Mittersill Photos (September 2010)

[Smellytele]

thanks for the pictures

 

[EPB]

That's exactly the point - the new lift market essentially crashed. I'm not sure why you're contradicting yourself in that statement - the new lift install market today is a shadow of itself and there are very few metrics to show otherwise. But, as usual, I provided some facts and they were quickly dismissed, thus the apparent prevailing wisdom on these forums that the new lift install market is doing quite well in New England.
...
Who says I have no used lift data? The question is, why would I go through the time and effort of building a list of used lift installs for some folks sitting behind their computer screens who will instantly dismiss it?

You picked data to fit your argument. There's no contradiction. The mid to late 90's saw ASC expand rapidly with the help of PUBLIC FUNDING. They set the market standard for expansion, new lifts, etc. We don't have publicly traded ski resort operators dominating the market anymore. Of course you know that already, as you have some nice pieces about Les Otten on your website. Numbers from this time period will not provide good insight into what privately owned companies would have done during the time without ASC's disturbance.
The late 2000's played host to perhaps the worst recession in 95%+ of AZers lifetimes, so growth over that four year period would certainly be lower than in a time of normal economic growth. I'd be willing to bet you know that too.
As for the 60's and 70's as I addressed earlier- you have the issues of growing mountains/companies. Again, as I'm sure you already know, new companies grow much more rapidly than mature companies. A clear majority of ski areas in New England grew from the ground up during that period. Local competitors such as Bretton Woods and Attitash come to mind.... Data from the 60's and 70's also includes many resorts that don't even exist anymore. Once more, I can't stress enough that you already knew that and chose to pass off your numbers as legitimate indicators of growth regardless.

The point is, time ISN'T the issue. Comparable companies set the standard for what consumers expect from Cannon.

If you plan to use used lift data in the same misleading way, don't bother. Just know that the fact that you have it available is just about as baseless a claim that "cannon could have bought a used lift, I just can't tell you where it's from".


On a lighter note, I've read through your site and really enjoy it. Thank you for the pictures. They are always appreciated. You're dedicated, nobody can take that away from you.

 

[threecy]

You picked data to fit your argument. There's no contradiction.

As for the 60's and 70's as I addressed earlier- you have the issues of growing mountains/companies. Again, as I'm sure you already know, new companies grow much more rapidly than mature companies. A clear majority of ski areas in New England grew from the ground up during that period. Local competitors such as Bretton Woods and Attitash come to mind.... Data from the 60's and 70's also includes many resorts that don't even exist anymore. Once more, I can't stress enough that you already knew that and chose to pass off your numbers as legitimate indicators of growth regardless.

If you plan to use used lift data in the same misleading way, don't

Do you really think the dropoff in lift installs is just a blip? I'm not following your argument - are you saying that more new lifts were indeed installed in previous decades? That's what I've been trying to say (perhaps poorly so) for too many posts. The ski industry saw rapid growth in those decades. It no longer sees that.

Virtually every metric, other than non-time-value-of-money costs, illustrates the dramatic dropoff in the new lift market. Are you aware there are only two OEM aerial lift companies left in the United States? Prior to the dropoff, there were half a dozen brands installing similar (or larger) quantities of new lifts as compared to the two left today.

The mid to late 90's saw ASC expand rapidly with the help of PUBLIC FUNDING.

This is very interesting - can you elaborate? What kind of government funding did they receive?

The late 2000's played host to perhaps the worst recession in 95%+ of AZers lifetimes, so growth over that four year period would certainly be lower than in a time of normal economic growth. I'd be willing to bet you know that too.

It's actually, in one regard, a good climate for purchasing lifts. Three decades ago, interest rates were sky high, whereas today they're virtually rock bottom. As you probably know, very few lifts, new or used, are purchased and installed with cash.

On a lighter note, I've read through your site and really enjoy it. Thank you for the pictures. They are always appreciated. You're dedicated, nobody can take that away from you.

Thank you for the kind words. It's crucial to get as much stuff as possible documented today, as a lot sources are disappearing with each passing year.

 

[Tin Woodsman]

Nope, not the same Mt. Snow. Has Peak ever said they're interested in expanding to Haystack? The folks who wanted to connect to Haystack, now a closed ski area, went bankrupt.

West Lake has been on the "cusp" for years.

I love it. You've spouted a lot of misdirectional nonsense on this subject, but this takes the cake. So since the new owners haven't expressed interest in an expansion that can never happen, it's a different mountain? Could your BS be more transparent? You're right - you have no credibility. Let's make a little wager, shall we? What will happen first - West Lake or an interconnect with Haystack (or any materially significant terrain expansion for that matter)? Is it really your position that if such an interconnect were still feasible from a regulatory perspective, that Peaks wouldn't be exploring the possibility?

Of course, it's also fun to point out that even w/o West Lake, Peaks has been able to implement a massive upgrade to Mt. Snow's snowmaking capabilities with their fan gun purchases. This just further underlines my point that while some projects may be immediate and some may take time, snowmaking expansions are MUCH easier to pull off than terrain expansions.

Mt. Sunapee is being denied expansion rights by the same guy who approved the Mittersill project and was there at groundbreaking.

EXACTLY. You could not pick a better example of how it's dangerous to rely on the ongoing good will of politicians to approve major terrain enhancements at some point in the future. Thanks you again for making my point for me.

Magic expanded to a double chairlift served area. Then went bankrupt. Meanwhile, they still find themselves struggling to get the water they need for snowmaking.

They find themselves struggling to get that water b/c they have no money, not b/c regulatory obstacles are preventing them form getting the water. They've gone bankrupt several times since they abandoned Timber Ridge, so I'm not sure of your point here, if there is one.

You're clearly an special industry expert if you say this stuff is easier to execute. Your phone will be ringing off the hook with ski areas who have been struggling to get rights to improve their water supplies and intakes.

You don't need to be an expert to compare the number of mountains that have executed significant snowmaking capacity expansions vs. those that have executed significant terrain expansions featuring new (or used) lifts. Let's compare over the last 20 years, shall we?

Significant Terrain Expansions with New Lifts/Trails

Whiteface
Gore
Okemo
Bretton Woods
Cannon
Wachusett
Sunday River
Windham
Jiminy Peak
Loon
Attitash


Significant Snowmaking Expansions

Everyone in the Northeast except for MRG, Magic and Hickory Hill

Which list is bigger?

I know you're an alleged industry insider and all, but you're also an ideologue who is clearly blinded by his antipathy towards State ownership. I'm no fan of State ownership either, but jeez man, you're letting it completely blind you to the realities of the world we live in and the complex (and ever changing) regulatory climate in which ski areas operate. Seriously - you're trying to argue that snowmaking expansions are tougher to pull off than terrain expansions here in the northeast? No one is saying they are all easy - that's your personal strawman - just that on balance they are much easier than terrain expansions. It's not hard to see why - most snowmaking expansions don't impact a mountain's footprint (new guns, new pipes, new pumps, new compressors) and much of the work you need to do is at the base of the mountain, which is more often on private land than the ski terrain. This series of facts is inarguable, yet you rush to make the opposing case anyway, jumping through tautological hoops in the process. You probably have a lot to contribute here, but I wouldn't know b/c your ideology is preventing you from engaging in any serious, factual debate on this subject.

That's exactly the point - the new lift market essentially crashed. I'm not sure why you're contradicting yourself in that statement - the new lift install market today is a shadow of itself and there are very few metrics to show otherwise. But, as usual, I provided some facts and they were quickly dismissed, thus the apparent prevailing wisdom on these forums that the new lift install market is doing quite well in New England.

And why has it crashed? Because people just decided new lifts were a bad idea? Or is the more appropriate answer that it's a combination of 1) skiing stopped growing as a sport and 2) it's a LOT harder in today's regulatory climate to affect a terrain expansion

You seem to be implying that resorts don't buy new lifts any more solely b/c of something endemic to new lifts themselves. That's nonsense.

 

[threecy]

You're right - you have no credibility.

Of course you have the credibility to confirm that, so that means a lot.

Let's make a little wager, shall we? What will happen first - West Lake or an interconnect with Haystack (or any materially significant terrain expansion for that matter)? Is it really your position that if such an interconnect were still feasible from a regulatory perspective, that Peaks wouldn't be exploring the possibility?

Has Peak Resorts given ANY indication that they have a desire to expand the footprint of Mt. Snow right now? Or Attitash for that matter? Heck, they've been sitting on a terrain footprint expansion at Crotched for half a decade.

Of course, it's also fun to point out that even w/o West Lake, Peaks has been able to implement a massive upgrade to Mt. Snow's snowmaking capabilities with their fan gun purchases. This just further underlines my point that while some projects may be immediate and some may take time, snowmaking expansions are MUCH easier to pull off than terrain expansions.

You're absolutely correct. Those fan guns are purchased with onboard, self-refilling water tanks. Piece of cake. They don't even need to pump an ounce of water from Haystack because of it.

You don't need to be an expert to compare the number of mountains that have executed significant snowmaking capacity expansions vs. those that have executed significant terrain expansions featuring new (or used) lifts. Let's compare over the last 20 years, shall we?

Significant Terrain Expansions with New Lifts/Trails

Whiteface
Gore
Okemo
Bretton Woods
Cannon
Wachusett
Sunday River
Windham
Jiminy Peak
Loon
Attitash

I hope someone chimes in here to declare most of those areas irrelevant to the discussion. Oh, hold on, one of the folks quick to do that type of thing posted the list.

Let's compare over the last 20 years, shall we?

Significant Snowmaking Expansions

Everyone in the Northeast except for MRG, Magic and Hickory Hill

That's quite a statement. Are you suggesting that every ski area in New England, except Magic and Mad River Glen, has significantly increased their snowmaking water supply in the past 20 years? I look forward to your area by area proof.

Seriously - you're trying to argue that snowmaking expansions are tougher to pull off than terrain expansions here in the northeast? No one is saying they are all easy - that's your personal strawman - just that on balance they are much easier than terrain expansions. It's not hard to see why - most snowmaking expansions don't impact a mountain's footprint (new guns, new pipes, new pumps, new compressors)

You're completely missing the point. Ski areas can install guns, pipe, and compressors with little, if any, red tape. Installing pumps can be more difficult. Gaining access to additional water is the real issue, though. Take a look at Peak with Mt. Snow - they nearly instantly installed dozens of SMI Polecat fan guns upon taking over the ski area. They've been struggling since day one to gain access to additional water.

and much of the work you need to do is at the base of the mountain, which is more often on private land than the ski terrain.

Ownership of property has little to no impact of gaining access to water.

skiing stopped growing as a sport

Yet Cannon is somehow going to find 18,000 more skier visits out of thin air?

You seem to be implying that resorts don't buy new lifts any more solely b/c of something endemic to new lifts themselves. That's nonsense.

The new lift market has slowed down for a variety of reasons. I assme you're now agreeing that the new lift market has indeed declined dramatically in comparison to the 1960s, 70s, 80s, and 90s?

 

[billski]

Yet Cannon is somehow going to find 18,000 more skier visits out of thin air?

Thanks for the photos. I'm gonna be first in line for that lift. Next weekend I'll put my lawn chair out to save my place.

This is fundamental marketing.

Even if skier count remains constant, visits will come from one of two places:

- Cannibalization of competitor by having a more attractive "product"
or
- Turn-over - people bailing on the sport due to injury, interest, age or spouse to be replaced by learn-to-ski under 21/pick an age demographic.

In both cases, marketing campaign to build awareness will be crucial.

 

[thetrailboss]

Even if skier count remains constant, visits will come from one of two places:

- Cannibalization of competitor by having a more attractive "product"
or

Anyone else think that was a terrible pun?

 

[Puck it]

Anyone else think that was a terrible pun?

Saw that too. I thoght this thread was started for pics and not whining on spending too much for a lift.

 

[billski]

Anyone else think that was a terrible pun?

:razz::razz::razz:

 

[Smellytele]

Saw that too. I thoght this thread was started for pics and not whining on spending too much for a lift.

It was but was highjacked almost as soon as it began. Every once and awhile someone does post a picture or 2 to keep me coming back.

 

[WJenness]

I've spent a ton of midweek days at Sunapee, but no weekends.. The weekday demographic I've seen is not really like you describe. Tons of old folks and racers.

The one day I spent there (a friday in January 2 seasons ago) gave me the distinct impression that he was correct. It was a couple days after a moderate storm (4-8" I believe), and almost everything was mowed down flat and what wasn't mowed flat seemed to be seeing very little traffic.

And yes, there was a large-ish race going on.

-w

 

[EPB]

Do you really think the dropoff in lift installs is just a blip? I'm not following your argument - are you saying that more new lifts were indeed installed in previous decades? That's what I've been trying to say (perhaps poorly so) for too many posts. The ski industry saw rapid growth in those decades. It no longer sees that.

The issue is that ski resorts were in a different era in the 60's, 70's and into the 80's even. Resorts were young and growing into the sizes that they are today. That involves investing money in lifts by today's standards because permitting has changed, and the need for new terrain is not as apparent. That said, looking at the era of ski expansion around the northeast and concluding that "people don't build new lifts like they used to" doesn't really shed light on whether the new install is out of the ordinary. Rather, many (myself included) have suggested that it would be more prudent to look at similar terrain expansions to see what types of lifts are being installed. Few resorts are expanding to new base areas like Cannon, so it can be difficult to find recent examples. Okemo's Jackson Gore expansion is probably most recent. Two new high speed quads were installed. Jordan Bowl and Bear Peak might be next on the list. They are both served by (at the time) new high speed quads. To the north, Le Massif is installing a new 2 stage gondola to reach its new base area this summer. They're also adding a new fixed grip quad for this season. Tremblant added a new base by re-installing their original Summit high speed quad after it was replaced by the gondola. They have since connected the two bases with another gondola. Saddleback is a good example of a ski are that installed a new fixed grip quad to access an all-expert trail pod, though it is an upper mountain lift.

As far as adding a new base area and a significant portion of terrain by percentage, Cannon is doing things relatively inexpensively. Original plans even called for a high speed quad and many other base area lifts. No resort that I can think of has added this many acres terrain, covered this much vertical, and opened a new base area without at least installing a chairlift that would cost as much as the double they've selected.

Virtually every metric, other than non-time-value-of-money costs, illustrates the dramatic dropoff in the new lift market. Are you aware there are only two OEM aerial lift companies left in the United States? Prior to the dropoff, there were half a dozen brands installing similar (or larger) quantities of new lifts as compared to the two left today.

Many of them merged from what I can gather. Garventa, CTEC, and Doppelmayr are all one company. Leitner, Partek (formerly Borvig) and Poma are all one company. Perhaps there were even more mergers that I am not aware of. Those I could name off the top of my head.

There used to be 8 major public accounting firms. Now there are 4. Chances are, there's more work for public accountants today than there was when all 8 firms existed. The point is, just because there are less companies building chairlifts doesn't mean everyone is thinking they should buy used.

This is very interesting - can you elaborate? What kind of government funding did they receive?

Certainly. First, let me give credit where it is due. This was a direct quotation from http://www.newenglandskihistory.com/skiareamanagement/americanskiingcompany.php :

"On November 6, 1997, the company had an Initial Public Offering (IPO) of 14,750,000 shares (New York Stock Exchange ticker symbol "SKI") at a par price of $18.00 per share."

I don't know the exactly how much money they raised in their IPO, but the company certainly went public. This means they sacrificed part of their ownership and control of the company so that they could use public money to fuel expansion. Companies can call on the public to help fund their projects without receiving a dime from the government.

It's actually, in one regard, a good climate for purchasing lifts. Three decades ago, interest rates were sky high, whereas today they're virtually rock bottom. As you probably know, very few lifts, new or used, are purchased and installed with cash.

Of course, in another regard, loans are very difficult to find. Lenders are probably not interested in granting loans to ski areas that might never be able to pay them back. Post financial crisis regulations are also making it harder to get approved for loans.

Thank you for the kind words. It's crucial to get as much stuff as possible documented today, as a lot sources are disappearing with each passing year.

Definitely, I've been checking in on your "What's New" page when I make my rounds of ski sites I check up on. Interesting stuff. I particularly like reading about expansions, especially the expansions that were planned and never came into fruition.

 

[EPB]

Drive time from Boston

Sunapee: 1HR 57 MIN
Cannon: 2 HR 22 MIN
Okemo: 2 HR 56 MIN
Smuggs: 3 HR 45 MIN

It's only 25 minute further drive from metro Boston to Cannon than it is Sunapee.

I hear what you're saying regarding different demographics etc. I just don't view 18K skier visits to be all that much to improve. With how much Cannon has improved over the past few years, I think it would be relatively easy to grab those skiers from the other NH areas, especially the N. Conway areas that are a pain in the ass to get to.

I was wondering the same thing. North Conway is roughly 3 hours from Boston and includes about an hour 15-20 driving on the 2 lane portion of route 16. No major ski related expansion projects have occurred in the area since the late 1990's (excluding Bretton Woods if you consider it part of the Valley). I am curious to see if this lack of movement will eventually come back to haunt areas in the direct vicinity of North Conway as other area's on mountain products continue to improve. Obviously, North Conway will always provide a more broad range of activities in ski country.

 

[WJenness]

The issue is that ski resorts were in a different era in the 60's, 70's and into the 80's even. Resorts were young and growing into the sizes that they are today. That involves investing money in lifts by today's standards because permitting has changed, and the need for new terrain is not as apparent. That said, looking at the era of ski expansion around the northeast and concluding that "people don't build new lifts like they used to" doesn't really shed light on whether the new install is out of the ordinary. Rather, many (myself included) have suggested that it would be more prudent to look at similar terrain expansions to see what types of lifts are being installed. Few resorts are expanding to new base areas like Cannon, so it can be difficult to find recent examples. Okemo's Jackson Gore expansion is probably most recent. Two new high speed quads were installed. Jordan Bowl and Bear Peak might be next on the list. They are both served by (at the time) new high speed quads. To the north, Le Massif is installing a new 2 stage gondola to reach its new base area this summer. They're also adding a new fixed grip quad for this season. Tremblant added a new base by re-installing their original Summit high speed quad after it was replaced by the gondola. They have since connected the two bases with another gondola. Saddleback is a good example of a ski are that installed a new fixed grip quad to access an all-expert trail pod, though it is an upper mountain lift.

As far as adding a new base area and a significant portion of terrain by percentage, Cannon is doing things relatively inexpensively. Original plans even called for a high speed quad and many other base area lifts. No resort that I can think of has added this many acres terrain, covered this much vertical, and opened a new base area without at least installing a chairlift that would cost as much as the double they've selected.



Many of them merged from what I can gather. Garventa, CTEC, and Doppelmayr are all one company. Leitner, Partek (formerly Borvig) and Poma are all one company. Perhaps there were even more mergers that I am not aware of. Those I could name off the top of my head.

There used to be 8 major public accounting firms. Now there are 4. Chances are, there's more work for public accountants today than there was when all 8 firms existed. The point is, just because there are less companies building chairlifts doesn't mean everyone is thinking they should buy used.



Certainly. First, let me give credit where it is due. This was a direct quotation from http://www.newenglandskihistory.com/skiareamanagement/americanskiingcompany.php :

"On November 6, 1997, the company had an Initial Public Offering (IPO) of 14,750,000 shares (New York Stock Exchange ticker symbol "SKI") at a par price of $18.00 per share."

I don't know the exactly how much money they raised in their IPO, but the company certainly went public. This means they sacrificed part of their ownership and control of the company so that they could use public money to fuel expansion. Companies can call on the public to help fund their projects without receiving a dime from the government.



Of course, in another regard, loans are very difficult to find. Lenders are probably not interested in granting loans to ski areas that might never be able to pay them back. Post financial crisis regulations are also making it harder to get approved for loans.



Definitely, I've been checking in on your "What's New" page when I make my rounds of ski sites I check up on. Interesting stuff. I particularly like reading about expansions, especially the expansions that were planned and never came into fruition.

You missed one in your 'expansion to new base areas' list, and it was actually the most recent.

Loon's South Peak expansion... Right up the street from Cannon.

Two new quads (one high speed detach and a fixed grip transfer lift).

There isn't much at the base of South Peak just yet, (A Temporary Quonset hut style lodge / cafeteria) but I'd imagine that we'll see that get built up in the not too distant future.

-w

 

[billski]

Drive time from Boston

Sunapee: 1HR 57 MIN
Cannon: 2 HR 22 MIN
Okemo: 2 HR 56 MIN
Smuggs: 3 HR 45 MIN

I was reading an academic paper recently (can't put my finger on it) that used regression analysis to evaluate the sensitivity of time traveled by car on tourism. The first standard deviation was at 2 hours and the second was at 3 hours. Only a very small number of tourists (any activity) would travel beyond three hours. This group definitely has its outliers!

 

[deadheadskier]

Drive time from Boston

Sunapee: 1HR 57 MIN
Cannon: 2 HR 22 MIN
Okemo: 2 HR 56 MIN
Smuggs: 3 HR 45 MIN

I was reading an academic paper recently (can't put my finger on it) that used regression analysis to evaluate the sensitivity of time traveled by car on tourism. The first standard deviation was at 2 hours and the second was at 3 hours. Only a very small number of tourists (any activity) would travel beyond three hours. This group definitely has its outliers!

I'm sensitive to drive time because I have very little time off and spend A LOT of time in my car for work.

People question why I ski Ragged as my 'home mountain' over Cannon, which is only a half hour further. That extra hour on the round trip makes a difference to me. I actually intend on checking out Gunstock as it's even closer to home.

Now if it's a Powder Day, I'll slog 3+ hours no problem to get to where I want to ski.

 

[skiberg]

Personally I hope Cannon never sees any skier increase. As a state run area, profitability is not as essential because the State will bail them out if they lose money. A few years in the red will not close Cannon. Mitersill is here to stay like it or not. I am not convinced that private management would improve the mountain. I like it just fine the way it is.

 

[Tin Woodsman]

Has Peak Resorts given ANY indication that they have a desire to expand the footprint of Mt. Snow right now?

Their desire is irrelevant. As you well know, it's never going to happen in light of the fact that the entire ridge is USFS land. Feel free to continue with the misdirection on this.

You're absolutely correct. Those fan guns are purchased with onboard, self-refilling water tanks. Piece of cake. They don't even need to pump an ounce of water from Haystack because of it.

How is that relevant at all? Mt. Snow has had an agreement with Haystack to use their water rights for many years, stretching back well into the ASC ownership years. Moreover, the very fact that they've been able to substantially increase the quantity and quality of their snowmaking output even w/o the West Lake project simply underscores my point. Meaningful increases in snowmaking are MUCH easier to pull off than meaningful increases in lifts and trails. As ever, you are making my point for me, perhaps better even than I could for myself.

I hope someone chimes in here to declare most of those areas irrelevant to the discussion. Oh, hold on, one of the folks quick to do that type of thing posted the list.

We're just listing northeast resorts with new lit-served terrain pods here. It's pretty straightforward. You have a different list?

That's quite a statement. Are you suggesting that every ski area in New England, except Magic and Mad River Glen, has significantly increased their snowmaking water supply in the past 20 years? I look forward to your area by area proof.

I see - more moving of the goal posts by threecy. So now a meaningful increase in snowmaking must be defined as increasing snowmaking water supply. Really? So no credit to those resorts who install new equipment to fully harness their water supply? No credit to those that install new equipment to make snow more efficiently? I guess Mt. Snow's improvements in recent years are irrelevant on that score.

You're completely missing the point. Ski areas can install guns, pipe, and compressors with little, if any, red tape. Installing pumps can be more difficult. Gaining access to additional water is the real issue, though. Take a look at Peak with Mt. Snow - they nearly instantly installed dozens of SMI Polecat fan guns upon taking over the ski area. They've been struggling since day one to gain access to additional water.

Actually - that's exactly my point. You can affect a meaningful increase in your snowmaking plant's output w/o accessing additional water than is currently permitted. I'm wondering why you choose to ignore this inconvenient fact. In addition, even when you do need to access additional water, it can be done with time and patience - see Stowe, Killington, Gore, Sunapee, Jiminy, and within a year or two, Mt. Snow. And that's just the last few years.

Yet Cannon is somehow going to find 18,000 more skier visits out of thin air?

Not thin air. Just the same place that mountains with a good story like Gore, Sunapee Belleayre, Jay Peak, and Sugarbush have found them with their increased skier visits in recent years. K-Mart alone has given its competitors over 300K in skier visits just in the last 15 years. When you've got an exciting story to tell, it's not as difficult as you're making it out to be.

The new lift market has slowed down for a variety of reasons. I assme you're now agreeing that the new lift market has indeed declined dramatically in comparison to the 1960s, 70s, 80s, and 90s?

Of course it did - the question is why? Your original point ONLY makes sense if the primary reason was that ski resorts all decided that used lifts made more sense than new lifts. If ski areas, especially private ones who wouldn't invest foolishly per your meme, are still installing new lifts, it really doesn't support your original contentions at all.

 

[riverc0il]

Less blah blah blah and more pics!

Thanks for the pics threecy!

 

[Tin Woodsman]

"On November 6, 1997, the company had an Initial Public Offering (IPO) of 14,750,000 shares (New York Stock Exchange ticker symbol "SKI") at a par price of $18.00 per share."

I don't know the exactly how much money they raised in their IPO, but the company certainly went public. This means they sacrificed part of their ownership and control of the company so that they could use public money to fuel expansion. Companies can call on the public to help fund their projects without receiving a dime from the government.

Just so we're clear on definitions, when people talk about "public" money being used, that term is generally synonymous with government/taxpayer money. The "public" in "Initial Public Offering" simply refers to the fact that the shares in that company are no longer available solely to certain private investors, but can rather now be bought by anyone. ASC never used public money - they used shareholders money, all of whom were private individuals and entities. Actually, they used borrowed money from their banks that was never repaid, but that's neither hear nor there.