Even if we don't all agree entirely.
Hopefully others take a similar stance / approach now.
)
