I consider the 50% of income from Texas for The Main Event to be...

I consider the 50% of income from Texas for The Main Event to be dominant stream. The problem with this situation is that half of TME's income is now estimated to be in a low single digit growth region. In other words, half of the TME business (and importantly where dollar value on funds invested should be best maximised due to establishment costs) is low growth.

True, the other half of The Main Event (TME) income will come from other states. States that all have much smaller economies than Texas (2^nd largest in US) and not one dollar from California (the largest in US and 8^th largest economy in the world). Growth needs to come from Texas for AAD to be profitable in the future.

Establishing niche businesses in the smaller US states may look good in a 'Presentation'. But the reality is clear. The smaller the economy of a state or country the more susceptible it is to the larger economies it competes against and the more open it is to a downturn.

True, AAD has reduced its debt level. It had too. Oh and by the way, the big negative was that in the process it has severely reduced its spread of profit streams. An effect that no amount of extra bowling alleys, pin ball machines or plates of pizza will cover. Since the US has an amazing variety of companies that offer the range of fun/entertainment services marketed by TME. I think that is why (prudently) AAD have not attempted to establish its TME business model in California. There is simply too much competition!

The world does not stand still. Dream World needs to win back those customers who have gone to AAD's competitors. AAD needs to spend millions on making its theme park a modern and economically superior business. Maybe then it might have a future. But I doubt that, the recent history of events at DW will not fade anywhere as quickly as some investors would like. As I stated previously, the Inquest will be a determining factor in the future prospects of DW and AAD.

The nature of a Coronial Inquest, and particularly one where the public interest attached to its narrative, virtually guarantees that AAD dealings will be scrutinised in ways few other company's get to be inspected by the forensic eye of the court and watched so intently by the gaze of public opinion.

And what happens if the findings of the Inquest encourages one or more of the families of the four deceased young people to sue AAD for Wrongful Death?

What marvels of marketing will AAD offer besides a sea of platitudes and contritcous spin? The truism: free publicity is good publicity is an utter nonsense in this instance.