What's new

M&D's Theme Park goes into Administration

Pokemaniac

Mountain monkey
Staff member
Administrator
Moderator
To counter that, how large would a circle centered on Tusenfryd have to be to encompass over 4 million people? Or Kolmården?
I found a handy map for that.
It's around 250 (radius) km in TusenFryd's case. A tad over 175 km for Kolmården. Neither of those are particularly big parks, as amusement parks go, and local competition is pretty much non-existent. For M&D's, it's around 100 km.

It illustrates the issue, though, that if you increase the radius to 200 km, M&D's's circle encompasses around 7 million people. Not much of an increase considering it quadruples the area it spans. A similar circle centered on York reaches almost 25 million. Flamingoland has more than three times the number of people to draw guests from within that day trip radius, which is why it can grow so much despite competition.

I do agree that M&D's probably could have grown larger, though. Maybe not as large as Flamingo Land, but bigger than its current size. It just looks like it requires a lot of investment to get there. Maybe RCDB's one picture of the park was taken on a particularly bad day, but it doesn't really look like the place I'd visit more than once. It really has the look of a travelling fair that never left.
 

davidm

Strata Poster
Kolmarden and TusenFryd are "nice" parks though, M&Ds wasn't.

A "nice" park in the Scottish countryside might have stood a chance - but no-one is ever going to get permission to spoil the Scottish countryside with ugly roller coasters, so the only option for that catchment area is to build something scabby on scabby redeveloped urban land ; hence M&Ds.
 

FarleyFlavors

Mega Poster
Ooh, nice resource! Well played.
It's around 250 (radius) km in TusenFryd's case. A tad over 175 km for Kolmården. Neither of those are particularly big parks, as amusement parks go, and local competition is pretty much non-existent. For M&D's, it's around 100 km.

It illustrates the issue, though, that if you increase the radius to 200 km, M&D's's circle encompasses around 7 million people. Not much of an increase considering it quadruples the area it spans. A similar circle centered on York reaches almost 25 million. Flamingoland has more than three times the number of people to draw guests from within that day trip radius, which is why it can grow so much despite competition.
Point taken about the much larger catchment area around York (and I just found out that Yorkshire has a larger population than the whole of Scotland).

But using that handy tool throws up some catchment areas with large parks that are vaguely similar to M&D's statistics.

Barcelona - 100km 5.5 million, 200km 7.2 million.
Minneapolis - 100km 3.5 million, 200km 5.9 million.
Salt Lake City - 100km 2 million, 200km 2.2 million.
Gold Coast - 100km 2.2 million, 200km 2.9 million
Ankara (yeah I know, not the best of examples) 100km 4 million, 200km 9.5 million.

Even Cedar Point has fewer people living within a 100km radius than M&D's.
 

FarleyFlavors

Mega Poster
A "nice" park in the Scottish countryside might have stood a chance - but no-one is ever going to get permission to spoil the Scottish countryside with ugly roller coasters, so the only option for that catchment area is to build something scabby on scabby redeveloped urban land ; hence M&Ds.
Not the only option surely? How about something decent on scabby redeveloped urban land?
 

Matt N

CF Legend
I definitely think that Scotland could support a larger theme park than M&D's, personally. With the M&D's site, I could potentially see an investor coming in and doing something a bit like what Tayto Park have done in Ireland; start quite small and wait for your business to develop a reputation, then build something really eye-catching (like Cu Chulainn was for Tayto), and then use that as a catalyst for bigger development.
 

Crazycoaster

Giga Poster
Never gunna happen.

The only way a park in scotland would ever work to successfully pull in enough visitors is if a HUGE amount of money was invested. You’d be building a theme park from scratch, one rollercoaster alone is a massive investment, let alone a few of them. You’d have to establish yourself as a park and you’d have to do that with a number of BIG attractions (think Energylandia and what they are doing).

As much as you can be optimistic and say “oh but it could happen if someone wanted to invest”, you only need to look at the lack of progress with the London Resort. Somewhere that has one of the biggest catchment areas in Europe can’t even make progress.
 

Pokemaniac

Mountain monkey
Staff member
Administrator
Moderator
Kolmarden and TusenFryd are "nice" parks though, M&Ds wasn't.
Yeah, after looking more into it, I can definitely see that M&D's problems weren't caused by a lack of potential visitors, but a lack of execution. From pictures, at least, it looks like it never really had the cash to pull off more than being a permanent stop for a travelling fair. Literally every ride is plonked on the bare pavement, every building apart from the entrance is a booth, and the park entrance gives off a strong vibe of "retail park with a few rides out the back". If there is any landscaping at all apart from some trees being behind fences, it's not visible in the pictures. There is no appearance of effort, at least not visibly. It's almost so one can't help but think what a million pounds' worth of polish and shine could have done to the place. One flat ride on a concrete foundation, with a queue line and operator's booth under a solid roof, a little kiosk on the side in a themed building, and bushes sprinkled around to give it some greenery. Not asking for Disney-level theming, but something like Storm in a Teacup or Vortex at Thorpe would probably have been attainable.

Just look at Big Apple compared to Stampbanan at Liseberg. They are approximately the same size coaster, both are travelling coaster models, and probably cost about the same to operate for a year. RCDB doesn't have very good pictures of either, but it's clear that somebody put effort into Stampbanan while the amount of care for Big Apple probably amounted to "assemble the kit over there". Stampbanan has a roof over its station, sits on gravel, and has a few plants among the supports, even some rockwork. Sure, the difference in the budgets of the parks as a whole are light years apart, but it's not like Liseberg is putting any more money into the upkeep of Stampbanan than M&D's could have afforded. We're talking one trip to the garden centre (as far as I can tell there are a half-dozen to choose between within a five-kilometer radius), a wee bit of design work, and a week, tops, of carpentry and paint. It wouldn't have made Big Apple very good, but it would have made it look a lot nicer.

I think @Howie summed up the feel of the place pretty well in one word, and I doubt he's the only person to hold that opinion of M&D's appearance. Even given the same location and ride selection, M&D's probably could have been a much better park, more attractive to revisit, if it just looked nicer. I wonder whether it was its business policy, local building regulations, or simply a lack of money that led to the park looking like that, and now I'm genuinely curious as to how expensive or difficult it would have been to drag it out of that state.
 

Hixee

Flojector
Staff member
Administrator
Moderator
Social Media Team
To talk about any sort of comparison of M&Ds in the same sentence as Liseberg is just hilariously misguided. You're simply not comparing like-for-like.

You're comparing one of the BEST PARKS IN THE WORLD to nothing more than a funfair. Cedar Point used to have Wildcat, that wasn't a defining feature of the park, let's be real.

M&Ds was crap 'cos M&Ds was crap. You don't need a comparison. ;)
 

Pokemaniac

Mountain monkey
Staff member
Administrator
Moderator
Yeah, but one doesn't have to be Liseberg to put down a few bushes and some rocks under a coaster and a roof over its station. I doubt the "decorate Stampbanan" post was the defining feature of Liseberg's budget that year. Given the difference in wages between Sweden and Scotland, I doubt M&D's wouldn't have been able to afford something similar for its smallest coaster. It's not a complex animatronic, it's a pile of rocks, a shed roof, and some thuja bushes. It's not something that requires a complex design process, a team of design consultants and engineers, or weeks of labour. Question remains why something like it wasn't done. Not necessarily for Big Apple, but for anywhere in the park. It looks like no effort was put into making M&D's look good anywhere. Was it a lack of ability, lack of money, or lack of desire?
 

Professor

Previously AndrewRollercoaster
Some really interesting comments here. I agree with most points of view.

If Scotland had had its own Liseberg it may have done well. (Maybe some of that ridiculously inflated £400 million cost of the Scottish parliament building could have been spent on that with grants, interesting to see the Polish government do things very different with available EU grants).

Personally I'd rather have a set of coasters than another freakin' golf course but it is the latter that has been seen as not spoiling the landscape and thus even the devolved government happily supports golf courses when Trump comes along or during this difficult time right now.

M&Ds was always going to struggle with relatively cheap funfair coasters and practically no theming. The polar opposite we seem to have in the UK is a place such as Paultons which just looks incredibly pretty and family friendly and thus has been able to spread its wings significantly.
 

Pokemaniac

Mountain monkey
Staff member
Administrator
Moderator
Yes.

It's M&Ds.
Then the question becomes: If some new administration was to come along, would they have been able to do things differently? Or are there local restrictions that prevent the park from erecting permanent structures, or introducing new plants to the area? Or are the rides operating/approved on the condition that no additions or alterations are made to their configuration? Or would the park teeter off the edge finance-wise if a gardener was employed?

It seems fairly simple to do just a little to touch up the park. Adding a little bit of something that's nice to look at and doesn't like it's ready to be scooped up by a forklift and loaded onto a lorry at two minutes' notice. Making it look less like the place is one week (in either direction) away from being an empty parking lot. It doesn't seem to be particularly expensive or difficult, but it also doesn't seem like it was ever attempted. The park is - well, was, I guess - permanent, but on pictures it looks like nothing was ever bolted in place, just assembled in a corner as if it would only stand there for a week but left in that state for a decade or more. Were there legal reasons for that, either by local authorities or by contract, or did economic necessities dictate that this was the only way things could ever be? Or did the owners just not give a crap? If the latter, could one do like Matt N and be hopeful for better management to buy the place and do a better job? If any of the former, was M&D's in general a hopeless endeavour that no new owners or money could ever improve? Was it left to ruin or doomed to ruin?
 

shaunthatkid

Mega Poster
I definitely think that Scotland could support a larger theme park than M&D's, personally. With the M&D's site, I could potentially see an investor coming in and doing something a bit like what Tayto Park have done in Ireland; start quite small and wait for your business to develop a reputation, then build something really eye-catching (like Cu Chulainn was for Tayto), and then use that as a catalyst for bigger development.
you seem to forget the massive fact which makes Irelands market more exclusive, there is a big body of water between Ireland England and same cannot be said for Scotland its a lot easier for a Scottish person to visit Pink Bird land than an Irish person to visit Brokewood
 

Peet

Giga Poster
Two points - firstly just because a park has gone into administration, it doesn't mean it's closing. Remember Fantasy Island, Dreamland and Six Flags have all been through administration and emerged from the other side. If it is deemed that it could be profitable, then it will likely be sold as a going concern. So we might not be rid of M&D's just yet!

Secondly, if it does close, the lack of coasters in Scotland will be absolutely staggering. With Loudoun Castle long gone, Codona's having sold its Zyklon loop, and now M&D's potentially closing, that would leave Scotland with just four creds - two wacky worms, a go gator, and a small family coaster by IE park!
 

emoo

Hyper Poster
Kolmarden and TusenFryd are "nice" parks though, M&Ds wasn't.

A "nice" park in the Scottish countryside might have stood a chance - but no-one is ever going to get permission to spoil the Scottish countryside with ugly roller coasters, so the only option for that catchment area is to build something scabby on scabby redeveloped urban land ; hence M&Ds.

Who'd have thought building a dump (by all reports) would have failed. Actually sad I missed out on this one.
 

Will

Strata Poster
In all seriousness, I'll be upset if this is the end of Tornado.
It's a massive guilty pleasure and sure, it can be downright vicious, but it's also insanely intense to the point that I prefer it to a number of the UK's more common models.
 

roomraider

Best Topic Starter
In all seriousness, I'll be upset if this is the end of Tornado.
It's a massive guilty pleasure and sure, it can be downright vicious, but it's also insanely intense to the point that I prefer it to a number of the UK's more common models.

I don't have high hopes for it. Its sister ride has been for sale for 13 years with no luck so far. (although now it's probably in too much disrepair)

4170330922_160e3aefc2_b.jpg
 
Top