Big Burke announcement

[zeke]

So in essence, you are saying it is OK for QBurke to say fuck you to East Burke and KT because out of staters are a much bigger market ?

i'd say this is true-it's a business first and foremost. the issue is that it seems the quality of offering is going down for those out of staters. less manmade snow (2 summit trails x-mas week?), food quality down miserably, snowsports taking leaps backwards. who is gonna come spend money there if the product is less than it was when they had nothing? a shiny hotel might buy some reprieve, but if they don't up the quality of the product, they'll be left with nothing except a disgruntled 64,000 people and an empty hotel

 

[thetrailboss]

i'd say this is true-it's a business first and foremost. the issue is that it seems the quality of offering is going down for those out of staters. less manmade snow (2 summit trails x-mas week?), food quality down miserably, snowsports taking leaps backwards. who is gonna come spend money there if the product is less than it was when they had nothing? a shiny hotel might buy some reprieve, but if they don't up the quality of the product, they'll be left with nothing except a disgruntled 64,000 people and an empty hotel

+ 1

 

[Big Wave Dave]

Trailboss- Worcester is an example... thats all... c'mon now.

The NEK on its own right has proven totally incapable of supporting Burke. Doug Kitchel lost money EVERY YEAR he owned Burke, long before the days of over-leveraged developers, and but for some agreeable local banks Burke would have had bankruptcy issues long before the rest.

The definitiof of insanity is repeating something that continously fails.

Burke needed a new start and EB 5 is it. The whole intent of my post was to illustrate that the the series of grievances you all speak to are a microcosm of the potential Burke world. Best to get on with nursing your wounds and either stay away, or agree to keep skiing there. The Q's are here to stay, and all the doom and gloom has been, if not unwarranted, not indicative of the reality of the progression of the development of Burke.

I am also of the opinion that Stenger and Quiros have a far better understanding of EB 5 than any one else, and they have proved this by their seemingly "teflon" status and ability to keep raising funds in the face of high profile issues. Pretty amazing, and something I have an immense amount of awe at as a former corporate stooge. Further, the recent turmoil in Chinese equity markets is a HUGE boon to EB 5 and ease of raising capital.

To that end, I hope you are all looking forward to the indoor aquatics center (ha ha ha)

 

[Big Wave Dave]

So in essence, you are saying it is OK for QBurke to say fuck you to East Burke and KT because out of staters are a much bigger market ?

no, and I dont see anywhere where I have made such an assertion, and have consistenly stated I think the dissasociation from KT was insane.

 

[thetrailboss]

Trailboss- Worcester is an example... thats all... c'mon now.

But, as I said, Burke has always tried to get more of the SNE market. It certainly is a share of their business, but saying that you ignore those in your backyard and go after a very saturated market is ridiculous. You obviously try to capture both. They are not mutually exclusive.

The NEK on its own right has proven totally incapable of supporting Burke. Doug Kitchel lost money EVERY YEAR he owned Burke, long before the days of over-leveraged developers, and but for some agreeable local banks Burke would have had bankruptcy issues long before the rest.

Read above. You need both.

I am also of the opinion that Stenger and Quiros have a far better understanding of EB 5 than any one else, and they have proved this by their seemingly "teflon" status and ability to keep raising funds in the face of high profile issues. Pretty amazing, and something I have an immense amount of awe at as a former corporate stooge. Further, the recent turmoil in Chinese equity markets is a HUGE boon to EB 5 and ease of raising capital.

I don't think that anyone disagrees that Stenger is an expert at EB-5. He's also a great resort operator and I think a lot of folks thought he would run Burke more so than he has. However, to say that they have "teflon" status at this juncture I think is a bit premature. A lot of their projects have been delayed because of funding shortfalls. Stenger himself has admitted that he is having more trouble getting investors. Time will tell, but they are indeed moving ahead.

 

[Big Wave Dave]

i'd say this is true-it's a business first and foremost. the issue is that it seems the quality of offering is going down for those out of staters. less manmade snow (2 summit trails x-mas week?), food quality down miserably, snowsports taking leaps backwards. who is gonna come spend money there if the product is less than it was when they had nothing? a shiny hotel might buy some reprieve, but if they don't up the quality of the product, they'll be left with nothing except a disgruntled 64,000 people and an empty hotel

Zeke- would you not agree any business that is experiencing large changes has growing pains? Last year was really year 1 for the Q's, lots of pains. So be it, lets hope they learned- the snowmakiing mea culpa's and new investment are indicative that they are not deaf to your justifiable compliants.

perhaps my viewpoint is tainted as I have been involvled with many business projects that had massive growing pains but ultimately succeeded. What you describe as issues are all easily fixed. It is the larger theme at Burke that has changed, and that is a far more important narrative (and one which has been continously missed here).

 

[Big Wave Dave]

But, as I said, Burke has always tried to get more of the SNE market. It certainly is a share of their business, but saying that you ignore those in your backyard and go after a very saturated market is ridiculous. You obviously try to capture both. They are not mutually exclusive.



Read above. You need both. "

agree. just making the point that the NEK is a bump on a log as compared to the overall available market.

 

[thetrailboss]

agree. just making the point that the NEK is a bump on a log as compared to the overall available market.

That "bump on a log" makes up a very significant portion of Burke's market. It, alone, is not enough to sustain the business, but you can't just ignore it. And to be clear it is not just "locals" complaining/grimacing in pain over Q's missteps. When you think of it, the locals are the captive market. When Q pisses off someone from SNE, or they have a bad experience, as zeke pointed out driving several hours to ski two runs off the summit that are in marginal condition, they have many more options and go elsewhere. While they are elsewhere they tell others about their "Q" experience.

Being an asshole in the hospitality business generally does not work.

 

[DoublePlanker]

They need to grow skier visits. Then why alienate the locals? It seems that is at cross purpose.

 

[Big Wave Dave]

That "bump on a log" makes up a very significant portion of Burke's market. It, alone, is not enough to sustain the business, but you can't just ignore it. And to be clear it is not just "locals" complaining/grimacing in pain over Q's missteps. When you think of it, the locals are the captive market. When Q pisses off someone from SNE, or they have a bad experience, as zeke pointed out driving several hours to ski two runs off the summit that are in marginal condition, they have many more options and go elsewhere. While they are elsewhere they tell others about their "Q" experience.

Being an asshole in the hospitality business generally does not work.[/QUOTE

Agree. Nothing in that statement is unique to Burke though and things that work against other areas, such as liftlines, illustrate the choice is not binary, as you seem to allude. Burke/bad, go elsewhere. Well, other places can suck too, i would argue ON WHOLE the burke experencies still smokes anything south of Cannon or Sugarbush (where giant crowds of idiots are the norm and the skiing suffers as a result).

and one other example of how its not a binary choice, which is close to you out in Utah- Park City locals were up in arms over Vail taking over PCMR, correct? Well... what do you know... Vail credited Park City with its great fiscal year! Peoples enmity was easily overcome by the Epic Pass. Lets see what happens at burke this year to move the ball forward. People are motivated by myriad things, and I dont think a singular experience is that dispositive.

Let me phrase a question here to see what responses would be and keep this going....

If Burke was a stock would you BUY it right now, or SELL it? lets assume for purposes of the exercize its trading at a low multiple

 

[thetrailboss]

Agree. Nothing in that statement is unique to Burke though and things that work against other areas, such as liftlines, illustrate the choice is not binary, as you seem to allude. Burke/bad, go elsewhere. Well, other places can suck too, i would argue ON WHOLE the burke experencies still smokes anything south of Cannon or Sugarbush (where giant crowds of idiots are the norm and the skiing suffers as a result).

When there is snow, the skiing experience at Burke, as in the skiing itself, is great. We're talking about the service aspect though...or lack thereof.

and one other example of how its not a binary choice, which is close to you out in Utah- Park City locals were up in arms over Vail taking over PCMR, correct? Well... what do you know... Vail credited Park City with its great fiscal year! Peoples enmity was easily overcome by the Epic Pass. Lets see what happens at burke this year to move the ball forward. People are motivated by myriad things, and I dont think a singular experience is that dispositive.

No. That example does not work. Not everyone liked the Vail move, but I can say that MOST folks in PC and Utah were happy with the move. The only furor was from Mr. Cumming and POWDR who lost their shirts (but "Daddy" saved them in the end). If anything, that example works against you because the locals were getting fed up with POWDR's management and now are thrilled with Vail's improvements and better service.

If Burke was a stock would you BUY it right now, or SELL it? lets assume for purposes of the exercize its trading at a low multiple

Good question.

 

[MEtoVTSkier]

If Burke was a stock would you BUY it right now, or SELL it? lets assume for purposes of the exercize its trading at a low multiple

Meaning it's currently trading at trading towards the low point of it's range?

 

[Big Wave Dave]

Meaning it's currently trading at trading towards the low point of it's range?

a low multiple does not infer a range nor did I intend that statement. Plenty of companies IPO at low multiples. Your overthinking it

well, have at it people? BUY or SELL?

 

[Big Wave Dave]

When there is snow, the skiing experience at Burke, as in the skiing itself, is great. We're talking about the service aspect though...or lack thereof.



No. That example does not work. Not everyone liked the Vail move, but I can say that MOST folks in PC and Utah were happy with the move. The only furor was from Mr. Cumming and POWDR who lost their shirts (but "Daddy" saved them in the end). If anything, that example works against you because the locals were getting fed up with POWDR's management and now are thrilled with Vail's improvements and better service.




Good question.

yes but your response furthers my point also- equate POWDR Corp. with a bankruptcy auction... which do you prefer?

I wonder if some of the bitterness expressed by varius posters is due to the utter dearth of alternatives to the Q.. and, in the inverse, perhaps my statements of optimism are driven by that also....

 

[thetrailboss]

yes but your response furthers my point also- equate POWDR Corp. with a bankruptcy auction... which do you prefer?

You're moving the goal posts there. Your comparison was based on the incorrect assumption that Park City residents by and large hated Vail.

As to the new comparison, I still don't think it is really that helpful. And the difference between Ary and POWDR is HUGE. Most PC skiers were upset about nickle and diming things. Not the owner being a complete asshole, making personal attacks on individuals, and burning multiple bridges. The comparison just does not work because folks by and large skied at PCMR because they liked it. POWDR was not being outright hostile to its customers and community.

I've said it before, but the only comparison that I think matches Q is the former Ascutney owners. They made the ski area about "them" and burned lots of bridges. Where are they now? The area is NELSAP. To answer your question, all of the locals skied elsewhere.

I wonder if some of the bitterness expressed by varius posters is due to the utter dearth of alternatives to the Q.. and, in the inverse, perhaps my statements of optimism are driven by that also....

I think it's pretty clear that the folks are very passionate about Burke and that the ownership has burned a lot of bridges.

 

[Masskier]

a low multiple does not infer a range nor did I intend that statement. Plenty of companies IPO at low multiples. Your overthinking it

well, have at it people? BUY or SELL?

Of course I would Buy :-D.

 

[the original trailboss]

a low multiple does not infer a range nor did I intend that statement. Plenty of companies IPO at low multiples. Your overthinking it

well, have at it people? BUY or SELL?

I wouldn't sell yet as the stock can't get any lower .....

 

[BenedictGomez]

If Burke was a stock would you BUY it right now, or SELL it?

Neither. I'd find the book runner and short it. Must be horribly run.

 

[crank]

Honestly, if Burke was a stock would anyone ever have recommended it as a buy?

How many owners have been and gone?

Any of them make a profit?

Not a Q fanboy, just seems like Burke has always struggled just to get by. I think Q is crazy for alienating the locals, but I can see how they might feel the need to shake things up and not do business as usual.

 

[DJAK]

The single biggest reason not to be seen as an arrogant dunce in an industry and 50 mile radius is....... staffing.

None of this other stuff you are discussing comes in even a close second. Resorts have zero chance of forward progress if the 10-20 key positions around the resort turn over constantly and get filled with lesser and lesser talent, that still turns over. The actions of the owner control this directly and thus dictate the success or failure of their vision. In hospitality, a leader cannot lead without a strong, committed and unified team. Otherwise they are leading a slow boat to somewhere.

Plenty of (usually newbie single owner) resorts have struggled with this over the years, but as long as there is enough money, time can heal the wounds, and perhaps that time is soon.