Six Flags doing FABULOUS under new management

[jbrown84]

Six Flags Shares Drop Sharply


Can't say I feel sorry for them after they screwed OKC.

The story doesn't even mention that they are selling the OKC parks, just their parks in Seattle, Buffalo, Denver, Houston, Concord, CA, and even Magic Mountain in LA.

[writerranger]

The sad thing is there are apparently no buyers. I continue to hear that the value is in the land and that chances Frontier City will survive is slim to none. Wedgewood, Springlake and now probably Frontier City. Very sad.

[Luke]

The good news is that they are being sold as amusement parks (as opposed to being torn down and being sold as parts and then land). But, any buyer can do what they want with it obviously. One would hope a buyer would keep both Frontier City and White Water Bay as amusement parks and even make them better. They're the only ones around and in a city as big as OKC, there will always be a market for amusement parks. Maybe some locals can keep them up. Heck, if an out of towner or even an out of stater bought it with the intention of keeping them up, I'd definitely be up for it.

The last thing I wanna see is them being torn down and developed as something different.

[jbrown84]

I'm not so sure we can be confident they will be sold "as amusement parks". From everything I've read, it sounds like Shapiro likes to sell these off to developers to be turned into strip malls and parking lots (see Houston's Astroworld). Maybe no one would be interested in the Frontier City property, but the White Water location could go to anyone.

[Luke]

Six Flags Streamlines Company Operations, Moves Headquarters to New York; Oklahoma City Office to Close; Company Will Put OKC-Based Parks on Market

NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Jan. 27, 2006--As part of its ongoing reorganization efforts, Six Flags (NYSE: PKS) announced today its intention to consolidate Six Flags corporate operations, significantly expanding its presence in New York City; to close its office in Oklahoma City; and to sell its Oklahoma City-based parks. These moves mark further efforts in the company's strategy to streamline operations and focus on major market parks which have the most opportunity for growth.

"We continue to evaluate every asset in the Six Flags portfolio with a mission of improving shareholder value," said Mark Shapiro, Six Flags President and CEO. "We're beginning a drive to implement operational strategies that will help reduce debt load and strengthen our brand."

Shapiro added, "A strong corporate identity in New York -- a major world entertainment, media and financial capital -- is a vital component of our agenda as we position Six Flags as one of America's leading family entertainment destinations." The company also maintains a small corporate presence in Grand Prairie, TX.

In an additional move designed to further streamline the company's operations, Six Flags will be putting its Oklahoma City-based Frontier City and White Water Bay parks on the market. The sale, to be handled by the Staubach Company, is expected to take effect after the 2006 season; both parks will be fully operational during the 2006 season. The sale is subject to the approval of Six Flags' bank lenders. Proceeds would be used for debt reduction and general corporate purposes.

"While it's obviously our intention to derive the highest value possible for our shareholders in this action, we fully expect that we will do so by selling them as theme parks which continue to operate as such over the long haul," said Shapiro.

The above phrase is the one that gives me hope that these will still be theme parks.

Now for the disclaimer...

Six Flags, Inc. is the world's largest regional theme park company.

Forward Looking Statements:

The information contained in this news release, other than historical information, consists of forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act. These statements may involve risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those described in such statements. These risks and uncertainties include, among others, the costs of reviewing and responding to the unsolicited offer and consent solicitation, and other impacts of the proposed offer on Six Flags' operations. Although Six Flags believes that the expectations reflected in such forward-looking statements are reasonable, it can give no assurance that such expectations will prove to have been correct. Important factors, including factors impacting attendance, such as local conditions, events, disturbances and terrorist activities, risks of accidents occurring at Six Flags' parks, adverse weather conditions, general economic conditions (including consumer spending patterns), competition, pending, threatened or future legal proceedings and other factors could cause actual results to differ materially from Six Flags' expectations. Reference is made to a more complete discussion of forward-looking statements and applicable risks contained under the captions "Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements" and "Business - Risk Factors" in Six Flags' Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004, which is available free of charge on Six Flags' website at www.sixflags.com

SOURCE: Six Flags, Inc.

Here's another article published just a couple days ago that can offer hope:

Six Flags to Explore Strategic Options for Six Properties - Buffalo, Concord, Denver, Seattle, Houston and Los Angeles; Company Provides Mid-Quarter Update on Operations

NEW YORK, Jun 22, 2006 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Following a comprehensive review of the Company's assets, Six Flags, Inc. (NYSE: SIX) today announced its decision to explore potential strategic options with respect to six of its properties. The properties are: Six Flags Darien Lake (outside Buffalo, New York); Six Flags Waterworld (Concord, California); Six Flags Elitch Gardens (Denver, Colorado); Wild Waves and Enchanted Village (outside Seattle, Washington); Six Flags Splashtown (Houston, Texas); and Six Flags Magic Mountain and Hurricane Harbor (near Los Angeles, California).

Although the Company cannot predict when, or if, any specific transaction will occur with respect to these properties, potential options include a sale of the parks as going concerns in a single transaction or a series of transactions, dismantling and re-utilizing certain rides and attractions and selling the underlying land for real estate development purposes, as well as other potential alternatives.

Notice how this "dismantling of rides and attractions" and "selling the land for real estate development" did not apply to the OKC parks.

Article continued...

In March, the Company's new management indicated that a key strategic initiative was to evaluate the disposition of non-core assets in order to reduce leverage and focus management resources on the Company's parks that have the highest strategic value.

Since March, the Company:

-- Sold the land where Six Flags Astroworld was located for an aggregate purchase price of $77 million;

-- Agreed to sell the assets of the Columbus, Ohio, water park to the Company's lessor, the Columbus Zoo, for $2 million at the end of the lease term (October 31, 2006);

-- Exercised the right to terminate the lease of the Sacramento water park following the 2006 season and is currently in discussions with third parties to sell the rides and attractions at that park;

-- Announced that it would be selling its two Oklahoma City parks, and has received multiple bids that the Company is currently evaluating; and

Again, a spark of hope lies in the fact that they mention nothing about dismantling the rides here and selling the land. Only receiving bids for the parks.

The rest of the article is money numbers, which some of you may be interested... Otherwise, just go to the bottom of this post.

-- Is actively marketing certain parcels of excess land at its parks in Gurnee, Illinois, and Eureka, Missouri.

"We're making progress with our strategy to focus on the growth of our strongest assets, reduce the Company's debt, and generate increased value for our shareholders," said Mark Shapiro, who was named President and Chief Executive Officer of Six Flags in December 2005.

Update on Operations(1)

As previously scheduled, today the Company also provided an update on its business performance through the end of May and through June 18th, which includes the first three weeks in which all of its parks have been in full-time operation.

For the period through May 31, total revenues were up approximately 1%, or $2.6 million, compared to the same period last year, driven by a strong increase in guest spending and offset by a decline in attendance. Per capita guest spending, which excludes sponsorship and other revenues not related to guest spending, was up approximately 15%, an increase of $4.47 per capita, due to increased spending on tickets, food, parking, merchandise, and games. Attendance declined by approximately 760,000, or 11%.

For the period through June 18, which captures the most recent weekend in June, total revenues were down approximately 1%, or $3.2 million, compared to the prior year period. Per capita guest spending was up approximately 14%, an increase of $4.12 per capita, and attendance was down approximately 1.3 million, or 13%, driven primarily by reduced season pass attendance.

"Increased guest spending is continuing at a strong pace - a clear indication that our strategy is working. The drop-off in attendance was driven primarily by an anticipated decline in our season pass sales, which we are no longer deeply discounting in an effort to restore price and brand integrity, and to wean ourselves from those teens who don't spend money in the park," said Shapiro.

"What has been unexpected thus far is that the families we are targeting to replace those teens have been harder to attract than anticipated. Make no mistake about it, families are coming back - as evidenced by our solid increase in per capita guest spending - but not as quickly as we had hoped. We have to work even harder to regain their trust and bring them back to sample today's Six Flags."

Shapiro noted that attendance was also negatively impacted by the season-long closure of the New Orleans park due to damage it sustained from Hurricane Katrina, reduced visits to the Six Flags park in Mexico City by school groups, reduced and delayed marketing expenditures, rides that came on-line late, and weather on the West Coast in the first quarter and on the East Coast in May.

To accelerate the Company's turnaround with its target audience, Mr. Shapiro also said the Company plans to further increase its cash operating expenses by $15 million above prior guidance (to approximately $60 million) over the course of the year. These increased expenditures are primarily for additional staffing in the parks to further improve the guest experience.

Given the Company's performance to date, recent attendance trends, and the additional $15 million of cash operating expenses, reaching the prior adjusted EBITDA guidance will be extremely difficult. And although the second quarter is not complete, the Company is at risk of not complying with certain financial covenants in its bank credit agreement. The Company is in discussions with the agent bank and intends to seek amendments to those covenants.

Mr. Shapiro said, "We're investing more in our operations because the health of our business depends on bringing back families. Our first priority is to fix the operation and that is not going to happen overnight. We see this as a long-term investment."

About Six Flags

Six Flags, Inc. is the world's largest regional theme park company. Founded in 1961, Six Flags is celebrating its 45th Anniversary in 2006. It is a publicly-traded corporation (NYSE: SIX) headquartered in New York City.

Forward Looking Statements:

The information contained in this news release, other than historical information, consists of forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act. These statements may involve risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those described in such statements. These risks and uncertainties include, among others, Six Flags' success in implementing its new business strategy. Although Six Flags believes that the expectations reflected in such forward-looking statements are reasonable, it can give no assurance that such expectations will prove to have been correct. Important factors, including factors impacting attendance, such as local conditions, events, disturbances and terrorist activities, risk of accidents occurring at Six Flags' parks, adverse weather conditions, general economic conditions (including consumer spending patterns), competition, pending, threatened or future legal proceedings and other factors could cause actual results to differ materially from Six Flags' expectations. Reference is made to a more complete discussion of forward-looking statements and applicable risks contained under the caption "Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements" and "Risk Factors" in Six Flags' Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005, which is available free of charge on Six Flags' website http://www.sixflags.com.

(1)The information for the periods ended May 31 and June 18 include the operations of our parks in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; Columbus, Ohio; and Sacramento, California. These parks are classified as Discontinued Operations in our financial statements.

SOURCE: Six Flags, Inc.

For Six Flags, Inc.:
Wendy Goldberg, 212-652-9393

Wow, that was long.

In any case, it can be assumed that the bids being offered for the OKC parks are bids as amusement parks since there is no mention of the OKC parks' land being sold or the rides being dismantled. Hopefully, whoever bids on it can keep them up better than Six Flags has.


Luke

[writerranger]

The above phrase is the one that gives me hope that these will still be theme parks.

Now for the disclaimer...



Here's another article published just a couple days ago that can offer hope:



Notice how this "dismantling of rides and attractions" and "selling the land for real estate development" did not apply to the OKC parks.

Article continued...



Again, a spark of hope lies in the fact that they mention nothing about dismantling the rides here and selling the land. Only receiving bids for the parks.

The rest of the article is money numbers, which some of you may be interested... Otherwise, just go to the bottom of this post.



Wow, that was long.

In any case, it can be assumed that the bids being offered for the OKC parks are bids as amusement parks since there is no mention of the OKC parks' land being sold or the rides being dismantled. Hopefully, whoever bids on it can keep them up better than Six Flags has.


Luke

Let's hope, Luke - let's hope. I'm certainly willing to hold out hope until all hope is gone and they are actually shuttered.

--

[jbrown84]

Thanks for that post Luke. You've obviously done some research and for some reason (perhaps out of respect to the parks that were the beginning of the company) they seem to not be interested in selling them to developers. You will see in other threads that I'm very against that notion.

[Luke]

Yeah, that's what I'm noticing. They're selling other parks with no regard for what they become. But, by all accounts, they are intending to sell White Water and Frontier City as amusement parks.

[Midtowner]

Their intentions are to liquidate assets while receiving a maximum profit. If Six Flags or White Water were worth more as land and dismantled attractions, then that's how they'll be sold. If not, then they'll stay amusement parks.

[SoonerDave]

Midtowner, it's a given that a business wants maximum profit, but keep in mind they also want completely out of OKC as quickly and cleanly as possible. To that end, maximum profit might be compromised for an expeditious sale, regardless of the disposition of the property or what's presently erected on it.

A company that's soliciting general bids can offer them as amusement parks, but if no such vendors offer, they can negotiate offers from developers that might subsequently include terms for dismantling of rides/attractions purusant to a subsequent sale. And even if they sell them as amusement parks, there's absolutely nothing in the world preventing a new owner from bulldozing everything the minute the sale closes.

The fact that they don't specifically state that they're reserving funds for that purpose doesn't really mean anything. They can make a public case, should they so choose, that they tried to sell them as amusement parks, but no one was interested. Frankly, I don't think they give a you-know-what about Oklahoma City, and if someone wants to buy the properties in-place and let the new owners bulldoze everything, that'd be just fine with them. Remember, the assets here are a drop in the bucket in their general balance sheet. They don't just want the $$, they want to be rid of what they consider a fly in their ointment.

From my memory, Springlake and Frontier City don't deserve mention in the same breath. No disrespect to any FC fans, but Springlake was a great park, and FC is a pit. I suppose each had their respective heydays, but I never thought of FC as being in the same league as Springlake...

-SoonerDave

[SoonerDave]

Sorry for the double-post, but after reading the article linked by the OP, it seems to me that the new operating group is finding more problems than it really expected; that is, they're issuing cautions about not meeting credit arrangements, revenues are down, and attendance is down.

They noted that season pass sales are down (and SF has done *almost* no advertising this year), and they want to purge the "teenage" element from the parks, getting more families in the exchange. Sounds to me like its a group that doesn't, in its heart of hearts, want to manage theme parks at all, they want to manage land - putting Magic Mountain on the block expressly because it is near prime real estate tells me they want to rev up the bulldozers as quickly as they can. I don't think they have *any* honest interest in the parks at all.

The cynic in me says they want to make the company look as bad as possible, blame it on a bad "theme park market," then shut down as many parks as practical, then sell off the land to developers for a small fortune. And a great many terrific parks will go down as a result.

That bodes ill for EVERY park under their management, IMHO.

Maybe I'm just being cynical, but I wouldn't trust these guys with a ten-foot pole. If I were a Six Flags fan, and I am, I'd be very, very concerned.

-SoonerDave

[jbrown84]

Sorry for the double-post, but after reading the article linked by the OP, it seems to me that the new operating group is finding more problems than it really expected; that is, they're issuing cautions about not meeting credit arrangements, revenues are down, and attendance is down.

Yeah that was why I labeled the tread what I did. They had all these fancy ideas for how they were supposedly going to turn the company around, but things seem worse with the new management.


And SoonerDave, I can't speak for Springlake (or Wedgewood for that matter) as I was not around to see them, but I really don't see how you can call Frontier City a dump--not even remotely.

[mranderson]

"I really don't see how you can call Frontier City a dump--not even remotely."

Disney and Universal for starters. They are the "A" list, and are always remodeled to be extreemly nice. Frontier City looks like a crap hole. It is an eyesore and a disgrace to this city.

[SoonerDave]

And SoonerDave, I can't speak for Springlake (or Wedgewood for that matter) as I was not around to see them, but I really don't see how you can call Frontier City a dump--not even remotely.

All I can go by are the times I've been there (FC), and seen broken/unrepaired buildings, inoperative rides, general condition of the park, and compared that to the expense of the ticket price -- and THEN compared that to the expense of a trip to Six Flags, and realized there was simply no comparison whatsoever. If I had a mind to go to an amusement park, I'll gladly spend the extra $$, grab a tank of gas, and head for Arlington for a day before I'd waste a *nickel* at FC.

As I said, maybe FC had a great heyday where it was maintained and really sharp, and I just never saw it. But even compared to contemporary SFOT (which isn't kept up as well as it used to be), it's a wanna-be at best. And after having been to Disneyworld, Disneyland (multiple times as a kid and a couple as an adult), and SeaWorld in San Antonio, you appreciate just how laughably off the map Frontier City really is.

Like I said earlier, no offense to anyone who likes FC. For me, I just can't justify spending $$ there when a place like SFOT is only three hours and a tank of gas ($3/gal notwithstanding) away.

-SoonerDave

[writerranger]

All I can go by are the times I've been there (FC), and seen broken/unrepaired buildings, inoperative rides, general condition of the park, and compared that to the expense of the ticket price -- and THEN compared that to the expense of a trip to Six Flags, and realized there was simply no comparison whatsoever. If I had a mind to go to an amusement park, I'll gladly spend the extra $$, grab a tank of gas, and head for Arlington for a day before I'd waste a *nickel* at FC.

As I said, maybe FC had a great heyday where it was maintained and really sharp, and I just never saw it. But even compared to contemporary SFOT (which isn't kept up as well as it used to be), it's a wanna-be at best. And after having been to Disneyworld, Disneyland (multiple times as a kid and a couple as an adult), and SeaWorld in San Antonio, you appreciate just how laughably off the map Frontier City really is.

Like I said earlier, no offense to anyone who likes FC. For me, I just can't justify spending $$ there when a place like SFOT is only three hours and a tank of gas ($3/gal notwithstanding) away.

-SoonerDave

I agree. When Tierco Properties invested huge bucks into the park in the early - mid 80s it was an awesome little park. Great thrill rides (and they added one almost every year). It was almost a mini-Six Flags with immaculate landscaping, great little shops and entertainment, rides were always up and running, it was just a different place entirely than what sits over there today. Entirely.

---

[jbrown84]

I am not talking about the quality of the experience. Aesthetically, it DOES NOT LOOK THAT BAD. I have been there this season. No falling down buildings, no permanently closed rides (except the Nightmare, but it is indoors and out of sight), no empty flower beds, no barf in the lake, no trash on the ground. Most certainly the current price that Six Flags is charging is too much, and not proportional to what you get for your money at bigger parks, but it is not an eyesore (or a "craphole", Mranderson).

I do not work for the park or any of its subsidiaries and have no reason to market it to you. In fact I definitely don't recommend you go without discounts, and even then don't expect huge thrills. All I'm saying is that I'm tired of the overexaggeration of the condition of the park. It's not that bad. I went to a concert with a friend from Texas and he had no complaints about the condition of the park. He thought it was nice, just small. But mranderson's over here calling the park a "disgrace" when he probably hasn't seen it from anywhere besides a moving car on I-35 for years.

Yes it has declined recently, but it is nowhere near the condemned status you all seem to wish it was.

[mranderson]

"But mranderson's over here calling the park a "disgrace" when he probably hasn't seen it from anywhere besides a moving car on I-35 for years. "

I was there not long ago on business. The place looked like a dump.

[Karried]

I absolutely love amusement parks and have been to quite a few.. including Disneyland, Magic Mountain and SFOT, Branson, Silver Dollar City, Paramount Great America, Marine World, Sea World.. to name a few..

I don't think Frontier City is a dump at all. We have had season tickets and if our first experience was dirty or horrible, I wouldn't have ever purchased season tickets.

Smaller? Yes, but the times I've been, it was clean and relatively well kept. We've always had fun, the kids love it.. I never thought is was dirty or unkempt at all and we went on all of the rides over and over... it wasn't as expensive as most of the parks I've been to. I do wish they would add some more thrill roller coasters ( I love them!) but overall, it's a pleasant experience...

My new favorite though has to be Silver Dollar City.. I loved Wildfire and Powder Keg.. we got there so early and got to stay on the rides and go over and over with no lines.. that's my kind of roller coaster.. it was awesome..

[jbrown84]

Thanks for the back up Karrie.

mranderson, this is what a dump looks like:

[Kerry]

"Did anyone notice the phrase "They need to be based in New York". I am a daily reader of the Wall Street Journal and this phrase has appeared in many stories recently. The same thing was recently said about SBC when the purchase of AT&T was completed. It appears that the powers that be in NYC are trying to reverse a trend of companies leaving the NYC area over the last 20 years. It appeas that Shapiro has bought into that line.

However, there is no logical reason for Six Flags to locate in NYC. High taxes, high rent, high cost of living still exist in NYC. I give Six Flags 2 years before they declare Chapeter 11 bankruptcy and cease to exist."

This is my posting from January 28, 2006. Hate to be an "I told you so". They moved a poorly performing comapny to the most expensive pace to do business in America. Not very smart! The sad part is there was no logical reason to move out of OKC. Excpet that the owners lived in NYC. Not the best way to run a business.

[SoonerDave]

I give Six Flags 2 years before they declare Chapeter 11 bankruptcy and cease to exist.

Well, while that might be close to the right track, I don't think that's quite how it's going to unfold. If you go to the trouble of bringing in a Shapiro from ESPN to run the thing as an entertainment commodity, then surely you have at least *some* idea about how to run the company's parks, eg you want to do something to make them viable entertainment venues. Unless the company faces complete financial collapse (in which case a Snyder wouldn't be messing with it in the first place), that'll take more than two years.

That said, however, I also think Snyder is a man with a short a) leash, b) temper, c) patience. I personally believe he has been told in one ear that some of the company's parks are sitting on real estate that is prime for high-dollar redevelopment, but also that the parks themselves have been poorly managed and can be resuscitated in the other ear. So there are two camps at odds for control.

I suspect that Snyder has, in effect, said that he'll give some the parks a chance to be "financially rehabbed" for one or two years, but if he doesn't see a big turnaround in $$, he'll start selling them to the developer with the biggest a) bulldozers and b) checkbooks. What will happen then, I suspect, is that the long-term, traditional parks will get sold out to local investors to save them as theme parks, and the "intermediate" parks will be very much in jeopardy for closure and demolition.

The post above discussing the very public comments regarding Six Flags' potentially impaired ability to meet credit agreements and lower park attendance/revenue is a very negative foreshadowing of that latter alternative. It makes it *very* easy to say at some point in the future something like "well, the time for the conventional theme park market has passed, and these parks were too far gone due to the neglect of prior owners to ever be profitable again in the way our stockholders require, so we're shutting them down or selling them." *That* could happen in two years.

I don't think a park like SFoT is in real danger of closing, because I think local Dallas-area investors would be willing to buy the place if there were any fear it might actually be shuttered. Other parks under the Six Flags umbrella, however, are probably on a case-by-case basis...and when a place like Magic Mountain goes on the block, you realize nothing is immune.

The cynic in me also suggests Snyder took over strictly to organize a steady selloff of the parks, bringing in Shapiro as a palatable "we'll bring in an entertainment guy to fix them" cover, when in reality he has no such intention. That would mean NONE of the parks is safe, and that is a sad thought indeed. Hope that's wrong...

-SoonerDave

p.s. Here's one other interesting note: I was at Six Flags over Texas last Friday, and there was a conspicuous addition to the souvenir shop "product lines" - **Disney** merchandise. Snow White, Pooh, Tigger, you name it, there was a *bunch* of Disney stuff for sale. I was always under the impression that Disney did not like to "cross-breed" itself with other amusement park names, and it makes me wonder if Six Flags' relationship with Warner Bros (and the Bugs/Daffy/Coyote characters) is going to change...

[SoonerDave]

Here is an article from about two weeks ago regarding Shapiro's early efforts to get Six Flags back on the right track. At the moment, it appears that Snyder is willing to let Shapiro have just about free reign, and I can attest to having seen some of the specific changes Shapiro has ordered (bathroom attendants, costumed characters in the parks, etc). And I wouldn't expect to see any new, fire-breathing roller coasters at a SF park in the near future. For now, it looks like they want to give the parks a chance to succeed.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/indust...ags-usat_x.htm

-SoonerDave

[jbrown84]

I think your right. The chance that a lot of these will be sold off to bulldozing developers seems really likely.

The good thing for OKC is that we know there are local investors interested in buying the parks as parks, and they may even have closed the deal.

[SoonerDave]

there are local investors interested in buying the parks as parks

I wish these new investors well if they truly plan to persist them as theme parks, but I believe those two parks may require more capital investment to become successful than is practical. I think each park needs quite a bit of help.

We've also not heard that the sale reported by the Oklahoman is, actually, final. Until both sides concur on a big splashy announcement to that effect, I view everything *very* cautiously.

-SoonerDave

[jbrown84]

Yeah, that's why I used the words "may have closed".

I don't see why you think FC and WWB need major work just to make a profit. If they weren't making a profit I'm sure they would have been closed long ago.

When I go by either park, there are always plenty of cars. I think they are fine and with just a few improvements and a couple new rides they should go way up in attendance.