I understand what you're saying from a purely accounting sense, but Universal has underpaid significantly for their current land based on its potential economic value.They've been paying ~$275,000 an acre for their other recent purchases. While the Ripley's land is valuable, I don't know that its worth 4 times as much an acre as what they have already bought. They bought the 100 acre plot on Sand Lake for 27.5 million. 40 million for 40 just sounds steep. If anything, they might buy a sliver at the northern part of the plot to make a road with the condition of Ripley getting entrance and exit rights to the road onto their property. Couple that with the CW idea above, and maybe something is doable. To buy the whole thing, I think they'd have to be desperate.
Looking further at the UCMP land, I don't know that they can build a cross road with just that. It's tight. If the map site is accurate, we are only talking 25-30 feet between the property edge and the waterway in places. Thats not really wide enough for more than a 2 lane road and that's assuming they could even build there. Otherwise, they'd have to eliminate that waterway, and I can't see that being approved. If that's the case, they either have to use the Mandarin extension or buy land from Ripley. I'm starting to think that routing traffic down Universal might be their best play.
Here's the thing, if you put 1250 hotel rooms on that property and are charging $150 per night on those rooms at 90% capacity; you're basically looking at a profit of somewhere around $10+ million a year on that 40 acres of land.
Forget about the prices paid on the original land, you'd be willing to pay at least $1.5-2 million an acre just to be able to spend $150+ million to create that type of profitable enterprise.
And the main theme park property economic values are even greater (that land is probably worth north of $3 million an acre in terms of its economic potential in the context of 2 major theme parks or a water park or premium hotels that can charge $200-400 a night).
That's why I think Universal would want to cut a deal with Ripley's around the terms of $40 million and a multi-acre complex of Ripley's attractions on CityWalk 2.0.
The reality is this whole case is more about Stan Thomas trying to get as much money as he can out of Universal.Thanks! It was the later restrictions that eluded me. I wonder if the city of Orlando or the county could, by rewriting the law applying to that property, supersede a judges ruling? That is, if the judge rules no theme park ever, ever. Universal cannot sit on its hands appealing ad nauseam.
Universal is the only logical and willing buyer of large parts of the UCPM III land, but the question has always revolved around price. Stan Thomas has used this lawsuit as a way of raising the price.
If the judge rules in favor of Universal, then the land purchase is probably going to be around $200k an acre.
If the judge rules in favor of Stan Thomas, then the land purchase is probably going to be around $400k+ an acre (even though a lot of that land is wetland).
Last edited: