BOYNE USA: AZ Challenge 2009 Response/Feedback Thread

[Rogman]

Any businessman keeps a sharp eye on their competition. Inevitably in any small industry you end up knowing quite about about your competitors, and it isn't unusual to reveal adverse information about your competitors to customers. It is somewhat out of the ordinary to put that information in writing. Likely as not, some of Kircher's information came from shared vendors, in which case he's put them in an awkward position. You have to wonder why he's taken the gloves off; it is not without risk.

 

[Tin Woodsman]

Sk comes out and answers the question good or bad and stands up. I think we got a response.

It was Yardsales question and he is satisfied with the Answer. This is business, and being aggressive is not an issue with me.

As far As sk role in the previous board issue banning. He stepped up to try and settle the issue. As I remember all parties excepted the end result. I think you have the chronological order backwards here.

I am a happy bonye pass holder and property owner.

Just b/c the guy who asked the question (and who is obviously a SL skier given his screen name) is satisfied doesn't make it right. SK could have easily taken the high road by saying they have reason to believe Saddleback's model is unsustainable and therefore not a model worth emulating. Rather, he chose to publicly slag a competitor that is less than a tenth of the size of his Maine resorts, let alone Boyne as a whole. That just reflects very poorly on Kircher, b/c I know of few skiers who will base their venue decision on how many days overdue Saddleback's payments to their vendors are. One of the basic precepts of sales and marketing is that you don't slag a competitor in that manor. Perhaps damn with faint praise, but you don't slag like that, b/c it just makes you look petty and scared. As a prospective customer of SL, shouldn't I be more interested in why I should be skiing at SL rather than why I SHOULDN'T be skiing at Saddleback? And even if I were interested int he latter, wouldn't the reasons NOT to ski at Saddleback have to do with something on the mountain?

Pr perhaps SK was being more pernicious than that. The one thing that such airing of dirty laundry may impact os the desire of people to buy into Saddleback from a real estate perspective Given tipsdown's quoted figure of over $4MM in real estate sales there vs. a nominal amount at SL, perhaps SK is trying to stop any momentum from gathering at Saddleback before it becomes a bigger threat to him. Either way, it's pathetic. You don't see Exxon slagging Joe's Oil Co.

 

[Vortex]

SK spoke of the loaf, Loon and Sr is the other questions. So he did promoted his own resorts.

This was a repsonse to a question about Saddleback.

The real estate issue may make a difference to some.

Probably the daily ticket purchaser will be less concerned.

I understand your points. I am still a satisfied Patron.

 

[SLyardsale]

. You don't see Exxon slagging Joe's Oil Co.

Bad example. Exxon/Mobile extracts pain from their own operators - making them convert from auto service to convenience stores while putting much of the expense in converting on said operator.

I think a lot of folks don't see this industry as a business.

When The Hartford, AIG, possibly your local bank were taking TARP funds, didn't you hear their competitors communicating the fact that they didn't take the "bailout" money? Travelers was all over the Hartford along with others.

I guess it is surprising when SK comes forth with a bold statement - but since getting involved in SL/SR 3 or so years ago he has a track record - maybe everyonne will eventually get use to his style. You certainly don't have to like it and I understand why many don't. It doesn't bother me. SK is an Atlas Shrugged guy as am I.

 

[deadheadskier]

Interesting to see that the criticism in the Killington responses is that Chris Nyberg sand bagged some of his answers a bit. The criticism with Boyne is that Kircher was brutally honest.

Total opposites, yet ultimately the true interpretation of both probably should fall somewhere in the middle.

 

[Tin Woodsman]

Bad example. Exxon/Mobile extracts pain from their own operators - making them convert from auto service to convenience stores while putting much of the expense in converting on said operator.

This has nothing to do with anything. Exxon vs. Joe = David vs. Goliath.

It's sad when Goliath has to resort to slinging mud to try and compete with David.

When The Hartford, AIG, possibly your local bank were taking TARP funds, didn't you hear their competitors communicating the fact that they didn't take the "bailout" money? Travelers was all over the Hartford along with others.

Those are all public companies. The information was very much out there and in the public domain. You're comparing apples to elephants.

I guess it is surprising when SK comes forth with a bold statement - but since getting involved in SL/SR 3 or so years ago he has a track record - maybe everyonne will eventually get use to his style. You certainly don't have to like it and I understand why many don't. It doesn't bother me. SK is an Atlas Shrugged guy as am I.

The information SK provided was no more relevant, and no more necessary, than whether Warren Cook wears boxers or briefs.

Oh, and Ayn Rand sucked.

 

[Tin Woodsman]

Interesting to see that the criticism in the Killington responses is that Chris Nyberg sand bagged some of his answers a bit. The criticism with Boyne is that Kircher was brutally honest.

Total opposites, yet ultimately the true interpretation of both probably should fall somewhere in the middle.

Brutally honest about another resort. That's the difference here. If Nordberg came out and slagged Magic, I'd be jumping all over him, and justifiably so. That's the relevant comparison here. Just b/c what he revealed may be true doesn't make it ethical to do so. He comes off looking like a petty, scared jamoke.

 

[SLyardsale]

This has nothing to do with anything. Exxon vs. Joe = David vs. Goliath.

It's sad when Goliath has to resort to slinging mud to try and compete with David.


Those are all public companies. The information was very much out there and in the public domain. You're comparing apples to elephants.



The information SK provided was no more relevant, and no more necessary, than whether Warren Cook wears boxers or briefs.

Oh, and Ayn Rand sucked.

If you do ever come to SL, I'd be happy to buy you a Bag Burger and a Pick Pole and continue the debate. However, your last statement tells me it wouldn't be much fun for either of us.

 

[Tin Woodsman]

If you do ever come to SL, I'd be happy to buy you a Bag Burger and a Pick Pole and continue the debate. However, your last statement tells me it wouldn't be much fun for either of us.

I'm sure it would be a hoot. Let's just leave the literature out of it.

 

[Riverskier]

He was asked a question about how Saddleback may affect business at the Loaf. He made a couple positive statements about the mountain, and then went on to explain why their business model isn't sustainable, and thus not likely much of a threat. I seriously doubt he divulged any information he didn't legally have access to. The sustainability of Saddleback's business plan is perhaps the most important factor in determining whether they pose a threat to the Loaf's business. No problem with his response here.

 

[Tin Woodsman]

He was asked a question about how Saddleback may affect business at the Loaf. He made a couple positive statements about the mountain, and then went on to explain why their business model isn't sustainable, and thus not likely much of a threat. I seriously doubt he divulged any information he didn't legally have access to. The sustainability of Saddleback's business plan is perhaps the most important factor in determining whether they pose a threat to the Loaf's business. No problem with his response here.

Someone isn't paying attention. Here was the actual question:

"Saddleback has gotten nice reviews and has been noticed since the Berry family launched their upgrades. As your nearest geographic competitor what notes have you taken on their activity?"

How exactly does that lead into a conversation about screwing vendors and the ski industry? I'm all ears.

As for whether it was legal to divulge - that's irrelevant. No one is claiming it was illegal. And it doesn't take a MENSA member to know that just b/c something is legal, it isn't ethical. Much of this current financial crisis is a result of people doing things that were technically legal, but which were ethically and morally ambiguous.

SK could have easily accomplished the objective you speak of by saying that it's his understanding that Saddleback continues to lose money and may therefore not be a model they seek to emulate. Adding the anecdotes about vendors, the ski industry and govt loans, and then furthermore going on to urge skiers to consider this as part of their evaluation of Saddleback, is dirty and unethical. If you think it's so ordinary, please find for me another similar precedent in this industry.

 

[Newpylong]

You must have read a different response than I did if that's what you got out of it...

Really? Some random message board guy asks a question in a slightly snarky answer and you think it's appropriate for the owner of a ski resort to shit all over another and go out of his way to disparage their reputation? That's sweet. Come on. Behind all the niceties, Kircher basically said "Don't ski at Saddleback b/c they are a bunch of scumbags who are cheating everyone in the industry and taking government handouts"

What did Saddleback do to deserve that sort of response? They didn't ask the question.

Completely inappropriate, regardless of the veracity.

 

[Tin Woodsman]

You must have read a different response than I did if that's what you got out of it...

Really? Let's parse the objectionable portions one more time:

We have learned that they owe the ski industy over 400k in past due payments on capital expenses and upgrades that they purchased in 2008 (over 12 months in arrears) and are currently seeking a government backed (FAM) loan of 3m to fund past due bills and fund operations this winter.

What is this if not a transparent attempt to disparage Saddleback's reputation with the skiing public? Does this have anything to do with your skiing experience? I would submit it's simply an attempt to place doubt in the minds of prospective real estate buyers at the the long-term prospects of the current team. The unsustainability of the business model could have easily been established by pointing to their EBITDA loss last year even though they increased skier visits, no?

For our part, we intend to continue to meet the competition with improvements to facilities, cost structure and service. However, we are not expecting to get Government handouts to make that happen.

What is this other than abject mud slinging? Should we look down our nose at Sugarbush and Jay b/c they are utilizing a govt program to help build their base villages and thereby circumventing the standard visa and immigration process? And is Boyne's nose really all that clean? Boyne also owns Crystal Mountain, Brighton and the Summit at Snoqualmie, all three of which are on USFS land. Many observers contend that ski areas pay well below market rates for their leases of this land - an implicit subsidy. Is it really appropriate for Kircher to throw such stones living in his glass house? Should we vote with our dollars due to this egregious subsidy?

Skiers should consider these realities at Saddleback along with the pretty picture currently being portrayed in press releases on on the blogs.

Why should we skiers consider these facts? Should they influence where we spend our skiing dollars? The question only asked what notes had Boyne taken of their activity. Was any of what I've quoted necessary to answer that question?

 

[Riverskier]

Someone isn't paying attention. Here was the actual question:



How exactly does that lead into a conversation about screwing vendors and the ski industry? I'm all ears.

As for whether it was legal to divulge - that's irrelevant. No one is claiming it was illegal. And it doesn't take a MENSA member to know that just b/c something is legal, it isn't ethical. Much of this current financial crisis is a result of people doing things that were technically legal, but which were ethically and morally ambiguous.

SK could have easily accomplished the objective you speak of by saying that it's his understanding that Saddleback continues to lose money and may therefore not be a model they seek to emulate. Adding the anecdotes about vendors, the ski industry and govt loans, and then furthermore going on to urge skiers to consider this as part of their evaluation of Saddleback, is dirty and unethical. If you think it's so ordinary, please find for me another similar precedent in this industry.

Actually I am paying attention, and that is what I interpet the essence of the question to be.

Regarding SK's comment about urging skiers to consider their financial picture may be a relevant sentiment for those considering buying real estate there.

As far as finding a similar precedent, I don't have the time or the interest. Whether or not it exists doesn't dictate whether making the comments he did was right or wrong anyway. Bottom line, I feel SK"s comments were perfectly acceptable, and I respect your right to disagree.

 

[Vortex]

Bottom line to me, is are we better with Boyne than we were with ASC? So far its had to find many that will say we are not.

ASC did the cheap attempt at passes at the very end. It could be considered the last straw. A business model that does not last.

Boyne and its CNL partners continue to invest in the Maine reosrts. Boyne shows me the future is good. I am not sure where I read it, but there was a statement that Boyne has not left a property it has taken over before. I like that stability.

 

[Riverskier]

Bottom line to me, is are we better with Boyne than we were with ASC? So far its had to find many that will say we are not.

ASC did the cheap attempt at passes at the very end. It could be considered the last straw. A business model that does not last.

Boyne and its CNL partners continue to invest in the Maine reosrts. Boyne shows me the future is good. I am not sure where I read it, but there was a statement that Boyne has not left a property it has taken over before. I like that stability.

I agree 100%! And I have heard the statistic you are referring to about never selling a resort they have acquired. They have invested in their Maine mountains, had great communication with their customer base, offered a bright vision for the future, offered affordable season passes, and had the longest season in the East! I am a very happy Boyne customer and will be for years to come.

 

[Tin Woodsman]

So, since they are better than the previous bums who ran the resort, then we might as well just all keep drinking the Kool-Aid.

Pathetic.

 

[Vortex]

No they have a business plan that was better than ASC and our future is stabilie or at least the history of the company is stabile. That is important to me. I have almost all my free time and money invested at a Boyne Resort. "Sunday River" I could not be much happier either

They are investing in the future of the mountain. Kool-Aid? I guess. Kool-aid can taste good.

I could always sell and move on. I already did that at from another resort. I like what I see.

They even have a trail in your honor.


I see your point. I don't think you see mine. That is ok, time to move on.

 

[Riverskier]

So, since they are better than the previous bums who ran the resort, then we might as well just all keep drinking the Kool-Aid.

Pathetic.

This is my last post on this as well, but keep drinking the Kool-aid? Must I be disatisfied with Boyne to be considered "keeping it real"? I have been extremely pleased with the way they have run Sunday River and they seem like a stable company that has a bright future planned for the mountain. Even if I disagreed with SK making those comments I would still be a happy customer. Apparently you feel that anyone who disagrees with you must be a follower of some sort, but that simply isn't the case. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

 

[trtaylor]

Of course, if Saddleback DID run into serious financial difficulty (ex. Magic Mountain), who might be the first compnay bidding to pick them up?