WTF Merlin?

[Coastiesaurus]

Different business structures in place as well though…. Paultons is family owned whereas Merlin being owned by private investment firms means that they expect their return on investment above everything else. Paultons also charge a much higher entrance fee as well.

 

[Nicky Borrill]

Different business structures in place as well though…. Paultons is family owned whereas Merlin being owned by private investment firms means that they expect their return on investment above everything else. Paultons also charge a much higher entrance fee as well.

Paulton's seems to be fantastically well run. I wouldn't worry about Paultons at all.

Here's some examples of UK major park's performances over the last couple of years.

Mingo made a profit in the latest reported year, but only 450k, down from 3.3M the year before. Their wage costs were 35.6% of turnover, up from 29% the year before. This is where things could get very messy, with wage costs rising significantly again this year. Mingo has a surprisingly massive chunk in reserve banked though. Like massive, enough to just decide to build a bigger better Hyperia.

Oakwood have accounts due in the next 4 months, but their last accounts showed a loss of over 2M, after making a profit of over half a million in the year before. Overall they were almost 1.9M in the red. Very worrying

BPB are later than usual with their accounts. They were in by now last time, they have around a month left until the final deadline to submit them. But their last accounts showed a drop in turnover, 31.8M down from 39.1M the previous year, a horrendous drop. They made a loss of 790k... After making a profit, the year before, of 6.46M. Their balance sheet was already 2.2M in the red after those accounts, and with delaying entering accounts this year, and lots of movement on the board, directors resigning and new director coming in this month. I fear that this is all because they are not going to make pretty reading. I'm worried about BPB, but I think somebody will always step in to prop them up and get them through.

And I repeat, again, this coming year is potentially going to be one of the toughest years on record for hospitality and leisure! Worse than Covid, as there is no support, only more hands extended, wanting more money. Meanwhile guests have less to spend, are being more frugal and turnover is down for most especially when adjusted for inflation. Where businesses were already struggling, it's going to be one hell of an uphill task turning it around.

Why are these theme parks not able to make money? Are we not paying a price that truly reflects their costs? Are our expectations of what a day out should cost unrealistic, in an era where a 2 hour concert ticket costs upward of £250pp, just to get in?

Paultons smashed it with almost 5M profit!!! And they're sitting on almost 17M in equity!!! Don't worry about Paulton's, instead look at Paulton's and ask what exactly they're doing differently!!! (Although it isn't all roses, their turnover remained the same, and profits dipped slightly on the previous year. But in the current climate, they absolutely smashed it.)

BTW, Even Drayton managed a profit on their most recent accounts. They're also due to release another set in the next 4 months though.

I realise this post is long, boring, and poorly written... But the tl;dr is this, if you want these parks to survive, get out and support them this year, stop slating them for what they don't or can't do, the money simply isn't there right now, across the board. Accept the prices they need to charge, they're clearly not 'ripping you off' or they'd be rolling in profit. Make the most of these parks, or it could be too late sooner than you think, even the parks that are doing very well, are not doing 'as well' as they were a few years ago.

 

[Nicky Borrill]

Don't know if it's been mentioned before, search suggests not, but it's official as of yesterday anyway, Leisure Island, Canvey (near Southend) to close.

No reasons given, seems there's been some personal stuff behind the scenes, and a fire, but weirdly also went out of their way to mention that 95% of their staff were youngsters in the statement, which is a bit odd, and why I'm sharing here rather than small news.

Leisure Island Fun Park

We are sadly announcing the closure of Leisure Island Fun Park on Canvey Seafront. The site has now been cleared of all rides and facilities. Can we thank EVERYONE who has supported us over the...

www.facebook.com

Canvey Leisure Island amusement park announces closure

Leisure Island's owners say all rides and attractions have now been removed from the site.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[davidm]

Fiona Eastwood officially CEO now;

Merlin Entertainments, a world leader in branded entertainment destinations, today announces the appointment of Fiona Eastwood as Chief Executive Officer with immediate effect. This follows her initial appointment to the role on an interim basis, at the end of November 2024. She will be responsible for leading the implementation of the business’s transformational strategy, and to ensure it is well placed to grow at scale and deliver a sustainable, thriving future.

Source : https://www.merlinentertainments.biz/newsroom/news-releases/2025/fiona-eastwood-ceo/

 

[Matt N]

I’ve had an interesting thought about some of the recent developments at Merlin with regard to some of the attraction sales and closures.

I’m not saying that current developments at Merlin are good on the whole, but if the company is being heavily restructured, is it not arguably somewhat of a good sign that the company is thinking of trimming fat in terms of attraction quantity rather than focusing solely on cutting budgets at existing attractions as they have in the past?

For years, people moaned that Merlin was too aggressively hyper focused on expansion and diversification, and “catching the mouse”, above all else. There were moans that the money within Merlin was being pumped into expansion and diversification rather than improving quality and maintaining experience at their existing attractions, and that the company was pursuing quantity over quality with its attractions.

But if the company is saying that it wants to sell Sea Life centres and is closing attractions like Bear Grylls and the Little Big Cities, is this not a sign that the company has moved away from its arguably damaging “quantity over quality” and “expansion above all else” mindset of the past?

Recent developments suggest to me that the company is trying to streamline its portfolio, shoring up its core offering and shedding some of its dead weight, which seems very out of step with the previous “catching the mouse” mentality of the late 2000s and 2010s. While attractions being closed or sold is obviously never ideal, I’d argue that the fact it’s happening as part of a company restructure suggests that Merlin may finally be abandoning its aggressive, expansion-focused mindset of the past and moved to instead trying to maintain an offering at their existing attractions in the long run (the widespread outsourcing has the potential to be a concerning development if handled poorly, but I don’t think we have concrete proof that it will be as yet).

In a company that expanded and diversified as aggressively as Merlin did during the late 2000s and 2010s, there was bound to be some dead weight somewhere, so hopefully the fact that they’re stripping this away instead of pursuing more and more expansion and diversification might lead to greater profitability and prosperity among the remaining core offering in the long term.

Does anyone get where I’m coming from? Or am I missing something, or do I sound overly naive?

 

[Nicky Borrill]

I’ve had an interesting thought about some of the recent developments at Merlin with regard to some of the attraction sales and closures.

I’m not saying that current developments at Merlin are good on the whole, but if the company is being heavily restructured, is it not arguably somewhat of a good sign that the company is thinking of trimming fat in terms of attraction quantity rather than focusing solely on cutting budgets at existing attractions as they have in the past?

For years, people moaned that Merlin was too aggressively hyper focused on expansion and diversification, and “catching the mouse”, above all else. There were moans that the money within Merlin was being pumped into expansion and diversification rather than improving quality and maintaining experience at their existing attractions, and that the company was pursuing quantity over quality with its attractions.

But if the company is saying that it wants to sell Sea Life centres and is closing attractions like Bear Grylls and the Little Big Cities, is this not a sign that the company has moved away from its arguably damaging “quantity over quality” and “expansion above all else” mindset of the past?

Recent developments suggest to me that the company is trying to streamline its portfolio, shoring up its core offering and shedding some of its dead weight, which seems very out of step with the previous “catching the mouse” mentality of the late 2000s and 2010s. While attractions being closed or sold is obviously never ideal, I’d argue that the fact it’s happening as part of a company restructure suggests that Merlin may finally be abandoning its aggressive, expansion-focused mindset of the past and moved to instead trying to maintain an offering at their existing attractions in the long run (the widespread outsourcing has the potential to be a concerning development if handled poorly, but I don’t think we have concrete proof that it will be as yet).

In a company that expanded and diversified as aggressively as Merlin did during the late 2000s and 2010s, there was bound to be some dead weight somewhere, so hopefully the fact that they’re stripping this away instead of pursuing more and more expansion and diversification might lead to greater profitability and prosperity among the remaining core offering in the long term.

Does anyone get where I’m coming from? Or am I missing something, or do I sound overly naive?

Yep, spot on.

It's interesting that they seem to be focusing on their resorts, whereas a few years ago, the suggestion was that they focused too much on midway attractions, and neglected their resorts. If / when they make it through, what appears to be a tricky transitional period, it could be a net positive for their resorts.

 

[Geeky Pastimes]

Does it indicate any real investment anywhere else though (especially with the news about them cutting staff at Alton Towers for example last year)?

Like if my bills have gone up and I sell my car so I can keep up with them, it doesn't mean I'm suddenly going to start investing more in my garden - it just means I'm in trouble.

 

[Matt N]

Does it indicate any real investment anywhere else though (especially with the news about them cutting staff at Alton Towers for example last year)?

Like if my bills have gone up and I sell my car so I can keep up with them, it doesn't mean I'm suddenly going to start investing more in my garden - it just means I'm in trouble.

On its own, no, but my thinking is that if the company returns to decent profitability as a result of this restructuring and shedding of dead weight attractions-wise, the profits made can be divided amongst fewer attractions, thus (in theory) meaning that more can be allocated to each individual attraction.

Am I making any sense?

 

[Nicky Borrill]

Does it indicate any real investment anywhere else though (especially with the news about them cutting staff at Alton Towers for example last year)?

Like if my bills have gone up and I sell my car so I can keep up with them, it doesn't mean I'm suddenly going to start investing more in my garden - it just means I'm in trouble.

No, you would expect the ship to be steadied first.

If you sold your car to bring in some extra cash and save on costs, you wouldn't then go splashing that cash, you'd wait until your income allowed. (Unless you're me, and irresponsible of course. )

 

[Coastiesaurus]

I visited Weymouth Sea Life centre 3 years ago. It’s no surprise to me that a company like Merlin would be looking to rid themselves of sites such as that one. I mean, I love visiting aquariums but it was run down even 3 years ago and the cost of running them can only have increased in the time since then. At least with the big city centre ones they get more footfall and associated secondary spend that goes with it (and for most of the year, not just in touristy high season).

Will selling the sea life centres mean an increase in potential investments in their other sites? Sadly I think: no. Or at least I don’t think there will be an improved customer offering. My basis for this could be summed up in the following phrase: ‘when a company shows you who they are, believe them’. Time and time again they’ve shown that budgets will be slashed in order to meet short term financial goals. I mean, with this one they’re not saying ‘no, entertainment is important for how customers think about our parks therefore we must protect it for the long term’ are they? The inflow has been less than expected so therefore something in the outflow column must be sacrificed. And that’s fair enough, their private equity owners are in it to make money and they are businesses at the end of the day. Which is what I think it comes down to - the structure demands immediate ROI. And my opinion is that they will continue to act that way. And it is of course just that: my opinion. All others are fully respected

I’m probably too cynical but surely we’ve all seen this story before?

 

[JoshC.]

As has been mentioned, the selling and closing of attractions is a significantly different strategy to what Merlin have been doing in the past.

In the past, it was all about growth. The phrase "Catch the mouse" was basically told to every member of staff at every Merlin attraction just over a decade ago. That was in reference to them being the second-largest visitor attraction company in the world, and them wanting to overtake Disney and become number 1. Whilst that phrase disappeared around 2016/17 from being forced down every staff member's throat, it was still very much the goal. They were expanding.

Merlin were creating new brands and looking at cracking China. The Bear Grylls experience was designed and tested in Birmingham because Bear Grylls is incredibly popular in China. One of the reasons Merlin bought the Rest of World rights to Peppa Pig was so they could create Peppa Pig play areas all over China. Little Big City was something which had huge potential, but just didn't happen for whatever reason. Shrek was a nice idea but a mis-step. But the key thing here is that they were creating new brands with an aim for growth.

They were also expanding and trying new areas. For example, San Francisco is a very difficult location to open branded visitor attractions, as there's a great deal of competition, people don't go there for a worldwide brand, and local-ish people would be happy going further afield. But if you are successful in San Francisco, you will make a tonne of money. So Merlin, in 2014, took a risk and opened a Madame Tussauds and Dungeons out there. At first it worked, but its returns and success diminished, which is why eventually bother of those closed.
It's a similar story for quite a few of the new attractions that have been opened up in recent years.

So, to get back to my point and the more direct conversation at hand. By closing attractions, some of which that have been around for a long time, selling others, etc, it does represent a significant change to strategy. Whether it's just a "we have no chance of being the most-visited and we're haemorrhaging money, so let's shrink to save money" or "we have no chance of being the most-visited, so let's narrow our field and get more money out of our biggest earners" is unclear for now. Both of those things can be true too.

The main thing right now is that for several months, there have been cuts and redundancies which are affecting real people. Some of those are having direct impact on the parks, some of them are just changing how the business operates behind the scenes. Regardless, it's those people that are hit the hardest for now.