Inside Universal Forums

Welcome to the Inside Universal Forums! Register a free account today to become a member. Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members and unlock our forums features!

  • Signing up for a Premium Membership is a donation to help Inside Universal maintain costs and offers an ad-free experience on the forum. Learn more about it here.

Universal Orlando Resort Expansion (Part 1)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well there's 2 reasons it could make sense.

1) Warner has the most important theme park franchises to Universal potentially (especially if LOTR and DC are involved)

2) Maybe a permanent or longer term arrangement can be worked out instead of just 15-20 year licensing arrangements, which become a bit problematic when you go to renegotiate them if they're extremely successful.

On that note good luck to the Universal guys that have to negotiate the next Harry Potter deal with Warner.

But back to Nick was saying...if Universal isn't the one dictating price...whats stopping other people from paying for cheap attractions.
 
AT&T is trying to buy TW (parent of WB) at the moment. I think they'll win the antitrust case and takeover WB.

Too much of an anti-trust mess for Comcast to try to buy all of TW because of TW's Turner cable nets (CNN/TNT being combined with USA/Bravo/MSNBC/CNBC would never fly).

WB (just the studio) is worth around $25 billion probably.

If the AT&T-TW merger fails, maybe Sony and Comcast can work together to split up TW.

Sony would take over Turner for $45 billion while Comcast would pay $45 billion for WB and HBO and their 10% of Hulu.


Realistically these are all farfetched scenarios though.

On the plus side, if AT&T succeeds at taking over TW, they'll be a very debt heavy company that will be very happy to just take licensing fees for their franchise theme park rights.
Very helpful, thank you

I think it would be interesting if Comcast bought WB, but it is not in their best interest it seems
 
AT&T is trying to buy TW (parent of WB) at the moment. I think they'll win the antitrust case and takeover WB.

Too much of an anti-trust mess for Comcast to try to buy all of TW because of TW's Turner cable nets (CNN/TNT being combined with USA/Bravo/MSNBC/CNBC would never fly).

WB (just the studio) is worth around $25 billion probably.

If the AT&T-TW merger fails, maybe Sony and Comcast can work together to split up TW.

Sony would take over Turner for $45 billion while Comcast would pay $45 billion for WB and HBO and their 10% of Hulu.


Realistically these are all farfetched scenarios though.

On the plus side, if AT&T succeeds at taking over TW, they'll be a very debt heavy company that will be very happy to just take licensing fees for their franchise theme park rights.
or to divest theirselves ie. selling off Warner Film.
 
Something like this does not sound like something i'd expect a world class resort to do. Reminds me of that awful park in Dubai as far as ideas go.

Obviously a lot of conjecture here, but WB holds the cards here. They will be the ones dictating the terms of the next HP and LOTR contracts. If they decide this is the way they want to do it, I'm not sure Universal can just say no.
 
But back to Nick was saying...if Universal isn't the one dictating price...whats stopping other people from paying for cheap attractions.
I'm not sure I understand the context. Do you mean if somebody else is funding Warner attractions (who specifically)?

Universal's position here is to protect their investment, so they'll want full equity ownership and premium attractions with licensing fee payments to the IP owners. I'm not sure I understand the context for cheap attractions (who is building what and where?).
 
I'm not sure I understand the context. Do you mean if somebody else is funding Warner attractions (who specifically)?

Universal's position here is to protect their investment, so they'll want full equity ownership and premium attractions with licensing fee payments to the IP owners. I'm not sure I understand the context for cheap attractions (who is building what and where?).

Disneyhead seem to suggest it would be WB paying Universal essentially operating their park and designing attractions in lieu of the paying a licensing fee and WB would be paying for the attractions for a small portion of the profits.

Which was my point as why it would be bad if entertainment partners decided to cheap out since they dictate attraction costs as they are paying for it.
 
Disneyhead seem to suggest it would be WB paying Universal essentially operating their park and designing attractions in lieu of the paying a licensing fee and WB would be paying for the attractions for a small portion of the profits.

Which was my point as why it would be bad if entertainment partners decided to cheap out since they dictate attraction costs as they are paying for it.
Oh I see. Yeah, given how Universal is financing these park investments (borrowing for the immediate expenditure and then paying off with cash flow from the resorts' profits), I don't think Universal would want a cheaper arrangement like that. Universal resorts throws off $2 billion+ in annual earnings before interest/taxes/depreciation/amortization.

Could it be cheaper for Universal? Sure. But it'd be a smaller overall profit pool for Universal too so I don't think they'd do that.

More likely would be Universal borrowing $1.5-2 billion to build a 100 acre "Warner Movie World" and then giving Warner 30-40% of the park's profits in exchange for a permanent right to use their name and DC in Orlando (assuming DC in Orlando is carved out of the Six Flags deal). Maybe toss in LOTR movie look as well and I'd call it a fair deal. Warner would earn $60-80 million+ a year for just giving its name and DC/LOTR rights.

Obviously a lot of conjecture here, but WB holds the cards here. They will be the ones dictating the terms of the next HP and LOTR contracts. If they decide this is the way they want to do it, I'm not sure Universal can just say no.
In a weird way, the Warner-Universal deal for Harry Potter is now like a cable channel carriage agreement for paytv providers...

Why? Because imagine the scenario where Universal and Warner are unable to come to terms by June 30, 2029. Do you want to imagine what attendance would look like that winter if Harry Potter is completely closed in USF/IoA post-expansion?

I'm not saying that would happen, but it's just a point of reality that Universal is now extremely dependent on Warner for USF/IoA given how important Harry Potter is.

If that extends to LOTR (i.e. using the movie look from Warner as part of a Tolkien deal) as well as DC in a potential 4th dry park, then I'm sure Universal might want a more permanent arrangement.

There'd be a very heavy reliance on Warner at that point, and unless there's something more permanent than 15-20 year deals, it's a double edged sword. Great IPs, but very costly.

An example of a more permanent arrangement would be a permanent fixed ratio of profits in exchange for rights (maybe closer to the Spielberg deal but not quite as open ended) like I mentioned in the above response if a bigger deal was worked out for the 4th dry park.
 
Oh I see. Yeah, given how Universal is financing these park investments (borrowing for the immediate expenditure and then paying off with cash flow from the resorts' profits), I don't think Universal would want a cheaper arrangement like that. Universal resorts throws off $2 billion+ in annual earnings before interest/taxes/depreciation/amortization.

Could it be cheaper for Universal? Sure. But it'd be a smaller overall profit pool for Universal too so I don't think they'd do that.

More likely would be Universal borrowing $1.5-2 billion to build a 100 acre "Warner Movie World" and then giving Warner 30-40% of the park's profits in exchange for a permanent right to use their name and DC in Orlando (assuming DC in Orlando is carved out of the Six Flags deal). Maybe toss in LOTR movie look as well and I'd call it a fair deal. Warner would earn $60-80 million+ a year for just giving its name and DC/LOTR rights.


In a weird way, the Warner-Universal deal for Harry Potter is now like a cable channel carriage agreement for paytv providers...

Why? Because imagine the scenario where Universal and Warner are unable to come to terms by June 30, 2029. Do you want to imagine what attendance would look like that winter if Harry Potter is completely closed in USF/IoA post-expansion?

I'm not saying that would happen, but it's just a point of reality that Universal is now extremely dependent on Warner for USF/IoA given how important Harry Potter is.

If that extends to LOTR (i.e. using the movie look from Warner as part of a Tolkien deal) as well as DC in a potential 4th dry park, then I'm sure Universal might want a more permanent arrangement.

There'd be a very heavy reliance on Warner at that point, and unless there's something more permanent than 15-20 year deals, it's a double edged sword. Great IPs, but very costly.

An example of a more permanent arrangement would be a permanent fixed ratio of profits in exchange for rights (maybe closer to the Spielberg deal but not quite as open ended) like I mentioned in the above response if a bigger deal was worked out for the 4th dry park.
I feel that Universal only needs WB for HP and maybe LOTR...They can have the rest

Universal now has:
Illumination
Dreamworks
Nintendo

That's really all they need for a new park...Maybe throw in some classic Universal movie nods for the fans, and we're good

The Water Park could be themed to something like VB and call it a day
 
How big do you think the parking garage will be at this site? Same size as one from the current land with the possibility to add a 2nd one in the future?

There's a lot of non-theme park/hotel/citywalk topics such as infrastructure and transportation that I find interesting about expansion.
 
Just imagine what would happen if Uni. lost the lawsuit. That could turn into a big mess.
I don't think Uni will lose. Maybe cause further delay, but not lose.

Yea. Uni “losing” basically just means the payoff for Satan Thomas will be bigger. You’re gonna see a park over there eventually

EDIT: "Satan Thomas" was an autocorrect from my phone. I'm just gonna leave it
 
Last edited:
If they start this year or next, a 2022/23 opening is feasible.

The question is how much cleanup is needed on the land. I know there was a round of cleanup on it years ago, but if it needs more that could take a while.

If they have real, concrete plans ready to go and there's no additional cleanup necessary 2022 is a real possibility. IoA, CityWalk, and the resorts only took 2 years to build
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top