• 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!

Aspen / KSL acquired Mammoth Resorts

BenedictGomez

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
12,185
Points
113
Location
Wasatch Back
While Stowe is a real town Tremblant is a fabricated town like Vail. Also Stowe maybe a "walking town" but it is pretty stretched out and although I don't go there often I still drive in between places. Walking towns are more like Breckenridge and Lake Placid.

All of those are easily walkable, except Stowe. Stowe is extremely spread out.

In Vermont, there are the Jay Peak Burke combo but that has to wait until the whole mess is settled. Then there is Smuggs but that does not look like it will go anywhere but that would work well for Vail, beyond those the others are accounted for by PWDER, EPR Properties/Triple Peaks, Peak Resports, Vail, and KSL.

Unfortunately, I disagree. Hopefully I'm wrong.
 

tumbler

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 10, 2014
Messages
1,420
Points
83
It will be intersting to see how these large companies play out. They can only get so big before the losses become too large and start selling. Tough business to make money in. It will be good short term for infrastructure improvements but history seems to prove that the ski industry is not one for large companies.
 

DoublePlanker

Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2010
Messages
306
Points
18
Location
Bedford, NH
Vail is a publicly traded company. It looks like they had $282 million in operating income and $150 million in net income for 2016 (7-31-2016.) I think they will be ok.
 

dlague

Active member
Joined
Nov 7, 2012
Messages
8,792
Points
36
Location
CS, Colorado
Vail is a publicly traded company. It looks like they had $282 million in operating income and $150 million in net income for 2016 (7-31-2016.) I think they will be ok.

I agree - with season pass sales already 10% ahead of last year where they sold 650,000 season passes, they are well on their way. What I thought was interesting is that they still had about 85 million in lift ticket sales above the season pass sales.
 

Smellytele

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 30, 2006
Messages
9,953
Points
113
Location
Right where I want to be
I agree - with season pass sales already 10% ahead of last year where they sold 650,000 season passes, they are well on their way. What I thought was interesting is that they still had about 85 million in lift ticket sales above the season pass sales.

More season passes than dailies. 650k vs ~515k($165 per ticket)
 

Tin Woodsman

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 12, 2004
Messages
1,099
Points
48
Vail is a publicly traded company. It looks like they had $282 million in operating income and $150 million in net income for 2016 (7-31-2016.) I think they will be ok.

Those numbers are true and accurate, but one cannot conclude they are OK just by looking at them alone. If it took $5B in debt to generate that net income and op cash flow (which doesn't include interest payments), then Vail would be in a dire state indeed. That's not the case here - they will be OK - but it's not b/c they had $150M in net income.
 

dlague

Active member
Joined
Nov 7, 2012
Messages
8,792
Points
36
Location
CS, Colorado
Those numbers are true and accurate, but one cannot conclude they are OK just by looking at them alone. If it took $5B in debt to generate that net income and op cash flow (which doesn't include interest payments), then Vail would be in a dire state indeed. That's not the case here - they will be OK - but it's not b/c they had $150M in net income.


In this case gross revenues were $1,601,286 so net income was over 9%.
 

Jully

Active member
Joined
Dec 13, 2014
Messages
2,487
Points
38
Location
Boston, MA
ASC
Intrawest had some SERIOUS financial issues
Booth Creek is all but gone

Serious financial issues, yes, but out of business forever?? Just ASC. Intrawest wasn't rapidly sinking and wasn't sold in a firesale. Same with Booth Creek. They had their heyday and also had their issues, but they endured.
 

dlague

Active member
Joined
Nov 7, 2012
Messages
8,792
Points
36
Location
CS, Colorado
Serious financial issues, yes, but out of business forever?? Just ASC. Intrawest wasn't rapidly sinking and wasn't sold in a firesale. Same with Booth Creek. They had their heyday and also had their issues, but they endured.

Agreed, Was about to respond and saw your post!
 

thetrailboss

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jun 4, 2004
Messages
32,457
Points
113
Location
NEK by Birth
Serious financial issues, yes, but out of business forever?? Just ASC. Intrawest wasn't rapidly sinking and wasn't sold in a firesale. Same with Booth Creek. They had their heyday and also had their issues, but they endured.

Endured, sure. Booth Creek went from several resorts down to one or two. In fact, it doesn't even own Grand Targhee. Gilett bought it for himself and his family from BC. BC is barely a shadow of its former self.

Intrawest was in serious financial trouble and got an injection of capital, but again, it also is much smaller after selling Whistler to a rival.
 

mbedle

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 24, 2013
Messages
1,765
Points
48
Location
Barto, Pennsylvania
The purpose of the comment was some people seem to have a doom and gloom outlook on single companies owning multiple resorts. ASC seems to be the only previous multi-resort owner that crashed and burned. I tend to look at it as a safe guard against a highly variable business. For example, if a standalone resort in one section of the US goes though 2 bad seasons, that may be enough to toss the towel in. With the multiple resort owners, they should be able to buffer against that if one or two of their resorts suffer a couple of bad seasons.
 

benski

Active member
Joined
Jun 18, 2014
Messages
1,114
Points
36
Location
Binghamton NY
The purpose of the comment was some people seem to have a doom and gloom outlook on single companies owning multiple resorts. ASC seems to be the only previous multi-resort owner that crashed and burned. I tend to look at it as a safe guard against a highly variable business. For example, if a standalone resort in one section of the US goes though 2 bad seasons, that may be enough to toss the towel in. With the multiple resort owners, they should be able to buffer against that if one or two of their resorts suffer a couple of bad seasons.

I know there are snow insurance policies. Mountain Creek had one where they got some money if there were not enough days where they could make snow.
 

thetrailboss

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jun 4, 2004
Messages
32,457
Points
113
Location
NEK by Birth
The purpose of the comment was some people seem to have a doom and gloom outlook on single companies owning multiple resorts. ASC seems to be the only previous multi-resort owner that crashed and burned. I tend to look at it as a safe guard against a highly variable business. For example, if a standalone resort in one section of the US goes though 2 bad seasons, that may be enough to toss the towel in. With the multiple resort owners, they should be able to buffer against that if one or two of their resorts suffer a couple of bad seasons.

That was the idea with ASC. Until winter was bad on both coasts and the market crashed.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone
 
Top