The Future of PortAventura

[UER]

Universal doesn't typically own and manage their hotel/resort properties directly, last I checked. They usually work with a hotel group involved in the process, like Orlandos with Loews.

Lost in translation.

What I meant is that they will manage the PortAventura resort

 

[cgd25]

https://x.com/looopings/status/1745529058853576815?s=46

 

[GA-MBIT]

I hope they don't. Have you seen the reviews of their cruise ship? At least we could get some real cringe names like their waterpark.

This is a pretty old convo, but I wanna to throw it out cause I think it's some niche information that's been interpreted wrong for a few years. The Sunset Walk waterpark has essentially nothing to do with Margaritaville. Completely different management, branding, companies in general. I think some news stories reported it as a Margaritaville water park in the past but they were wrong.

For the topic of PortAventura, MV has even less of a connection to theme parks than maybe even was percieved.

 

[LukiLu]

In today's earnings call, Comcast execs were asked directly about future investment and whether they would continue to build new theme parks. The person asking specifically mentioned the possible park for the UK as an example. They wanted to know if it would continue non-stop after Epic Universe, or if we would get a "spending holiday" from it.

The answer given was that spending would remain elevated with Epic Universe, as well as the already under construction Universal Kids and Horror projects, as we head into 2025. Then spending will decrease. But, if these projects work out and return an investment "we'd be excited in the years to follow—can't predict when—to continue to give the parks & experiences business whatever capital it requires."

Surely acquiring an existing resort would fall under Destinations and Experiences CapEx? Correct me if I'm mistaken, however, that answer pretty much seems to rule out a PortAventura buyout in 2024 or 2025.

 

[UER]

View attachment 20479
View attachment 20480

 

[UniversalRBLX]

bruh

Busch Gardens is selling all kinds of Nintendo/Mario plushes at their carnival games... are we saying Super Nintendo World is canceled at Epic Universe and is moving to Pantopia at Busch Gardens Tampa?!?!?

 

[Alicia]

The more I learn about this resort, the more it becomes clear the resort loves any name recognition or brand integration with Universal properties.

In addition to the IP and characters they continue to license, like Woody Woodpecker, they tend to bring up beloved Universal franchises in social media marketing.

And, as @UniversalRBLX just pointed out, you can purchase any licensed plush to be used as prizes in any setting. SeaWorld parks have offered Nintendo plush for years. Even Universal Orlando offers prizes based on properties they technically do not have the rights to, like Gremlins.

So yea, PAW loves being associated with Universal properties, but that doesn’t mean Comcast wants to own PAW.

 

[UER]

So, nobody got the "I am not giving an opinion", got it.

 

[cgd25]

So, nobody got the "I am not giving an opinion" part, got it.

Nope, and I would have started by saying that it is a really nice JW plush, they can have them right next to Toothless

 

[Nico]

So, nobody got the "I am not giving an opinion" part, got it.

I guess it would be helpful to ask what kind of response you were looking for. The responses so far seem to be thoughtful and point to other examples where this is the case.

 

[Alicia]

You all judge as an opinion even the picture of a plush, don't want my opinion? Well, since there is no delete option, the only alternative was to edit them.

To be fair, you shared your opinion, and a few posters replied with their opinion. This whole forum is opinions back and forth.

Also, since your post about the plush featured a screenshot of text, I presumed it wasn’t even your text, but was shared from someone else somewhere else. I had no way of knowing it was even your opinion in that post, but I was only replying with my thoughts on what it could mean.

And as with any opinion, mine could be wrong.

 

[KentNelson]

What would be more profitable and advantageous for Universal? Building a resort from scratch (UK) or buying a consolidated one, with hotels and a water park, and upgrading it to their quality standards (PA)? And what about the option of executing both projects in the UK and in the European Union? I ask this from total ignorance.

 

[Viator]

What would be more profitable and advantageous for Universal? Building a resort from scratch (UK) or buying a consolidated one, with hotels and a water park, and upgrading it to their quality standards (PA)? And what about the option of executing both projects in the UK and in the European Union? I ask this from total ignorance.

I'd think it boils down in a way that I consider it (and this is speculation on my part)--one is an actual clean startpoint. UK allows them to have the land that they specifically know from that of their purchasing, can work with the intent of operating a park that seems to be a potential year-round destination that can be accessible with a bit of ease.

The other, while a world class park; requires a lot of strings to be moved around, things to be redone to get it up to speed. It might cost less, at first; but the brand identity from PortAventura from the moment NBCUniversal was made to sell off their ownership to now is different. I also think they would feel more comfortable, to continue to license and have promotional merchandise be present; as it can sell in a way that still generates some form of income.

 

[GAcoaster]

What would be more profitable and advantageous for Universal? Building a resort from scratch (UK) or buying a consolidated one, with hotels and a water park, and upgrading it to their quality standards (PA)? And what about the option of executing both projects in the UK and in the European Union? I ask this from total ignorance.

I think if the price is right they do both, but PA is asking WAY TOO MUCH right now.

 

[Altonsky]

Wouldn’t it be extremely time consuming and disruptive for guests if they’re attempting to effectively change a whole park into something Universal would be happy with.

And with the direction they’re going in I assume universal have obviously got a high bar in terms of quality and what they’re willing to put their name too?

And I assume working around guests on this scale whilst the park is still open is not only disruptive but far more expensive than building from the ground up? And it would surely take far longer to get to the a point there they’re happy with the end product.

I dunno, I think it sounds like far more effort than it’s worth.

 

[GAcoaster]

It had been a Universal park, so elements they'd be OK with are still there. They could upgrade around the park over time, but it would take time. One of the biggest stumbling blocks may be them not wanting the Universal name on something that isn't up to their standards. It's hard to win back people who were disappointed.

 

[Altonsky]

It had been a Universal park, so elements they'd be OK with are still there. They could upgrade around the park over time, but it would take time. One of the biggest stumbling blocks may be them not wanting the Universal name on something that isn't up to their standards. It's hard to win back people who were disappointed.

They sold their stake 20 years ago though and it was only around 40% wasn’t it? And in fairness, no disrespect to universal but what they’re producing now is way beyond anything they ever pumped out 20 years ago.

It’s almost unrecognisable.

I firmly believe they looked at it, and thought the cost of buying the place was too much. That along with the cost to get it up to their current standards as well as the time and disruption to guests, I don’t think that’s something that fits in with the current plans when it comes to new parks and experiences.

 

[GAcoaster]

They sold their stake 20 years ago though and it was only around 40% wasn’t it? And in fairness, no disrespect to universal but what they’re producing now is way beyond anything they ever pumped out 20 years ago.

It’s almost unrecognisable.

I firmly believe they looked at it, and thought the cost of buying the place was too much. That along with the cost to get it up to their current standards as well as the time and disruption to guests, I don’t think that’s something that fits in with the current plans when it comes to new parks and experiences.

Yea, but they did have their name on it 20 years ago. It was "good enough" at that point, on par with USH and USO.

 

[Altonsky]

Yea, but they did have their name on it 20 years ago. It was "good enough" at that point, on par with USH and USO.

But it’s not good enough now and to get it to the stage of being ‘good enough’ it’s probably going to be prohibitively expensive when building from the ground up is far more easier.

 

[GAcoaster]

Not necessarily, but the problem would be that they buy the park, and people assume it immediately is on the same level as the other parks. Having most of the infrastructure there and in good condition would have some cost benefits.