Vail Resorts is buying Peak Resorts. - Page 39

AlpineZone

Page 39 of 66 FirstFirst ... 29373839404149 ... LastLast
Results 381 to 390 of 659
  1. #381
    Quote Originally Posted by abc View Post
    Was the pass good for the lifetime of the passholder? Or for the lifetime of the company that owns the mountain?

    There are folks that bought a lifetime pass. Good for their life. Peak honored them.

    Then there are ex volunteers that earned a pass after 12 years. Peak honored them also.

    apparently the sale to peak did not address them, but they honored them.

    Peak eliminated the 70+ heavily discount pass. However, there was another option that was only a diferance of $100, most of them bought this but continue to complain that they got screwed relentlesly. What makes them think they are entitled to this confuses me to no end. Why would a public company be required to sell you something they do not offer just because of your birthday?

    I am not 70 but it would have been nice when I get there. I won't stop skiing because of it, and if I don't have an extra $100 a year in the budget, maybe I should not be skiing.

  2. #382
    Quote Originally Posted by ThinkSnow View Post
    AIG Stowe had lifetime passes which were supposed to be good for the lifetime of the passholder-- which I was told became invalid after the Vail acquisition.
    Yeah, I am sure this is what will happen with those at Hunter. They are all worried. But Vail can't give those at Hunter a pass if they did not give them to those at Stowe and other mountains they acquired. IF other mountains even had them to begin with.

  3. #383
    Edd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Newmarket, NH
    Posts
    4,815
    Quote Originally Posted by ThinkSnow View Post
    AIG Stowe had lifetime passes which were supposed to be good for the lifetime of the passholder-- which I was told became invalid after the Vail acquisition.
    I remember similar things happening at Killington after an acquisition.

    In this case, I find a move like that so short-sighted. The negative feelings generated vs. how ever much extra profit they expect to make doesn’t compute for me.

  4. #384
    Quote Originally Posted by catskillman View Post
    Yeah, I am sure this is what will happen with those at Hunter. They are all worried. But Vail can't give those at Hunter a pass if they did not give them to those at Stowe and other mountains they acquired. IF other mountains even had them to begin with.
    Curious...how much did these lifetime passes cost? Can't say I would blame Vail at all for not honoring them though unless it was explicitly detailed in the sale contract that they had to. Lifetime passes that were paid to a previous owner bring nearly 0 value to a new owner even if you account for some goodwill and F&B purchases or something like that. The way I see it, at least some of these people would likely buy new passes if their lifetime ones were taken away. Even if it is a small percentage, that is most likely still more revenue than you're getting otherwise from these lifetime passholders if you had let them keep using them.


  5. #385

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley
    Posts
    3,145
    It's really hard to have a contract outlasting the entity. Peak may be bound by the contract to honor it in the sales contract. But that contract between the owner of Hunter and Peak wouldn't have any validity for Vail. And what's the benefit for the selling entity to insist the lifetime passes to be honored by the buyer?

    (If I'm selling my house, I can ask the buyer to accept my cat. If the buyer happen to like cat anyway, he/she might agree. But by the time the house is sold again, there's no guarantee the new seller feel strongly about MY cat. And if the new buyer don't care for cats, the cat got sent to the shelter!)

    The benefit from Vail's perspective is different. Lifetime pass holders are typically the biggest marketer of the mountain. They love it so much they either 1) paid for a lifetime pass or, 2) earn it some way. So if they're still skiing, they would quite likely bring their family/friends to ski there -- paying day/season pass!

    Take their passes away, they turned into the biggest badmouther of the mountain! But I guess Vail figure they could survive the badmouthing. They did that in Stowe. So they're more than likely to do that in Hunter.

  6. #386
    Newpylong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Upper Valley, NH
    Posts
    2,990
    Yes those Killington lifetime passes were for the Sherburne Corporation aka S-K-I which was the legal DBA name of K even after the acquisition by ASC. Upon purchase, Powdr changed the legal name, and nulled the lifetime passes legally by doing this.

  7. #387
    Quote Originally Posted by Edd View Post
    In this case, I find a move like that so short-sighted. The negative feelings generated vs. how ever much extra profit they expect to make doesn’t compute for me.
    Agreed. Particularly for a company with market cap of nearly $10B. I wouldn't be surprised if they lost more pass sales than they gain with such a move. Lifetime pass-holders probably have family members who buy passes; I can see them all moving their business down the road if treated like that. Vail should just let this miniscule number of skiers age out of the sport and not try to bleed them for profits that wouldn't even amount to a rounding error.

  8. #388
    Lifetime passes at Wildcat were voided when Peak bought them, although IIRC they were given one final season as the deal was finalized. The results led to lots of negative comments and press, probably why they let Hunter lifetimes remain, figuring it's not worth it to cancel them.

    Sent from my moto e5 cruise using AlpineZone mobile app

  9. #389
    Quote Originally Posted by abc View Post
    It's really hard to have a contract outlasting the entity. Peak may be bound by the contract to honor it in the sales contract. But that contract between the owner of Hunter and Peak wouldn't have any validity for Vail. And what's the benefit for the selling entity to insist the lifetime passes to be honored by the buyer?

    (If I'm selling my house, I can ask the buyer to accept my cat. If the buyer happen to like cat anyway, he/she might agree. But by the time the house is sold again, there's no guarantee the new seller feel strongly about MY cat. And if the new buyer don't care for cats, the cat got sent to the shelter!)

    The benefit from Vail's perspective is different. Lifetime pass holders are typically the biggest marketer of the mountain. They love it so much they either 1) paid for a lifetime pass or, 2) earn it some way. So if they're still skiing, they would quite likely bring their family/friends to ski there -- paying day/season pass!

    Take their passes away, they turned into the biggest badmouther of the mountain! But I guess Vail figure they could survive the badmouthing. They did that in Stowe. So they're more than likely to do that in Hunter.
    I've never understood the outrage at the buying party for not honoring lifetime passes. Those were agreements forged between the SELLER and the passholders. Often, the owner of a mountain will sell lifetime passes as a way to raise money. They take the passholder's cash and use it to improve the mountain in some way and then sell the improved mountain to someone else. They have the option to "do right" by their lifetime passholders by taking a haircut on their purchase price to continue lifetime pass benefits for those who "invested" in them (e.g. agree to take x times the cost of a season pass for each lifetime passholder off the purchase price to ensure their benefits continue). They could also pay lifetime holders a dividend after the sale if they wanted. Why lifetime pass holders act like the buyer owes them anything, I will never understand.

    As a side note, it seems like in most cases, lifetime passholders have usually earned a pretty return on their investments by the time their mountains are sold anyway. Wildcat was a recent example where, as I recall, lifetime passholders had their passes for an average of 30+ years, and they hadn't been offered for so long that nobody could reasonably say they had been ripped off (e.g. paying 5X the cost of a pass in 1985 for 25+ years of passes is a screaming deal). Yes, it's unfortunate that they didn't keep their benefits under Peak, but they got a great deal (and as I understand it) had no legal or ethical claim against Peak.

    Sent from my VS988 using AlpineZone mobile app
    Ski season is always too short

  10. #390
    Quote Originally Posted by Edd View Post
    I remember similar things happening at Killington after an acquisition.

    In this case, I find a move like that so short-sighted. The negative feelings generated vs. how ever much extra profit they expect to make doesn’t compute for me.
    I think that yes, there is some negativity towards the new owners if they choose not to honor a lifetime pass issued by previous owners. I also think that short of small sized forums such as AZ and a few other ski forums, as well as some locals that it affects, the masses who will frequent the ski area aren't aware of this situation, those who may have a "lifetime" pass are likely tied to the area itself via real estate and/or businesses in the area, so chances of them leaving, or if they own a business in the area, the area seeing a drop in customers, is small.

    The entire lifetime pass concept is certainly a conundrum. Yup, many ski areas, decades ago, when they were opening up and/or expanding needed the capital infusions that the investments that people chose to make in a "lifetime" pass brought the ski area. As time goes on, and ownership changes, unless it was explicitly stated that transfer of the pass would remain if the resort was sold to another resort operator, as we all have seen, that gray area of "goodwill" verses legally bound/obligated to issue a new pass going forward. The person making the initial investment also took some risk in that the ski area they were investing in would remain open so they could continue to use their passes (My Mom for example had bought the equivalent of a "lifetime pass" in the form of a bond issued by the long since closed Mt Tom ski area outside of Springfield, MA back in the 60's. If Mount Tom was to ever re-open, even though there's been legal chain of ownership of the property from the developers she had originally bought the bond from, highly doubt there'd be any legal ground to stand on should she decide to pursue a pass with any new potential owner/operator)

    I'm sure some of the Killington long timers can add/correct me on this, but I think the Killington situation was they were "bond passes" and that since they were issued as essentially an investment "bond" with a side perk of a season pass while the company was in existence, it was determined that at some point, where there was a full change in the ownership, and not just the original owners changing the name of the holding company, that the original agreement between the original owner and the bond investor lost legal status going forward, and thus the "requirement" to issue a season pass each year ended (Guessing some lawyers made enough trying to figure all this out to buy a lifetime of season passes for themselves )

    Just an interesting topic to consider when all of the variables are considered.....
    '07--08 season: 51 Days, '08-'09 season: 55 Days, '09-'10 season: 41 Days, '10-'11 season: 49 days, '11-'12 season: 40 Days '12-'13 season: 57 days, '13-'14 season, 60 days '14-'15 season 60 days, '15-'16 season 52 days, '16-'17 season: 50 days, '17-'18 season 52 days, '18-'19 season 45 days '07-'19 seasons: 612 Days

    '19 - '20 season:

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 7 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 7 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 8:10 AM.