Cannon Mountain...thoughts

Cannonball said:

So what happens when the private operator/leasee goes bust? I have been involved in a few debacles at the local/state/and federal level where leasee's have thought they could operate a profitable business on public lands. As their businesses fall apart they tend to start doing anything possible to stay afloat. This is frequently at a huge detriment to the property. And results in an enormous cost for the public land holder (NH in this case). And this can happen in just about any industry.

Leasing can ADD as much (or more) risk as it removes.

Click to expand...

The following private NH ski area operations are leased from the state or federal government:
- Attitash
- Loon
- Sunapee
- Waterville
- Wildcat

The ski area lease is seen as an asset and is sold to another operator.

If the provisions of a Cannon lease agreement are not met, there would probably be a clause to drop the operator from the agreement.

threecy said:

or do NH taxpayers subsidize a ski area that doesn't even offer a majority of the NH skiers there a discount

Click to expand...

you continue to spew BS to try and strengthen your argument. You point out a family 4 would cost $1600+ to get passes to support your argument, but neglect to except the more than $500 savings for a family of four or the $150+ savings for an adult individual.

That's not just available to the majority of NH residents, it's available to ALL NH residents.

As for the state resident Wednesday, it's also available to ALL NH residents. Why do you assume everyone works M-F and only takes vacations during school breaks when the deal is not available?

What ski area public or private offers 50% off skiing on weekends? NOT ONE

I am one of those people that spend 3/4 of a $1K to ski. Wish I could get the ~1/2 of $1K deal.

deadheadskier said:

you continue to spew BS to try and strengthen your argument. You point out a family 4 would cost $1600+ to get passes to support your argument, but neglect to except the more than $500 savings for a family of four or the $150+ savings for an adult individual.

That's not just available to the majority of NH residents, it's available to ALL NH residents.

Click to expand...

threecy said:

or do NH taxpayers subsidize a ski area that doesn't even offer a majority of the NH skiers there a discount

Click to expand...

So you're suggesting that the majority of NH skiers at Cannon either purchase season passes or ski on Wednesday?

threecy said:

So you're suggesting that the majority of NH skiers at Cannon either purchase season passes or ski on Wednesday?

Click to expand...

No, I'm saying the discounts are available to ALL NH residents. That is a fact.

Your argument that it's a bad deal because it's a Wednesday is pointless for two reasons.

1. NO ski area, public or private offers 50% off lift ticket deals on the weekends.

2. Not everyone skis weekends exclusively. For ten years I didn't ski on Saturdays or Sundays because I worked those days.

The only way your argument works is if Cannon offered a 50% discount to NH residents 7 days a week. That would never happen at any publicly or privately held ski area, so it's a pointless argument.

Seeing how you apparently believe that you are the Grand Authority on Cannon's skier demographics as well Cannon's fiscal liability to the state why don't you present the numbers. I said very early in this thread that I can't offer an informed opinion on whether the mountain should be leased or not without seeing the economic data.

So, let's hear it Threecy.

1. How much money did Cannon make or lose each season over the past ten years?

2. How many NH residents buy passes to Cannon? How many out of state passes are sold?

3. What percentage of lift tickets sold on Wednesdays are to NH residents

Again, I said I'd consider a lease if I saw all the data and felt that it was in the best interest of NH skiers,

You're very strong with your opinion that it should be leased, but haven't presented hard data. Just a blanket statement that Cannon costs residents millions and a selfish opinion on the resident discounts because you personally can't ski on Wednesdays and don't want to buy a season pass there.

Do not forget that they get 50% on Tuesday and Thursday for NH residents and others. So you are up to 3 out 7 days a resident can ski for 50%.

Governor Lynch said:

It is a real jewel owned by the state in a beautiful part of New Hampshire. It is now turning a profit under outstanding management, and I think we ought to continue the way it is. As you know, we have worked hard to eventually develop Mittersill to make it the best ski area in the Northeast

Click to expand...

I'd replace the bolded with:
Record snowfall, Top 15 ski areas in NE

deadheadskier said:

No, I'm saying the discounts are available to ALL NH residents. That is a fact.

Click to expand...

The discounts are available to all NH residents who are able to take Wednesday off from work, or can afford to spend hundreds or thousands of dollars on a season pass. That is a small subset of the skiing population, which is already a small subset of the population of New Hampshire.

deadheadskier said:

The only way your argument works is if Cannon offered a 50% discount to NH residents 7 days a week. That would never happen at any publicly or privately held ski area, so it's a pointless argument.

Click to expand...

It is a pointless argument, and you're the only one making a case for it. Nowhere have I suggested Cannon should offer a 50% discount.

deadheadskier said:

Seeing how you apparently believe that you are the Grand Authority on Cannon's skier demographics as well Cannon's fiscal liability to the state why don't you present the numbers. I said very early in this thread that I can't offer an informed opinion on whether the mountain should be leased or not without seeing the economic data.

Click to expand...

I suggest you contact your State Reps and State Senator and ask them to push to make these records available online.

Puck it said:

Do not forget that they get 50% on Tuesday and Thursday for NH residents and others. So you are up to 3 out 7 days a resident can ski for 50%.

Click to expand...

And NH resident college students and NH resident children and NH resident seniors all get discounts too. However, all of those deals, as well as the two you listed, also apply to anyone from anywhere else. So, you're back down to 1 out of 7 days a resident can get a discount in exchange for owning the ski area.

threecy said:

I suggest you contact your State Reps and State Senator and ask them to push to make these records available online.

Click to expand...

Why go through the trouble of contacting my State Reps, when I've got you right here in front of me with all the answers? You must know all the data if you have such a strong opinion correct?

threecy said:

The following private NH ski area operations are leased from the state or federal government:
- Attitash
- Loon
- Sunapee
- Waterville
- Wildcat

The ski area lease is seen as an asset and is sold to another operator.

If the provisions of a Cannon lease agreement are not met, there would probably be a clause to drop the operator from the agreement.

Click to expand...

Sunapee and Cannon are the only ones owned by the state, the others on your list might be on leased land like many many other ski resorts around the country but have nothing to do with this thread. If the state leases out Cannon, it's not probably, but definately there would be provisions in the contract if the lease turns sour.

Cannon Mountain is not only healthy, we are thriving," ski area manager John DeVivo testified at a committee hearing. He said Cannon has wiped out its nearly $1.5 million operating deficit and will finish with nearly $1 million in profit for fiscal year 2011.

And what does this have to do with the lease?????

Morse wants to attach the Cannon lease to a House-approved bill that makes certain home-school students who live in state could qualify for discount season ticket passes at the mountain.

Puck it said:

Cannon Mountain is not only healthy, we are thriving," ski area manager John DeVivo testified at a committee hearing. He said Cannon has wiped out its nearly $1.5 million operating deficit and will finish with nearly $1 million in profit for fiscal year 2011.

And what does this have to do with the lease?????

Click to expand...

It means that the state could jump on this opportunity to jack the asking price up for a lease agreement. That is, if they could convince a buyer that this sort of growth/profitability is at all sustainable.

deadheadskier said:

Why go through the trouble of contacting my State Reps, when I've got you right here in front of me with all the answers? You must know all the data if you have such a strong opinion correct?

Click to expand...

It wouldn't matter what I provided you with - you'd likely shrug and say I have some sort of personal issue with Cannon. I suggest you contact your State Reps and State Senator and push to have this data published online so that all can view it.

Puck it said:

Cannon Mountain is not only healthy, we are thriving," ski area manager John DeVivo testified at a committee hearing. He said Cannon has wiped out its nearly $1.5 million operating deficit and will finish with nearly $1 million in profit for fiscal year 2011

Click to expand...

I believe this was already covered earlier in the thread. Cannon has shown an operating profit during the recent snow years. You'll note, however, that he said 'deficit' and not 'debt' - the operating 'deficit' I believe he's referring to is carried over from recent operating losses (prior to the recent good snow years).

ski_resort_observer said:

Sunapee and Cannon are the only ones owned by the state, the others on your list might be on leased land like many many other ski resorts around the country but have nothing to do with this thread.

Click to expand...

My post was in on the context of the post quoted - "I have been involved in a few debacles at the local/state/and federal level where leasee's have thought they could operate a profitable business on public lands." All of the areas I listed are located in New Hampshire and lease part or all of their ski facilities and/or terrain from the state or federal government.

eastern powder baby said:

It means that the state could jump on this opportunity to jack the asking price up for a lease agreement. That is, if they could convince a buyer that this sort of growth/profitability is at all sustainable.

Click to expand...

I meant the comment about attaching it to the bill for home schooled kids.

WTF???

Puck it said:

I meant the comment about attaching it to the bill for home schooled kids.

WTF???

Click to expand...

The original bill (HB74) is in regard to proving residency for the season pass discount - there is no actual mention of home schooling in it.

threecy said:

The original bill (HB74) is in regard to proving residency for the season pass discount - there is no actual mention of home schooling in it.

Click to expand...

There is also nothing in it about leasing. This is a typical case of a simple bill being hijacked.

I'm a NH tax payer and a long time Cannon skier. I kinda prefer to keep the state operating it. Any private operator will likely have to raise prices significantly and alter the character too much to attempt to grow the business. Also, I don't think it costs the state that much even in losing years to run Cannon. The people do a good job with the resources they have.

I'd rather the state of NH focus on licensing a few casinos which will bring in much more tax revenue than destroying what Cannon is.

I guess I have to contact my rep.

Puck it said:

Cannon Mountain is not only healthy, we are thriving," ski area manager John DeVivo testified at a committee hearing. He said Cannon has wiped out its nearly $1.5 million operating deficit and will finish with nearly $1 million in profit for fiscal year 2011.

Click to expand...

That is pretty cool. Do you have a link to that statement so we can read the full commentary?

When did Cannon finish paying off debts for the expansion such as the Peabody Quad and Tuckerbrook Quad. Were those parts of the debt from prior to JD? If so, then saying Cannon operated at a loss those years might be somewhat disingenuous if profits were going to pay for new lifts and expansion. Or was the expansion paid out of state coffers through Bonds and not connected with Cannon's finances at all?

JD has had several great snow years since becoming GM of Cannon. I think the lease argument really should be put to bed until we can see how Cannon comes through under JD in poor snow years. If Cannon doesn't cost the state anything during a bad year, I think that would end the lease argument right there.

One thing I notice is those that are pro or con regarding the lease usually only cite information that backs up their on point of view. I guess that is to be expected but I certainly discount arguments made with an agenda in mind rather than an open point of view.

So that said, as someone that has historically been anti-lease, I will say that the best reason to go with a lease is the guarantee to make money and the guarantee not to loose any money. Which in a volitile industry that often lives and dies by natural snowfall, there is something to be said about that from the financial perspective. I think that is really the only valid argument for a pro-lease perspective.

Which is why I suggested a wait and see approach to see how Cannon does under JD in a bad year. Given the new management and the new direction of Cannon that caters to all abilities and the increased snow making and better grooming, it could be the past history of not making money is no longer applicable given the changes.

DoublePlanker said:

I'm a NH tax payer and a long time Cannon skier. I kinda prefer to keep the state operating it. Any private operator will likely have to raise prices significantly and alter the character too much to attempt to grow the business. .

Click to expand...

I think the point here regarding a leaser potentially raising prices to be profitable is legit. Look at Sunapee's pricing structure. Ick. Way too expensive for a modest mountain of mid-sized proportions. A leaser would need to pay the state a guaranteed minimum plus a percent of sales and make profits for themselves. That could result in higher prices.

On the other point, no one has taken up my challenge regarding addressing what changes might be made to Cannon that might alter the character. Compare Cannon to other mountains and suggest what changes you've seen at other mountains might be made at Cannon to destroy its character. I am kinda on the fence about this one as I have seen a lot of changes at Cannon these past ten years that I have also seen at bigger resorts but they have not destroyed the character but rather made it better. These changes include the new bar, better food service, more food service options, better snow making, upgraded Point of Sale equipment, etc.

This has all come at a cost and as I noted above, I no longer see Cannon as the great Value it once was, so perhaps that is an issue. Some say new lifts and new terrain are other great things to happen, you all know my take on the Mittersill lift but I gotta say I tremendously enjoyed the Tuckerbrook lift when it was installed.

And again I reference other mountains like Jay and Smuggs that are privately run but still foster a particular culture and character. Cannon's trails really can't be widened much further, most are already pretty wide. And its not like the place doesn't get groomed flat a ton).

I don't think a leaser would make the culture or character any better for sure. But I also wonder what could be done to lessen the character or culture?

riverc0il said:

One thing I notice is those that are pro or con regarding the lease usually only cite information that backs up their on point of view. I guess that is to be expected but I certainly discount arguments made with an agenda in mind rather than an open point of view.

Click to expand...

Very true. As I said earlier in the thread, I'd like to see hard data to back up Cannon being a state asset that is costing NH residents millions. I'm against a lease mostly because I look at the deals for residents at Sunapee and they are PITIFUL in comparison to Cannon. Don't know why threecy continues to argue that the deals for NH residents aren't very good. They're the best I know of of any mountain in Northern New England.

riverc0il said:

Which is why I suggested a wait and see approach to see how Cannon does under JD in a bad year. Given the new management and the new direction of Cannon that caters to all abilities and the increased snow making and better grooming, it could be the past history of not making money is no longer applicable given the changes.

Click to expand...

There's the saying "past performance doesn't guarantee future returns." This could go either way. Just because Cannon lost a lot of money in the years prior to current management, doesn't mean it always will. Likewise, just because it has turned a profit the past few years, doesn't mean it will continue to do so.

The sample size under recent management is just too small to make a judgment call that is 100% reflective of what can be expected financially down the road.