The "Sugarbush Thread"

cdskier · Jul 31, 2015

thetrailboss said:
True, but Sugarbush has, until recently, had a lot of problems. I recall there being a problem here and there in my years there, but the 2013-2014 season was really bad from what I heard. Last season I believe was better.

I skied nearly every weekend of the 2013-2014 season from Jan to May (and did a bunch of midweek skiing in December). Were there issues? Yes. I think overall they were exaggerated a bit though. HG had some significant issues for sure that year (I missed getting stuck on it the day people had to be evac'd by about 5-10 minutes). Overall SB addressed them though and did major overhauls of a bunch of lifts. If they had done nothing, then I could see an argument to be made on this topic.

This past year was much better (with the exception of NRX at ME). Although even for NRX I don't blame SB. There were detailed explanations of the issues they ran into on the MRV forum from Win. I'd chalk it up to a lot of bad luck on that one. The motor had to be shipped out to be rebuilt even though it was still about 4 years short of the recommended time to need that to happen. I doubt other ski areas do proactive maintenance on items 4 years before they are recommended to be done by the lift manufacturers...

cdskier · Jul 31, 2015

thetrailboss said:
Upper Inverness would be sweet.

I'll agree there...

HowieT2 · Jul 31, 2015

cdskier said:
I'll agree there...

How about we keep upper Inverness for ourselves. :angry::angry:

Seriously, don't see it happening. There is a massive amount of investment that would need to go into mt Ellen along with installing a new lift and cutting new trails. To capitalize on the investment you would need a new or redone base lodge (which my understanding is would require a significant rebuild of the sewage system) and probably a new glen house. So you're talking a lot of condos that need to be sold. judging by the buildout of the lp village, win and company are more inclined towards slow incremental steps. And they haven't even finished at lp. They have 3 more units there which at the rate they're going will take 3 years. Fwiw-I think that's when we'll see either a new or expanded valley house lodge, or a mid mtn lodge.

steamboat1 · Aug 1, 2015

HowieT2 said:
And FWIW, the real game changer over there IMO would be Upper Inverness rather than Lower FIS. I'd rather be placing my bets on upper elevation terrain that's all above 2500' rather than a lower elevation pod that tops out around that level.

thetrailboss said:
Upper Inverness would be sweet.

From what I understand they don't own or have leasehold to any of that land. It's the reason why the lift line that was cut years ago was never developed. They f'd up.

HowieT2 · Aug 1, 2015

steamboat1 said:
From what I understand they don't own or have leasehold to any of that land. It's the reason why the lift line that was cut years ago was never developed. They f'd up.

That's only partly correct. That old lift line was cut on land a piece of which was not owned by the resort but most of the terrain is owned by sb and that wouldn't be an issue in developing the pod.

cdskier · Aug 1, 2015

HowieT2 said:
And they haven't even finished at lp. They have 3 more units there which at the rate they're going will take 3 years.

I think it will be much longer than 3 years to finish the build out of condos at LP. I just don't think the demand is there for all these high-end condos. From what I heard they almost didn't sell enough of Gadd Brook to even break ground.

dlague · Aug 1, 2015

All this talk about My Ellen. I have never had an issue with the lift layout I like the way that side is. I will have to look at a little closer but...... VH had to go and I am sure it was not an option I also like the new location at the base.

steamboat1 · Aug 1, 2015

Replacing VH was a good move. It's been awhile since Sugarbush put any money into new lifts. The only other lifts Win has put in since he took over 10+ years ago has been GMX over at Mt. Ellen & the Castle Rock double I believe. Most of his other resort investment has been for off mountain improvements ie; hotel, condo's, base lodge etc. which I believe was mostly built using EB-5 money, not his own money. It's good that he's building out LP but once he's done there really isn't any room for terrain expansion at LP. Mt. Ellen on the other hand has room for terrain expansion which has already been discussed in this thread. If he wants Sugarbush to continue to grow in the future I think the only room to grow is at Mt. Ellen. Of course only after he's finished with his plans for LP

HowieT2 · Aug 1, 2015

cdskier said:
I think it will be much longer than 3 years to finish the build out of condos at LP. I just don't think the demand is there for all these high-end condos. From what I heard they almost didn't sell enough of Gadd Brook to even break ground.

well, that's at 800k for a 2br.

cdskier · Aug 2, 2015

HowieT2 said:
well, that's at 800k for a 2br.

Exactly...which is crazy. I'm very happy in my 2br condo just up the road that didn't cost me anywhere near that much. I can still ski back to my condo if I really want to, although I usually just take the Mtn Condos shuttle instead.

On the one hand SB talks about wanting to get more younger people hooked on skiing for the long term (i.e. the original goal of the Four20s pass), but then they go and build condos that are way out of reach for the vast majority of people (especially the younger crowd that they need for the future). I'd say they should build more reasonably priced condos, but I understand that just isn't cost effective to do and would severely cut into the profits that they need to use to pay back the remaining EB5 investors.

Oh well...C'est la vie...

WWF-VT · Aug 2, 2015

cdskier said:
Exactly...which is crazy. I'm very happy in my 2br condo just up the road that didn't cost me anywhere near that much. I can still ski back to my condo if I really want to, although I usually just take the Mtn Condos shuttle instead.

On the one hand SB talks about wanting to get more younger people hooked on skiing for the long term (i.e. the original goal of the Four20s pass), but then they go and build condos that are way out of reach for the vast majority of people (especially the younger crowd that they need for the future). I'd say they should build more reasonably priced condos, but I understand that just isn't cost effective to do and would severely cut into the profits that they need to use to pay back the remaining EB5 investors.

Oh well...C'est la vie...

You can't fault Sugarbush for trying to maximize revenue/profit from the sales of prime real estate at the base of the mountain when there are plenty of available condos for sale "just up the road" that are affordable for a larger potential market.

steamboat1 · Aug 2, 2015

cdskier said:
I understand that just isn't cost effective to do and would severely cut into the profits that they need to use to pay back the remaining EB5 investors.

Which sounds like a ponzi scheme to me. According to Win himself the monies from the sale of Gadd Brook condos is being used to pay back some of the original EB-5 investors that funded the build out of the base area. I assume he's talking about the hotel, base lodge, school house etc. According to Win 18 of the original 40 EB-5 investors have been redeemed. How are the EB-5 investors in Gadd Brook supposed to get payed back if the monies from that project is being used to pay back investors in another project? I guess the answer is start another project & use the monies from that to pay back Gadd Brook investors. Eventually someone is going to be left holding the bag.

jimmck · Aug 2, 2015

steamboat1 said:
Which sounds like a ponzi scheme to me. According to Win himself the monies from the sale of Gadd Brook condos is being used to pay back some of the original EB-5 investors that funded the build out of the base area. I assume he's talking about the hotel, base lodge, school house etc. According to Win 18 of the original 40 EB-5 investors have been redeemed. How are the EB-5 investors in Gadd Brook supposed to get payed back if the monies from that project is being used to pay back investors in another project? I guess the answer is start another project & use the monies from that to pay back Gadd Brook investors. Eventually someone is going to be left holding the bag.

You're assuming that there was another round of EB-5 investment to fund the development of Gadd Brook.

From what I read, Sugarbush used a single round of EB-5 funding to date.

"In 2004, Sugarbush worked with the EB-5 financing program to raise $20 million for development of the Lincoln Peak base area. Of the forty investors in the resort’s EB-5 program, 18 investors have been redeemed. According to Smith, proceeds from the sale of Gadd Brook will go towards redeeming the other 22 investors in the program."

http://www.vermontbiz.com/news/june/gadd-brook-slopeside-sugarbush-resort-breaks-ground

machski · Aug 2, 2015

steamboat1 said:
Replacing VH was a good move. It's been awhile since Sugarbush put any money into new lifts. The only other lifts Win has put in since he took over 10+ years ago has been GMX over at Mt. Ellen & the Castle Rock double I believe. Most of his other resort investment has been for off mountain improvements ie; hotel, condo's, base lodge etc. which I believe was mostly built using EB-5 money, not his own money. It's good that he's building out LP but once he's done there really isn't any room for terrain expansion at LP. Mt. Ellen on the other hand has room for terrain expansion which has already been discussed in this thread. If he wants Sugarbush to continue to grow in the future I think the only room to grow is at Mt. Ellen. Of course only after he's finished with his plans for LP

Incorrect on your lifts, Castlerock was an ASC (well, LBO Holdings at the time) install. Win's group has only the GMX and now VH as installs.

benski · Aug 2, 2015

machski said:
Incorrect on your lifts, Castlerock was an ASC (well, LBO Holdings at the time) install. Win's group has only the GMX and now VH as installs.

Castlerock is the opposite of what the ASC wanted, which was to replace it with an express quad. The Castlerock double has a lower uphill capacity than the single chair. Are you sure the asc installed that lift.

Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone

thetrailboss · Aug 2, 2015

benski said:
Castlerock is the opposite of what the ASC wanted, which was to replace it with an express quad. The Castlerock double has a lower uphill capacity than the single chair. Are you sure the asc installed that lift.

Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone

To be fair, I think that ASC started it and then handed the project over to Win after the sale in 2001.

ASC ran Sugarbush in 2000-2001. In the spring of 2001 the State informed ASC/Sugarbush that the Castlerock Lift would not pass inspection and needed replacement. Poma replaced it that summer. At the time they were in the process of selling it to Win; I'm pretty sure that Win did not get the keys to the place until that fall.

In 2001 it was ASC, not LBO. LBO did the $28 million of work in 1995, but that did not include the Castlerock Chair. That said, they DID want to widen those trails and put in a HSQ, but it never happened.

vonski · Aug 2, 2015

[h=2]The Summit Ventures Era (2001-present)[/h]Today Sugarbush is owned and operated by Summit Ventures NE, LLC, as partnership of a few individuals which is majority owned by Win Smith, Jr. All investors in Summit Ventures are skiers and riders and devoted to the long-term success of the Mad River Valley and Sugarbush. They have a vision for the Resort that is very much the way Damon & Sarah Gadd and Jack Murphy envisioned it nearly 49 years ago. They believe that life is truly better here in the Mad River Valley. They are committed to making Sugarbush a better place, and they believe that guests can become better too at the things they love doing here. Since acquiring the Resort in 2001, the Castlerock and Green Mountain Express chairlifts were replaced, the snowmaking system continues to be upgraded each year, new grooming equipment has been purchased, the famed Robert Trent Jones Golf course has been significantly upgraded, and the new Gate House Lodge was completed in December 2006. The refined slope side residences of Clay Brook also opened in December 2006. In 2013 construction was completed on the new Rice Brook Residences, private homes linking Lincoln Peak village to historic Sugarbush Village.

Above is from Sugarbush site!

cdskier · Aug 2, 2015

WWF-VT said:
You can't fault Sugarbush for trying to maximize revenue/profit from the sales of prime real estate at the base of the mountain when there are plenty of available condos for sale "just up the road" that are affordable for a larger potential market.

Oh I completely understand it. I just think it will take much longer than they originally thought to reach the full build out of the original development plan. I just don't see the demand being there.

jimmck said:
From what I read, Sugarbush used a single round of EB-5 funding to date.

My understanding as well is that there was only 1 round of that type of funding done. Maybe they are using more traditional financing for the money needed to build the new condos. That would make sense if they supposedly needed to sell a certain amount before breaking ground. The banks probably wouldn't give a loan if a certain percent aren't sold. They want to be sure they will get their money. 50% of the units being sold might cover the construction costs. Then the other 50% once they are sold are "profit" that go back to pay back the EB-5 investors (50% was just an example, I have no idea if that's the real number).

benski said:
Castlerock is the opposite of what the ASC wanted, which was to replace it with an express quad.

Glad ASC never got what they wanted. I can't see a quad of any kind being in the CR area.

steamboat1 · Aug 2, 2015

jimmck said:
You're assuming that there was another round of EB-5 investment to fund the development of Gadd Brook.

From what I read, Sugarbush used a single round of EB-5 funding to date.

"In 2004, Sugarbush worked with the EB-5 financing program to raise $20 million for development of the Lincoln Peak base area. Of the forty investors in the resort’s EB-5 program, 18 investors have been redeemed. According to Smith, proceeds from the sale of Gadd Brook will go towards redeeming the other 22 investors in the program."

http://www.vermontbiz.com/news/june/gadd-brook-slopeside-sugarbush-resort-breaks-ground

Well the cost for the build out is supposedly upwards of $100m. 40 investers at a 1/2 mil each is only $20m. Where's the rest of the money comimg from? Besides Sugarbush didn't have to show they created any new jobs. They only had to show they saved them being revenue was down over 20% at the time.

Tin Woodsman · Aug 3, 2015

steamboat1 said:
Well the cost for the build out is supposedly upwards of $100m. 40 investers at a 1/2 mil each is only $20m. Where's the rest of the money comimg from? Besides Sugarbush didn't have to show they created any new jobs. They only had to show they saved them being revenue was down over 20% at the time.

Amazingly, the owners of SB not only have their own capital, they can borrow from banks too. Imagine that! Was that question satire or something? Is the EB-5 program the only way ski areas are able to fund capital investments in your universe?

BTW, the Smith on the end of Win's name is the same Smith from Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner and Smith. You do the math.

The "Sugarbush Thread"

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Active member

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

Member

Well-known member

Active member

Moderator

New member

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

Similar threads