For the immediate future, nothing really. They will appeal; the order will be stayed. As to the other questions we can only wait and see.
-
Welcome to AlpineZone, the largest online community of skiers and snowboarders in the Northeast!
You may have to REGISTER before you can post. Registering is FREE, gets rid of the majority of advertisements, and lets you participate in giveaways and other AlpineZone events!
Park City/Talisker-Vail Lawsuit
- Thread starter thetrailboss
- Start date
For the immediate future, nothing really. They will appeal; the order will be stayed. As to the other questions we can only wait and see.
Highway Star
Active member
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2005
- Messages
- 2,921
- Points
- 36
You are correct, but thetrailboss knows everything so it is pointless to argue.
Fact is, Snowbird is screwed.
ScottySkis
Well-known member
Higj way Star can perdict the future. Should i put 1000$ dollars in Rangers winning tonight?
I see your mother let you back on the internet....
And you seem to know it all, as demonstrated by this statement.
steamboat1
New member
mbedle
Well-known member
Any guess on how much Powdr will sell the base facility, lower lifts, water rights and copyrighted name for? A couple of years from now, I would say they will be in the driver seat on getting above market value for them. On the downside of everything is its guaranteed that Powdr will not be investing any money in the resort during the appeal process.
mister moose
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2007
- Messages
- 1,088
- Points
- 48
Why would they be in the driver's seat? They have an asset that has highest and best use value to only one buyer. One buyer is not the way to get above market value in most cases.
I've been watching a similar situation where an owner owns a small lot right in the middle of a growing business. Flanked on both sides. The business would buy it for the value of the lot, but not more than other houses nearby. The business would love to have contiguous property. The lot owner wants a much higher value based on what commercial activity could be built there, however his lot alone isn't big enough for much of a business.
This has been going on for twenty years.
The lot owner is somewhat screwed because it is bordered by commercial activity, low on bucolic factor. Will he ever sell at a lower price? Will the business ever pay a higher price? Who knows. When personalities and egos get involved, anything is possible if neither is getting squeezed.
steamboat1
New member
Whatever they may get for the base area etc. if they do sell is chump change compared to the amount of revenue they would have received if they had just renewed their sweetheart lease.
mbedle
Well-known member
The example you gave isn't the same as this situation. The surrounding commercial enterprises did not need the small lot to run their businesses. Ignoring the fact that Vail says they can run PCMR without the base facilities (which they could - albeit very badly), Powdr has tangible real estate and water rights that Vail absolutely needs to run PCMR and provide visitors a connection to Park City. People are not going to vacation in Park City, travel out of town to the Canyons, board multiple lifts to gain access to most of PCMR terrain, than board more lifts to travel back to the Canyons base to head back down to Park City. If this was the only resort that Powdr owned, you would be right, they would have to sell or just go under. However, they own others and financially could weather a long time before selling/leasing to Vail. Fencing off the base, paying taxes and maintaining the infrastructure is a minimal cost without paying staff, expenses and utilities. I also think I've read that Vail (believe it or not) did already offer to pay above market value for the base facilities. Remember too that Vail overpaid for the Canyons resort/lease. I would guess and its also been said that they did that knowing that they would ultimately take over the PCMR.
jaytrem
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2007
- Messages
- 1,992
- Points
- 83
Are there a bunch of condos, townhouses, etc on the PCMR property? If so, I doubt the owners would go for that. It also looks like Vail would potentially be able to access the resort from the Town Lift (3rd property owner).
MEtoVTSkier
Active member
I would would have to guess NOT if that "Town Lift" goes over even an inch of PCMR base property...
jaytrem
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2007
- Messages
- 1,992
- Points
- 83
From the looks of the property map that was in one of the articles it doesn't look like it goes over PCMR property at all. It's not very zoomed in, so can't tell for sure. If I was the property owner at the base I be in bed with Vail in a second. Gotta cash in while you can.
mbedle
Well-known member
Good point jaytrem, guess I was just thinking of the ski resort operations buildings and lift terminals. Are you sure they do not own the town lift? I understand they don't own the plaza parcel, but ownership of the lift I'm pretty sure they do. If any of the towers are on their property, the lift can't operate. Actual, if it just crosses over any of their property, it can't operate.
Highway Star
Active member
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2005
- Messages
- 2,921
- Points
- 36
PCMR could go into the business of being a premium access point for the canyons, I wonder how that would work out....?
jaytrem
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2007
- Messages
- 1,992
- Points
- 83
I assume PCMR owns the actual lift, for now. Of course the lawyers will battle it out over what is a fixed asset, since they're supposed to leave all fixed assets behind. However, I think that was one of the lifts they basically said they wouldn't bother removing even if they could. It might also be cemented in rather than bolted like the newer lifts. That was part of their claim that the lifts aren't a fixed asset. At any rate if that was one of Vail's few access points I'm sure they would upgrade it immediately. Wouldn't be surprised if they threw a Gondola in there. I think the current plans called for a short Cabriolet and then a HSQ to serve the upper (more lap-able) part.
drjeff
Well-known member
Part of me wonders as this train wreck for Powdr drags on if at some point the good past relationship on a ski area/land developer perspective that Talisker has with Deer Valley comes into play?? Ad in the potential Canyon-link (or whatever they want to call it today) between the Canyons and Solitude and you potentially could see multiple access points, albeit not as convenient as the current PCMR base area, to the terrain that Powdr/PCMR lost out on it the ruling.
Heck, Gondola wise from a Park City downtown to Deer Valley standpoint, things are apparently quite close to making that happen.
Add in the Powdr/PCMR base situation to the mix and potentially I could see some negotiations between Talisker/Vail and Deer Valley to remove the no snowboard policy at DV and create a new access route around the existing PCMR base, especially as DV apparently soon embarks on another expansion and real estate development project in the area roughly South and West of Mayflower Bowl and Jordanelle/Deercrest.
There's LOTS of potential $$ to be made and you've got a decent number of ski area and ski area real estate developers with decent sized pockets in the mix for some prime real estate, so who really knows how this will all play out and if anything is really off the table?
Heck, Gondola wise from a Park City downtown to Deer Valley standpoint, things are apparently quite close to making that happen.
Add in the Powdr/PCMR base situation to the mix and potentially I could see some negotiations between Talisker/Vail and Deer Valley to remove the no snowboard policy at DV and create a new access route around the existing PCMR base, especially as DV apparently soon embarks on another expansion and real estate development project in the area roughly South and West of Mayflower Bowl and Jordanelle/Deercrest.
There's LOTS of potential $$ to be made and you've got a decent number of ski area and ski area real estate developers with decent sized pockets in the mix for some prime real estate, so who really knows how this will all play out and if anything is really off the table?
I'm pretty sure that DV owns their land. And all but certain that snowboarders won't be there anytime soon.
Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone
Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone
jaytrem
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2007
- Messages
- 1,992
- Points
- 83
How sure are you about that? I'm not positive, but I seem to recall reading many times that Talisker owns a lot of the Deer Valley land. They do seem to be the ones developing a lot of the Empire and surrounding area....
http://talisker.com/index.html
drjeff
Well-known member
My thoughts exactly! Talisker has been the primary developer from basically Snow Park North towards Empire Canyon. Empire Canyon is separated from parts of the McConkey area of PCMR by not much more than a rope and about a gallon of diesel fuel in a cat. If Powdr continues to be in denial of how much they screwed up, I don't think its that far fetched to see Talisker to work its relationship with DV to make things happen. Plus let's be honest, of the 3 non snowboarding resorts left in the US, DV has to be the most likely to allow snowboarding next, since there's a bunch of folks with BIG $$ who either board or who have kids/grandkids who board that would likely want to buy a 7 to 8 figure house at DV's new or existing residential developments than they can seriously turn a shoulder against for that much longer and still continue to expand to new developable areas!
You're assuming that DV does the real estate development. They do some, but you're right that Talisker is also developing land at DV. My point was that I believe that DV owns the ski terrain.
Similar threads
