• 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!

Jay Peak bombshell

Vaughn

Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2017
Messages
146
Points
18
Les Otten should have just waited a few years to launch his 'more climate change resilient northern ski area' project and just bought this one.
 

Smellytele

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 30, 2006
Messages
9,935
Points
113
Location
Right where I want to be
Les Otten should have just waited a few years to launch his 'more climate change resilient northern ski area' project and just bought this one.

Not sure he has bought anything. He is just the idea guy and the guy setting up the financing, not the actual finance backing guy.
 

VTKilarney

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 5, 2014
Messages
5,553
Points
63
Location
VT NEK
Yea, no shock there. I think most people here suspected that would be the case. Makes the most sense I think.

They are going to be marketed as a package. That does not mean that they will be sold as a package. The market will dictate that.
 

fbrissette

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 19, 2012
Messages
1,672
Points
48
Location
Montreal/Jay Peak
Yup. It was obvious; and due to necessity.

Buy a new sports car, get a rusted-out pick-up truck with no transmission for free!

Can they specify in a sales clause that the buyer has to operate Burke for X number of years ? Otherwise, there might be a quick resale/liquidation of the bad assets.
 

BenedictGomez

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
12,170
Points
113
Location
Wasatch Back
Can they specify in a sales clause that the buyer has to operate Burke for X number of years ? Otherwise, there might be a quick resale/liquidation of the bad assets.

I was thinking precisely of that.

It would be quite simple to buy the entity, operate it for a handful of years, show the Burke losses, file Burke for bankruptcy. The end.

A better solution would be to attempt to sell Burke as an R.P.T. (rich person's toy), but that's a Hail Mary pass. If someone well-heeled like MTN could figure out a way to operate Burke at break-even, perhaps they'd bite to get Jay Peak, but MTN doesn't make a practice of losing money......on chocolate chip cookies, let alone a resort property! For SKIS it would be a terrible acquisition IMO if they must operate Burke. I think private equity is the most likely solution, but taking on Burke is going to decrease the list of buyers. My 2¢.
 

VTKilarney

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 5, 2014
Messages
5,553
Points
63
Location
VT NEK
Can they specify in a sales clause that the buyer has to operate Burke for X number of years ? Otherwise, there might be a quick resale/liquidation of the bad assets.

The problem is that the receiver's only duty is to get the most money at a sale for the investors. His job is not to care about the long term future of Burke. If putting that clause in a contract means that the overall sales price will be reduced, I just don't see how the receiver can justify that.
 

cdskier

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 26, 2015
Messages
6,475
Points
113
Location
NJ
The problem is that the receiver's only duty is to get the most money at a sale for the investors. His job is not to care about the long term future of Burke. If putting that clause in a contract means that the overall sales price will be reduced, I just don't see how the receiver can justify that.

Interesting point...

So for someone that doesn't know enough about Burke, what is the biggest factor with it not being very profitable? Location?
 

BenedictGomez

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
12,170
Points
113
Location
Wasatch Back
The problem is that the receiver's only duty is to get the most money at a sale for the investors. His job is not to care about the long term future of Burke. If putting that clause in a contract means that the overall sales price will be reduced, I just don't see how the receiver can justify that.

Normally I'd agree with exactly what you said above, but this is Vermont. I'm sure the state will lean on the receiver heavily, if they have any sort of leverage (which they shouldn't) to save Burke.
 

VTKilarney

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 5, 2014
Messages
5,553
Points
63
Location
VT NEK
Interesting point...

So for someone that doesn't know enough about Burke, what is the biggest factor with it not being very profitable? Location?

IMHO, the biggest factors are:
1) Location. No matter which direction you are coming from, there are bigger and better ski areas that are closer.
2) Size. It's big enough to make me happy, but it's not big enough to entice someone to drive farther to ski it.
3) Snowmaking. The snowmaking is horrible. Forget refreshing trails, it's all they can do to limp along and get a trail (or half of a trail) open every few days. They also don't get nearly the amount of natural snow that Jay Peak gets.
 

Grizzly Adams

New member
Joined
Mar 10, 2015
Messages
37
Points
0
Location
Boston, MA
http://www.wcax.com/content/news/Sc...of-Jay-Peak-recreation-center--474054513.html

Interesting article about the sale of Jay - recent investments no doubt make it more enticing. Not much new info, but a good/quick read/listen nonetheless. Unfortunately no mention or insight on Burke though.

"dozens of potential buyers, nationally and internationally, have already shown up to take a look." - Please God let it not be Vail....
 
Top