Cannon Mountain...thoughts

riverc0il said:

All put out of business by state run ski areas.

How about all those NELSAP areas in VT and Maine? Those Cannon's fault, too?

Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly!

King Ridge: over leveraged by the owners when they installed the last lift.

Temple: too far south to get snow and odd set up. Plus it was getting old. It is almost three hours from Cannon and in a completely different market. Not a fair comparison.

Crotched: moot. It reopened 8 years ago, remember?

Highlands: It has actually come back as a biking area. The ownership was an older family that just got tired of running it. It also is a ways from Cannon and different market.

Tenney: you may have a point here, but it has had problems for a long time.

riverc0il said:

You are obviously not okay with it, what is with beating the dead horse?

Click to expand...

It's not a dead horse. As of last week, it's under consideration in Concord.

riverc0il said:

Would you like to see all public land sold off?

Click to expand...

Where again am I advocating selling public land? One of the reasons a Cannon lease is being explored is so that DRED *doesn't* have to consider selling public land (selling land was proposed as recently as 2009).

riverc0il said:

100% incorrect in regards to skinners. I have ever talked to ski area employees at the base before skinning up regarding hazards on the trails. Signs are posted not to hike the mountain and I think you would get resistance and in trouble if you tried hiking when the mountain is free of snow or skinning or shoeshoeing while the ski area is open.

Click to expand...

There are ways to get up there without getting harassed year round, but people have been turned back in summer and in winter, open or closed, on foot or otherwise.

riverc0il said:

How about all those NELSAP areas in VT and Maine? Those Cannon's fault, too?

Click to expand...

There is no concentration of lost multi-chair, triple/quad/etc. NELSAP areas in such a short time period as there has been in the Gunstock/Sunapee/Cannon market.

riverc0il said:

So DHS's comment stands that if Cannon doesn't loose money, what is the difference.

Click to expand...

Cannon has millions of dollars of assets and hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars of annual capital investments. The Sunapee lease dollars, for instance, are apparently pumped into Cannon. I'm not sure how they're showing that on the ski area income statement, but will hopefully find out soon. Other significant investments are bonded, so they also don't show on the income statement the way they would for any other ski area having to get a loan (*cough* Peak Resorts). It certainly tells you something when it takes half a decade of good snow years to pay off rolled over deficits.

thetrailboss said:

My thoughts exactly!

King Ridge: over leveraged by the owners when they installed the last lift.

Temple: too far south to get snow and odd set up. Plus it was getting old. It is almost three hours from Cannon and in a completely different market. Not a fair comparison.

Crotched: moot. It reopened 8 years ago, remember?

Highlands: It has actually come back as a biking area. The ownership was an older family that just got tired of running it. It also is a ways from Cannon and different market.

Tenney: you may have a point here, but it has had problems for a long time.

Click to expand...

King Ridge is almost literally in the shadow of Sunapee. The lift you reference was installed within a year of Sunapee and Gunstock installing a combined *6* brand new lifts.

Temple had been around since the 1930s and had a quad. Peak Resorts looked at it after Sunapee was privatized/before they jumped on Crotched West.

Crotched didn't come back until after Sunapee was privatized, and even then only 1/2 came back. Crotched was once the largest ski area in Southern New Hampshire.

Highlands was almost literally in the shadow of Gunstock. The ownership I was aware of ran out of money and wasn't an older family. They had a nice triple chairlift there.

Tenney's undoing was probably in the 1980s...they've had so many PR nightmares that it would be hard for any non-heavily-capitalized group to make a go of it.

threecy said:

King Ridge is almost literally in the shadow of Sunapee. The lift you reference was installed within a year of Sunapee and Gunstock installing a combined *6* brand new lifts.

Click to expand...

If you do some research you will find reference to a business school paper that states how much risk the resort was taking in financing that one lift and how the change in business plan was risky. And yes I am well aware of where it is in relation to Sunapee.

Temple had been around since the 1930s and had a quad. Peak Resorts looked at it after Sunapee was privatized/before they jumped on Crotched West.

Click to expand...

What does that have to do with your argument or with regards to Cannon? Nothing. Temple had old infrastructure. If you saw their old Borvig center pole quad you'd understand. It also is near Wachusett, Nashoba, and many other privately run ski areas in the greater Boston area. You make no connection to how Cannon led to its demise. Its failure is nothing more than coincidence.

Crotched didn't come back until after Sunapee was privatized, and even then only 1/2 came back. Crotched was once the largest ski area in Southern New Hampshire.

Click to expand...

OK....so what does this have to do with Cannon? It still is a viable contender and Peaks is rumored to have plans to eventually expand. The fact that they didn't is more of a reflection of their resources and their conservative approach to operating their business.

Highlands was almost literally in the shadow of Gunstock. The ownership I was aware of ran out of money and wasn't an older family. They had a nice triple chairlift there.

Click to expand...

I know where Highlands is. And I don't see any clear connection other than coincidence. It is closer to 93 than Gunstock. How they ran the mountain is a reflection of them and not Cannon.

Tenney's undoing was probably in the 1980s...they've had so many PR nightmares that it would be hard for any non-heavily-capitalized group to make a go of it.

Click to expand...

The PR problems are their own doing and this again does nothing to advance your argument!

deadheadskier said:

I tried finding the data, but I know Ragged got about 80 last year, when they average a bit over 100. This year it was probably 150+.

IIRC, last year was the winter that ended in February. There was basically no meaningful snow at all until the freak storm at the end of April.

Click to expand...

Yea, last year we got no March. But Cannon did not suffer Ragged's below average fate. Perhaps NoNH did better than SoNH. January 1-3 in 2010, Cannon got three feet alone which may have been a significant contribution to Cannon being above its average even without March snows.

Trailboss - my hypothesis about those NELSAP areas is in regard to the triangle of government run areas they were in/near during their demise.

Also, you're incorrect about the Temple quad. That was a modern lift with a modern overhead drive and modern line equipment. The centerpole chairs were antiquated, but that's about all. Nashoba jumped on that one.

I'm feeling like the argument that Cannon Ski Area is any more for the people of NH because the State runs it is thin. It doesn't seem any different to me than any of the ski areas in the State. The resident discount pass is a good deal, but not spectacular. I think the vocal opposition here at az is mainly due to the fact that we're expert skiers who would prefer it not to be more crowded and somehow mangled to be more of a cruiser's hill, which seems likely under lease.

bobbutts said:

I think the vocal opposition here at az is mainly due to the fact that we're expert skiers who would prefer it not to be more crowded and somehow mangled to be more of a cruiser's hill, which seems likely under lease.

Click to expand...

This is the argument I don't buy and no one has yet to step up to my previous challenge of describing what would change. Cannon already IS a cruiser's hill. When both mountains are fully open, Wildcat leaves more bumps ungroomed as a percent of available terrain. Cannon grooms the snot out of the place, already. And I think with Mittersill now open, they are more likely to continue grooming the snot out of the place. They love that friggin' winch cat and they sounded only too excited when they wrote about grooming Paulie's earlier this season.

threecy said:

Trailboss - my hypothesis about those NELSAP areas is in regard to the triangle of government run areas they were in/near during their demise.

Click to expand...

Few questions regarding your hypothesis

King Ridge 1961 - 1995
Crotched 1964 - 1989
Temple 1937 - 2001
Highlands 1968 - 1995
Tenney 1960 - 1990 then several closures and re-openings through 2009

1. How did those areas all survive for 30 - 60 years competing against the Big Bad state areas?

2. Why didn't Pat's Peak and Ragged shut down as well? Wouldn't they have been the 1st to go? Pat's is easily the smallest of the group. Ragged the most remote.

3. You often talk of the virtues of private ownership at Sunapee and how the State did a terrible job with Sunapee only bringing in 110K skier visits per year and now Sunapee does 250K+ under the Meullers management. Don't you think if Sunapee was under private ownership for decades and that successful that it would have crushed those small ski areas far sooner than the State did as you hypothesize?

4. How is it that a reopened Crotched has been able to thrive against a well run privatized Mount Sunapee, yet a poorly state run Mt. Sunapee put it out of business?

riverc0il said:

This is the argument I don't buy and no one has yet to step up to my previous challenge of describing what would change. Cannon already IS a cruiser's hill. When both mountains are fully open, Wildcat leaves more bumps ungroomed as a percent of available terrain. Cannon grooms the snot out of the place, already. And I think with Mittersill now open, they are more likely to continue grooming the snot out of the place. They love that friggin' winch cat and they sounded only too excited when they wrote about grooming Paulie's earlier this season.

Click to expand...

Got to disagree about Cannon being a cruiser's hill. Yes they have groomed it but the pitch of ~ 80% of those trails still intimidates the majority of the skiers... meaning the intermediates. Try taking a terminal intermediate on any of the groomed front trails ... they will get psych out by the pitch alone.

IMO.... Loon is the cruiser hill, its groomed and the pitch for the most part hits the comfort zone of the majority.

IMO2.... That's why current Cannon privatization will fail. They need more trails that will hit the sweep spot of the market. Prolly have to get most of the old Mittersill trails open and widen.

riverc0il said:

This is the argument I don't buy and no one has yet to step up to my previous challenge of describing what would change. Cannon already IS a cruiser's hill. When both mountains are fully open, Wildcat leaves more bumps ungroomed as a percent of available terrain. Cannon grooms the snot out of the place, already. And I think with Mittersill now open, they are more likely to continue grooming the snot out of the place. They love that friggin' winch cat and they sounded only too excited when they wrote about grooming Paulie's earlier this season.

Click to expand...

It might help to note that I'm intimate with several places that groom like maniacs. In the last years I've had passes at:
Stratton, Okemo, Sunapee, Cannon, Bretton Woods, Pat's Peak, Loon, Sunday River (never made it to Loaf that season).. I like to buy passes at nearby places with reliable snowmaking and get around to other, more distant natural, places when the snow is good. So anyway roundabout point is that from this perspective Cannon (and SR but didn't spend much time there) stick out as places that groom less to me.
I know that you spend far more days than I do in the snowbelt of N. VT, and among that list of resorts Cannon may stick out more on the other end of the grooming spectrum.

I think the subj of Sunapee from 110k to 250k visits is worth talking about some more
Things Sunapee did:
1. Improved lifts drastically
2. Improved snowmaking and grooming
3. Better customer service and marketing? (hardly went there before mueller's)
These are kind of no brainer things to do, is it completely unrealistic for the State to accomplish these kinds of things and a given that a lessee will?


Things that happened outside their control.
1. Gas costs made more people favor their location vs. more distant resorts more than they did previously
2. Market has shifted to favor mellow pitch and milder weather.
3. ??

Anyway what I'm getting at is that the results at Sunapee were not a vacuum and may not be repeatable at Cannon anyway.

jack97 said:

Got to disagree about Cannon being a cruiser's hill. Yes they have groomed it but the pitch of ~ 80% of those trails still intimidates the majority of the skiers... meaning the intermediates. Try taking a terminal intermediate on any of the groomed front trails ... they will get psych out by the pitch alone.

IMO.... Loon is the cruiser hill, its groomed and the pitch for the most part hits the comfort zone of the majority.

IMO2.... That's why current Cannon privatization will fail. They need more trails that will hit the sweep spot of the market. Prolly have to get most of the old Mittersill trails open and widen.

Click to expand...

Reread the post I was replying to and put my comment in context. Cruising in that context means that Cannon grooms a ton. I never said Cannon was a great cruising hill compared to the likes of Loon and Burke, et al. But even if Cannon is not the best cruising mountain around, the vast majority of Cannon skiers never leave the groomers, so it is all the same. Cannon is just responding to skier/rider demand for groomed trails whether it suits Cannon's character or not. It doesn't have the topography to be the best cruising mountain around, it is a steeper than average mountain. But it still gets the snot groomed out of it even as a state managed area.

bobbutts said:

It might help to note that I'm intimate with several places that groom like maniacs. In the last years I've had passes at:
Stratton, Okemo, Sunapee, Cannon, Bretton Woods, Pat's Peak, Loon, Sunday River (never made it to Loaf that season).. I like to buy passes at nearby places with reliable snowmaking and get around to other, more distant natural, places when the snow is good. So anyway roundabout point is that from this perspective Cannon (and SR but didn't spend much time there) stick out as places that groom less to me.
I know that you spend far more days than I do in the snowbelt of N. VT, and among that list of resorts Cannon may stick out more on the other end of the grooming spectrum.

Click to expand...

It is less about location than it is about type of area. Cannon has been known as a Skier's Mountain, not a resort. So my comparisons have been to other skier's mountains whereas you compared Cannon to resorts especially noted for a lot of snow making and grooming (very much so for grooming). Most recently I compared it to Wildcat which has more natural terrain. Bear in mind, I am excluded Mittersill in my commentary. Compare to Jay, Smuggs, Stowe, Bush, Saddleback, and Killington and the comparison of over grooming is even more appropriate. I won't even bother comparing to MRG or Magic.

bobbutts said:

I think the subj of Sunapee from 110k to 250k visits is worth talking about some more
Things Sunapee did:
1. Improved lifts drastically
2. Improved snowmaking and grooming
3. Better customer service and marketing? (hardly went there before mueller's)
These are kind of no brainer things to do, is it completely unrealistic for the State to accomplish these kinds of things and a given that a lessee will?


Things that happened outside their control.
1. Gas costs made more people favor their location vs. more distant resorts more than they did previously
2. Market has shifted to favor mellow pitch and milder weather.
3. ??

Anyway what I'm getting at is that the results at Sunapee were not a vacuum and may not be repeatable at Cannon anyway.

Click to expand...

I agree.

Threecy likes to throw the rise in skier visits accomplished at Sunapee to strengthen his argument for private operations at Cannon. There is NO WAY Cannon would ever see an increase in skier visits of 250% like Sunapee without massive real estate development and widening Mittersill trails, adding snowmaking to all of them and a high speed lift to service the area.


Look at what the Meullers did

1. Added a summit HSQ
(HSQ is already in place at Cannon. Doesn't appear to be a need for one at Cannonball)

2. Replaced Sunbowl triple with a Quad

3. Built a new lodge
(Cannon's lodge was expanded and renovated last summer)

4. Increased Snowmaking.
(This is an area that Cannon could be improved to get to the level of Loon or Sunapee)

but overall, there really isn't much that can be done at Cannon. I don't really see the benefit of private ownership for the Cannon skier. All they might expect is better snowmaking, slightly increased skier traffic and significant rise in pricing.

Anyone interested in carrying on this conversation over a hike and turns on Cannon tomorrow? There is enough snow to make it worthwhile and it's supposed to be a nice day. I plan to start the up around 7am, but am flexible if there's company....

deadheadskier said:

Threecy likes to throw the rise in skier visits accomplished at Sunapee to strengthen his argument for private operations at Cannon. There is NO WAY Cannon would ever see an increase in skier visits of 250% like Sunapee without massive real estate development and widening Mittersill trails, adding snowmaking to all of them and a high speed lift to service the area.

Click to expand...

Why not? As it stands today, Cannon already has a larger uphill capacity than Sunapee, but for half the skiers. There is plenty of potential at Cannon - removing the shackles of government budgets, etc. could go a long way.

Like with Sunapee, most of the Cannon employees would probably remain at Cannon and be able to perform better with the flexibility and common sense that private sector operations can provide.

threecy said:

Why not? As it stands today, Cannon already has a larger uphill capacity than Sunapee, but for half the skiers. There is plenty of potential at Cannon - removing the shackles of government budgets, etc. could go a long way.

Like with Sunapee, most of the Cannon employees would probably remain at Cannon and be able to perform better with the flexibility and common sense that private sector operations can provide.

Click to expand...

Why don't you explain for us what you think a private owner can do to Cannon to bring it to 250K skier visits.

Sunapee had to undergo massive investment to get to that number. Sunapee also has terrain far better suited for the average skier than Cannon does.

I don't think there's much of comparison to be made like you're trying to do.

But please, I'm all ears. What could Cannon do and why would it be better for the people who ski there?

As it stands today, Cannon already has a larger uphill capacity than Sunapee, but for half the skiers

Click to expand...

Thats one of my favorite things about Cannon, the lack of crowds and great terrain. I love the mountain the way it is and with the mittersill lift open now, there is even more terrain to explore. Its the classic feel of the place that gets me every time which I cant see any company keeping if they take the mountain over. My view on cannon is that it is a gem and if its making money than why bother leasing it? If it is loosing money, it is worth paying that small sum to keep it the way it is because there is no other mountain that I have experienced that skis like cannon does. Wildcat has a similar vibe, but cannon just has that special feel to it.

deadheadskier said:

Why don't you explain for us what you think a private owner can do to Cannon to bring it to 250K skier visits.

Sunapee had to undergo massive investment to get to that number. Sunapee also has terrain far better suited for the average skier than Cannon does.

Click to expand...

I disagree in regard to terrain.

I think one of the first things you'd see a private operator invest in would be snowmaking.

so, improved snowmaking will increase skier visits by 100%?