Universal gearing up for Big Additions to EU

I'm not sure what you expect, major new attractions take years for design/permitting/construction/testing. If they are just submitting permits now it's still going to be 2-4 years before either of these open. The park opened last year, so that means the park is going 4-5 years without a new attraction. New attractions are necessary for any park to succeed. This is not "large ball" or "small ball," its just a company doing what is expected to succeed running a theme park.

V-Coaster: "I think the argument against EU up to this point was that by putting all their resources into it, we won't see the quality or quantity of Disney's current 'small ball' strategy. "

Me: Who has argued that?

For the record, the_man26 hits the nail on the head. With Comcast abandoning the parks and all of the uncertainty surrounding who might become the new parent company (which would be an expensive purchase even for a Middle Eastern interest) the time table related to the opening of a major, gatecrasher attraction at EU is speculative at best. His assessment estimate of "2-4 years" leans more toward the "4" than it does the "2".

And, as we have been discussing here lately, beyond the "coaster replacing a coaster" strategy, there doesn't seem to be any building permits related to USF.

Moreover, not only are the expansions at DAK, DHS and MKP all well underway, but the D23 conference is coming up, next month. While our hopes for expansions at Orlando's soon-to-be former Comcast parks are rooted in YouTube videos and building permits, Disney will have wannabe Imagineer Neil Patrick Harris hyping future attraction concepts in front of the people occasionally referred to as Disney (not my word) "drones".

And those fanatics (along with the theme park vlogging community) will eat up (and amplify) every scrap of news.

I think Universal has realized that they sold Epic short when it opened, and left it short on overall attractions. Whether this occurred by deliberate design or because of COVID budget cuts (or increased costs caused by the Pandemic) doesn't really matter. Universal has quickly learned that if not for insane lines for BotM (primarily caused by technical issues) and Mine Cart Madness (caused by poor throughput), Epic is not really a full day park, especially for guests who have already visited the park or have experienced similar attractions at other resorts around the world. These new projects that are starting just over a year after the new park opened is pretty unprecedented (Hard Rock Park brought in some carnival-style mobile attractions to up the overall ride capacity while a couple of the attractions were being finished after the park opened).

The question for the group then is does Universal moving so quickly to add attraction capacity to Epic mean that designers erred in the original design or because the park has been such a raging success that they had no choice but to accelerate investment into the park to double down on that success? I tend to lean to the former, but can see an argument being made for the latter.

@Russell -- I think it's a "both/and" situation. The original design has not only a meaningful lack of shade, but also a large number of attractions that cease operations when thunderstorms hit. Epic being in Central Florida, thunderstorms hit quite often. However, the park could still be successful, and UDX may be putting windfall from Epic to reinvest in (God-willing indoor) Epic attractions.

Looking at previous major park openings in the area: Islands of Adventure opened in 1999, and apart from Storm Force's delayed opening in 2000 and some seasonal stage shows, there wasn't another attraction until 2006 with the Seuss Trolly Train Ride (which was also meant to be an opening day attraction...). The next attraction would be the Wizarding World in 2010. That's nearly a decade without a new attraction that didn't already have a footprint in the park.

Animal Kingdom had Asia open in 1999 with Kali River Rapids, which was already under construction when the park opened. Then Dinoland got Triceratops Spin & Primeval Whirl in 2002 as a quick attempt to add capacity to the park. The next major attraction was Everest in 2006. We can be generous & say it was ~4 years after opening that DAK got new attractions (that weren't already actively under construction).

I think Epic opening a new (ideally indoor) attraction before or during 2030 would be a huge win, especially if USF & IOA can continue their enhancements.

I agree that the new (presumably indoor) attractions are a win, but were these additions a result of the success of the original park design (windfall) or a failure of the executed design that necessitated the need for more (indoor) attractions? As you noted, other new parks that have opened over the past quarter century (save for Hard Rock Park) have not seen such massive additional investments so soon after they opened. Does this represent a company doubling down on what they see as a successful template (understanding that the legacy parks are only getting 1 new attraction/area each), or a push to correct perceived downfalls of the original park design?

I see it as correcting perceived downfalls in the original park design using the initial windfalls from Epic's opening. Is that coming at the cost of other enhancements to the other 2 parks? Maybe -- I think many potential attractions were shifted during Epic's construction, but with IoA getting a new land soon, USF getting a coaster, they're still investing in those parks (albeit at different scales).

The most interesting thing will be what happens to Springfield.

This pie-in-the-sky dream world discussion that soft peddles the cost impact which comes with building major, new attractions is just so odd.

A dose of reality.

No one knows which company/entity will be buying Comcast's share of the parks within the next year. Robert Niles recently reported (06/29/26): "In addition, the company said that it expects to retain a stake of up to 19.9% ownership position in NBC/Universal for up to one year after the completion of the spin ..." How much will NBC/Universal's new parent company be willing to invest in new attractions -- especially with whatever debt NBC/Universal has to shoulder as well as its commitments to the Chicago haunted house and the UK park? These concerns are especially important considering how Frisco didn't impress that much and how the Vegas haunted house can only garner enough interest to stay open around 30 hours a week.

Also please remember, permits do not mean these projects will come to fruition. You can get permits before you calculate a project's budget to determine if an attraction is a profit center. Building monsters and Potter attractions are a $200 million to $300 million proposition. There have been Orlando attraction developments that have gone so far as to contract a GC, only to have the project cancelled. And before anyone posts anything in response: No. It's not just Disney.

Look, we can all dream our dreamy dreams -- by all means enjoy yourselves. But ultimately there are the financial realities/obligations; there is the "who the hell even owns these parks?" question; and the biggest inquiry posed by the_man26: When will these attractions be up and operating?

MyHandsDontScan: "The most interesting thing will be what happens to Springfield".

Me: I’m reluctant to believe the internet jibber-jabber about when the license runs dry. But could you imagine what would happen to USF attendance if The Simpsons and Supercharged were both shuttered at the same time? I mean, damn!

What would happen to USF attendance if two rides people hate closed? I dunno man, I think we'd all find a way to carry on.

@Jacob Sundstrom: First of all if a large number of people "hate" 'The Simpsons Ride' ... well, news to me anyway.

Second, as much as folks disdain 'Fast & Furious: Supercharged', I gotta say the improv work that TMs are doing in the War Room during the preshow is is USF at its best. It's always been three or four minutes or great irreverence but since the announcement of the August closing those performers have been let off the leash.

There's a couple of videos on Insta that are hilarious. "Why are you here? Did Harry Potter breakdown"?

While NBC/Universal being acquired or merging with another company (or heaven forfend getting divested piecemeal to VC) is always a possibility, TH's assertion that the newly spun-off entity needing a "parent" is presumptuous. There have been a few rumors and speculation of the likes of Sony or other smaller studios wanting to team up with NBC/Universal (ala Paramount/Skydance/WB), there have been no indications that any firm talks or proposals have been made. The split from Comcast was solely a decision to sever the infrastructure/utility business from the creative/entertainment side of the house. I don't see why there's an assumption that NBC/Universal is incapable of remaining autonomous as one of the 5 biggest TV/movie production studios in the world and an undisputed leader in the theme park industry.

At the very least, such assumptions should wait until the newly independent company files its first financial reports to show exactly where the business stands, particularly in terms of liabilities and assets. While neither outcome is a certainty, NBC/Universal is completely capable of governing itself, and its new CEO Mike Cavanagh said as much, "I'm personally thrilled to continue leading NBCUniversal into the future. With our iconic brands and theme parks, leading franchises and incredible creative talent, we are well-positioned for long-term value creation."

Russell: "At the very least, such assumptions should wait until the newly independent company files its first financial reports to show exactly where the business stands."

Me: When was the last time NBC/Universal ran the parks on its own -- without a Comcast, or GE, or Vivendi, or Seagrams, or Matsushita, or an MCA? The company's history is one reason those assumptions can be regarded as reasonable.

Another is because the new NBC/Universal is probably holding a portion of Comcast's debt. Certainly you would indicate it's wrong to assume that none of the $80 - $90 billion in debt held by Comcast belongs to NBC/Universal.

Finally, absent a partner, do you honestly believe that NBC/Universal could cover the aforementioned debt, the new haunted house in Chicago, the new park in the United Kingdom, all the amazing attractions that this thread claims are coming to Florida AND buyout Comcast's share?

No sir. I believe, at this point, it's a safe assumption that part or all of Comcast's 19% will be sold to a new partner.

"But could you imagine what would happen to USF attendance if The Simpsons and Supercharged were both shuttered at the same time?"

Attendance and guest satisfaction goes up?

"When was the last time NBC/Universal ran the parks on its own -- without a Comcast, or GE, or Vivendi, or Seagrams, or Matsushita, or an MCA?"

NBCU didn't acquire unified control over its parks until 2011. Before that different companies held stakes in different locations. The business as it currently exists hasn't operated on its own. Maybe that's your point? Although Russell's wait-and-see comment seems more reasonable than assuming one company's control of Universal Hollywood decades ago is indicative of the current state of the business.

As for the debt, I think that's a valid concern if NBCU goes the way of the AT&T WB merger/spin-off. AT&T unloaded a huge amount of debt onto WB, who then took on even more debt to form WBD in an effort to be attractive in potential M&A deals. Something like that could happen here, although I think NBCU is better off for the following reason: Brian Roberts.

We can use the Versant spin-off as a proxy/test run for the NBCU spin-off. If Comcast wanted to dump debt on Versant it very well could have. But it didn't. It made sure Versant was well-capitalized. Brian Roberts owns a 33.3% super-voting shares, which essentially means he has veto power on the decisions the company makes.

The same is true for Comcast (he won't be CEO, but will have this same super-voting structure) and the new NBCU. He'll act as an elder statesman to all 3 companies, putting the kibosh on any unreasonable decision or misaligned strategy.

If you think Brian Roberts would want to tank NBCU by loading it with debt, you're welcome to that assumption. But I think he has a vested interest in the success of all his companies. And if he wanted to offload Comcast debt, why wouldn't he do it on Versant which is a market (cable channels) in decline as opposed to NBCU which is a growth business?

@MHDS: I am probably misguided here, but if Comcast wants to unload its 19% sometime in the next year, is there a feasible scenario where NBC/Universal would be able to purchase and assume independent control of that share, manage whatever debt it shares with Comcast, pay for the announced expansions and the rumored attractions that posters are offer up on this and other threads?

MHDS: “If you think Brian Roberts would want to tank NBCU by loading it with debt, you're welcome to that assumption”.

Me: I think the assertion that I claimed he would “want to tank the company” is more than a bit excessive. I am not saying the company is going to fail, I’m saying (on its face) in order for the company to dramatically expand the parks and manage its debt it and pay for Comcast’s 19%, it would seem likely they would welcome a partner into the mix.
Again, I may be missing something.

If Simpsons ever closes, I think I will indeed have a cow, man.

"and pay for Comcast’s 19%"

I guess this is what confuses me. This isn't debt. It's equity. Why would the independent NBCU need to buy out CMCSA's shares? It's similar to Disney's 10% stake in Epic Games or the NFL's 10% stake in ESPN. Does Disney need to buy out the NFL's share?

I do agree that a merger is likely on the horizon after NBCU gets spun off. Depending on the macroeconomic state and regulatory environment it could happen shortly after NBCU becomes independent or after a lengthier period.

Netflix may want to expand its content slate and IP and also get into the parks business as a growth engine. Or Take Two Interactive may want to expand the media footprint of its franchises (although those wanting a Grand Theft Auto theme park presence could, uh, just go to Miami).

Regardless, I think the spun-off NBCU will be fine from a capex perspective on theme park expansion, barring any major economic tailspin. I do agree that there's less of a cushion (Comcast) that existed before, but the company will be fine on it's own. Any potential buyer of NBCU will be wanting the company for its theme parks -- not in spite of them.

To further what MyHandsDontScan notes, even if Comcast wanted to fully divest itself of the 19% that it has maintained in the split, that wouldn't represent a controlling stake in NBCU unless it was purchased by an existing shareholder, so the company would still maintain its autonomy.

Again, unless there's something afoot to not only purchase Comcast's stake plus additional shares in NBCU, I think the expectation should be that the company would remain independent in the near term, and their CEO has not indicated otherwise.

I would agree that Netflix remains a viable suitor to purchase controlling stake in NBCU, but their failure to acquire WB and the issues raised by the Paramount/Skydance acquisition that has put that merger on hold makes such a deal risky, particularly given NBCU's presence and market share in the streaming industry that would raise even more objections than the company buying WB. Even beyond Netflix, I think any existing media/production company looking to purchase NBCU would want to wait to see how the WB acquisition plays out before committing significant resources to such a move.

TH does highlight a lot of unknowns though, which is primarily about what kind of debt load NBCU being saddled with as part of this split, which won't be known until the new company provides its first financial statement. Comcast maintaining 19% stake would suggest that the former parent is holding some of the new company's debt, but would not necessarily prevent NBCU from going to the market seeking cash for what is a capital-intensive industry . Also, let's not forget that Universal has produced one of the most profitable movies of 2026 (Obsession), and currently has 4 of the top 10 highest grossing films of the year (Super Mario Galaxy, Odyssey, Obsession, and Minions and Monsters) - Disney has just 2 in the top 10 BTW (TS5 and Devil Wears Prada 2).

The funding/budget projections for the UK park and Chicago property were well known ahead of this split, so unless significantly more investment is required to progress those projects to completion, NBCU should have the funding available to do that without incurring more debt than has already been recognized at the time of divestiture. Finally, I would guess that the projects currently in progress in Florida (F&F and Lost Continent replacement) are in the same boat as Chicago and UK in that their costs are fully funded, so barring any change orders or scope creep, they should also be fine without impacting the new company's debt obligations. I do agree that projects that have not officially started (the 2 Epic permits) might be in a different boat depending on how NBCU recognizes/realizes debt obligations, so TH is probably right in casting doubt on the potential of those projects and timelines if things start going south.

TH- I saw that video too. It was hilarious. I gotta visit one more time before it closes.

Now I'm no expert on the business side of theme parks, I usually view them as art, but I think MyHandsDontScan brings up some great points towards the top of this thread. When's the last time a major Orlando park got at least one major addition before 5 years of operation? Sure, it experienced budget cuts before opening, but so did DAK and beastly kingdom never opened, so even seeing these expansions come in now is a good sign.

MHDS: “I guess this is what confuses me. This isn't debt. It's equity. Why would the independent NBCU need to buy out CMCSA's shares”?

Me (Deep Breath): I'll try again. From Robert Niles’ reporting (06/29/26): "In addition, the company (Comcast) said that it expects to retain a stake of up to 19.9% ownership position in NBC/Universal for up to one year after the completion of the spin ..."

So Comcast has made it known that they will hold that 19.9% equity for up to one year ... and then they're out.

So what I am asking is who is going to buy that 19.9%?

Russell has made a very reasonable observation (07/30/26): “I don't see why there's an assumption that NBC/Universal is incapable of remaining autonomous as one of the 5 biggest TV/movie production studios in the world and an undisputed leader in the theme park industry”.

In that scenario, where NBC/Universal would not seek a partnership with an outside interest, I am assuming they would have to purchase Comcast’s “19.9%” share of the model (equity).

Right?

I’m also curious about how much of Comcast’s sizable debt will have to be absorbed by NBC/Universal. Of course I don’t believe that “Brian Roberts would want to tank NBCU by loading it with debt”. I’ve never made such a claim.

But Comcast has a SIGNIFICANT INTEREST in reducing its debt. On another thread (07/18/26) I offered up the following: “The Street is now reporting (07/14/26), ‘Amid a decline in customers, Comcast raised eyebrows last month when it announced its plans to split into two companies by separating its media and entertainment assets, including NBCUniversal and Sky, from its core broadband, wireless, and cable TV operations. In a press release, Comcast Co-CEO Brian Roberts said the split will better position the companies to pursue ‘significant opportunities that lie ahead.’”

From the same article: “One of those potential opportunities reportedly involves Comcast acquiring Charter Communications, according to a report from the New York Post. Comcast has long contemplated this acquisition however (AND HERE IT COMES) 'debt' is what’s causing the company to hesitate on initiating the deal”.

If part of Comcast’s $90 billion debt (estimate) was generated by the multibillion dollar EU development (theme park, hotels, warehouses and other back-of-house projects) is it really ridiculous to assume that NBC/Universal will be held responsible for a portion of that burden?

So we have the cost of debt management and the cost of existing projects in development (USF coaster, Pokemon, Chicago haunted house, UK theme park). With all of that spending, how would NBC/Universal foot-the-bill to acquire Comcast’s 19.9%.

This scenario leads me to two conclusions:

1. It seems unlikely that we will see major new attractions (estimated price $150 million each) added to the Orlando parks (beyond those actually under construction – and not just permitted) in less than three or four years.

2. In order to maintain its aggressive objective to seize and hold a larger share of the Orlando themed entertainment market NBC/Universal is gonna need support from an outside investor.

To be fair, both Mr. Cavanagh and Mr. Roberts dismissed the idea that they would seek a partner. Variety (06/30/26): “After the spin-off announcement, Comcast execs firmly denied that the separation of the cable and NBCU/Sky businesses signaled expected M&A (merger and acquisition) actions. Comcast chairman and co-CEO Brian Roberts said, ‘Absolutely not,’ and co-chief Mike Cavanagh (who is slated to become CEO of the stand-alone NBCU) said, ‘Definitely not.’”

Fair enough.

But the same article continues: “You could read the disavowals about M&A from Comcast’s top execs as reflecting their desire to project the image that, if any merger or acquisition opportunities were on the horizon, they would be negotiating from a position of strength. As such, some observers speculated that Comcast and NBCU independently will indeed be chasing big deals on their own. But that wouldn’t be until after the transaction is completed, expected in mid-2027, while ‘to preserve the tax-free nature of the spin, a sale [of NBCU] can’t even be contemplated for a couple of years,’ according to Craig Moffett, principal analyst and co-founder of MoffettNathanson.”

A lot could happen in “a couple of years”. Hell, a lot could happen in a couple of hours. But I just can’t figure how NBC/Universal could shoulder their share of the Comcast debt, acquire that 19.9% equity and make substantial investments (beyond what’s already in the pipeline) to dramatically expand the Orlando parks.

And as for who might be willing to buy into the NBC/Universal model? Look no further than Mr. Roberts' 2025 vacation in the Middle East -- which he spent glad-handing the Saudi PIF all-stars.

Stay tuned.

You make an interesting point about the PIF connection, but I would read that very public meeting as a way for NBCU to get back at Disney for their plans to open a park in Abu Dhabi (tit for tat style). While it's certainly not out of the realm of possibility, I just don't see PIF looking to purchase a significant interest in a major American entertainment company, as that would be against the recent trends from Middle Eastern investors (including PIF) who have been significantly pulling back their exposure in the entertainment and hospitality markets (much of that is due to instability in the region that has all but killed tourism in the region). The PIF in particular has almost pulled completely out of LIV Golf, given up their pursuit of purchasing F1, and slowed their investment and expansion of other Western-style entertainment ventures like Riyadh Season. Yes, the legacy oil money is still there, but investors are not being nearly as aggressive as they were just a few years ago. I could definitely see Universal announcing an agreement to open a park in KSA, but I doubt such an announcement would come with any investment beyond the construction and operation of that new park.

Regarding that 19.9% ownership stake....I know of a company that could be pocketing a cool 7 billion as early as next June and would be a much better partner for NBC Universal than any others that have been mentioned. And since it is not a full takeover or even a merger such an arrangement may be more palatable to state AGs.

Regarding the Saudis (PIF) buying Comcast's stake in NBC/Universal, Russell writes: "While it's certainly not out of the realm of possibility ..."

Me: I’m curious, why do you believe a Saudi buy-in is a possibility?

"So what I am asking is who is going to buy that 19.9%?"

Comcast could sell their shares to institutional investors, they could use debt-to-equity swaps with banks, who will then sell them to institutional investors, or Comcast could sell the shares over time in the open market.

"In that scenario, where NBC/Universal would not seek a partnership with an outside interest, I am assuming they would have to purchase Comcast’s “19.9%” share of the model (equity).

Right?"

Why would NBCU be forced to purchase Comcast's full share? They certainly could if they wanted to to juice the stock price (companies do stock buybacks all the time), but there's no legal or corporate mandate. What's the reasoning here?

"...'debt' is what’s causing the company to hesitate on initiating the deal."

Is this referring to Comcast's own debt or Charter's? You seem to be using this as an example of Comcast having a relatively unmanageable level of debt, but telecom companies have pretty large amounts of debt for building and maintaining infrastructure. Verizon & AT&T have debt loads over $120 Billion! A better metric would be debt-to-EBITDA. All 3 companies have ~2.5x debt-to-EDIBTA. And that's around what Disney is sitting at, too.

Charter is sitting at a ratio over 4x. They even paused stock buybacks to focus on paying down debt.

So yes, Comcast has a large amount of debt, but it's inline with the market for the industry they're in. Charter has a pretty hefty amount of debt for its size, and may be giving Comcast pause in pursuing an acquisition.

"So we have the cost of debt management and the cost of existing projects in development (USF coaster, Pokemon, Chicago haunted house, UK theme park). With all of that spending, how would NBC/Universal foot-the-bill to acquire Comcast’s 19.9%?"

Again, NBCU is not required to acquire Comcast's shares. The spun-off NBCU will have debt. Nearly all public companies have debt. I guess this is where I'm getting tripped up in your argument. You don't think Comcast will saddle NBCU with lethal amounts of debt (valid! -- I agree!), yet you think paying the debt will be an issue for the new company.

Let's assume 1/3 of Comcast's ~$90B debt can be attributed to NBCU activities and businesses. Are you saying that Comcast might push over additional debt to better its balance sheet? Instead of giving NBCU 1/3 of their debt, they give it half? What exactly is the concern here with the debt and why is it manifestly different than any other company that can continue its operations with it?

I can’t see the UK government allowing NBCU + Netflix.

Part of what will be NBCU Is Sky. The UK’s dominant PayTV and premium.sports channel provider and a major broadband provider. They also control two streaming platforms today - Now TV and Sky TV (they still do satellite delivery for existing customers but make it very hard to buy a satellite sub instead of a streaming Sky sub). They’re also have some FTA broadcast channels.

Sky is in the process of buying ITV, the UK’s leading commercial FTA broadcaster, who of course have their streaming platform. They’re not buying ITV studios, so there’s not a content creation issue, but that’s now three streaming platforms under one roof if it clears.

Add in Netflix? No. Can’t see that being accepted. So NBCU would need to do something about Sky if it’s going to join with Netflix.