I was waiting for you to weigh in. Thanks!
-
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
I was waiting for you to weigh in. Thanks!
steamboat1
New member
steamboat1
New member
drjeff
Well-known member
Sounds like Powdr/Cummings is threatening to throw a giant temper tantrum now that they pretty much see the writing on the wall that this isn't going to end well for them in court
Highway Star
Active member
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2005
- Messages
- 2,921
- Points
- 36
Correction, it's going to be a world class hissy fit.
Hmmmm......
jaytrem
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2007
- Messages
- 1,990
- Points
- 83
So now PCMR wants to take their lifts and go home....
http://www.parkrecord.com/ci_25521543/pcmr-intends-dismantle-remove-most-lifts-if-it
Sure is interesting to watch.
mbedle
Well-known member
I'm having a really hard time understanding what Vail thinks is going to happen with this issue. On one hand, the judge rules in Vail's favor and after PCMR's appeal, still rules in Vail's favor. Doesn't this leave Vail with half a resort, with no base facilities, water rights, master development plan and direct access to park city. At that point, I would think PCMR is in a really good position to lease these back to Vail at a pretty high cost.
mbedle
Well-known member
Also, do you think if it gets to a point where nothing is operating at the resort, that the city would chime in? The financial damage to the city as well as the business owners would be huge.
That's part of the problem on Vail's side. But then again the addition of the upper part of PCMR would still be an expansion.
mbedle
Well-known member
Trailboss, yes it would, but at what cost to rebuild all the lower lifts (if they still stand) and limited lower mountain snow making? The marketing damage from not having access to downtown would be really hard to over come (not that they couldn't find a way or buy a way for access to the town).
Those are small details
But exactly. Major logistical hurdles indeed. They may opt NOT to have a base area...as crazy as that sounds. And remember that Vail sent notice that they would make a "reasonable offer" to buy the base area.
mbedle
Well-known member
You are right, that if the price is right and the courts rule in favor of Vail, PCMR could sell the base areas and transfer everything else to Vail. But, that should happen/occur at a "reasonable offer", is a joke. In this case, PCMR has the upper hand, given this is far from a normal situation. PCMR has an opportunely to walk away with a big chunk of money and could go off and buy some other major resort. I hate to say this, and I really don't have anything bad to say about Vail, but I hope that ultimately, they lose this battle in some shape or form. It would bring a smile to my face to see PCMR continue to operate a great resort or worst, to see the place empty with Vail stuck with only the Canyons... and land that doesn't (financially) make it worth the effort to develop.
Hawkshot99
Active member
If Vail wins the case and PCMR is no longer in operation and operated by Vail/Canyons then they would go and install new lifts connecting the 2 resorts regardless of whether they had access to the base or not. If that happens then their will be only 1 person to sell the land at the base to(truly only Vail/Canyons would buy that land currently).
So PCMR could refuse to sell the base land, and Vail/Canyons will install the connecting lifts and operate the ski area. Powder then will have this wasted land sitting there that nobody will buy, and Vail/Canyons can sweat them out.
I see no way that a judge would allow Powder to remove the lifts claiming they are not "affixed" to the resort.
jaytrem
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2007
- Messages
- 1,990
- Points
- 83
The current base area isn't the only place the base area can exist. Perhaps another land owner(s) would be willing to cash-out.
mbedle
Well-known member
It just keeps getting better.... Like two kids fighting over who gets to ride the bike...
http://extras.parkrecord.com/video/katzletter2.pdf
And the reply from PCMR:
http://extras.parkrecord.com/video/powdrstatement.pdf
http://extras.parkrecord.com/video/katzletter2.pdf
And the reply from PCMR:
http://extras.parkrecord.com/video/powdrstatement.pdf
Last edited:
I thought that POWDR made two big concessions: one, it is willing to BUY the land for MORE than it's worth. Second, they are willing to enter into a new lease for MORE than fair market value. That seems a little desperate.
And hurry and get your pass now! http://www.parkcitymountain.com/site/tickets-and-rentals/passes/season-passes
With this caveat yet again:
John Cumming making some comments after a recent hearing. This could be a "tragedy" for his team he said and he speculates as to why Talisker is doing what it is doing:
Alan Sullivan, attorney for PCMR, admitting that this whole thing was because of an "honest mistake."
Alan Sullivan, attorney for PCMR, admitting that this whole thing was because of an "honest mistake."
VTKilarney
Well-known member
My spidey sense says that Vail is much more assured of winning than Powdr is.
Last edited:
drjeff
Well-known member
I'm guessing that right about now if Cumming and Powdr really still want to run PCMR that the original lease offer that Talisker made (I believe it was for between 3.5-4 million a year) is looking mighty fine as it seems like they WAY overplayed their hand and are now even taking a "beating" in the court of public opinion far more than before as Katz and Vail Resorts have put forth a very sound media campaign that dispels much of the now seemingly hyperbole that Powdr put out there as it has been going down the last few years!
Powdr and Cumming are likely to end up as the subject of a case study in the Harvard Business Review someday over this and it won't be portraying them in a way that any businessman or company wants to be portrayed in that or any business journal!!
Powdr and Cumming are likely to end up as the subject of a case study in the Harvard Business Review someday over this and it won't be portraying them in a way that any businessman or company wants to be portrayed in that or any business journal!!
Similar threads
