Burton to Purchase Mad River?

[JimG.]

I actually think this is more applicable:

http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=snowboard+ban+debate&word2=waste+of+time

Is this a subtle hint?

 

[marcski]

Here's some real news that makes a little more sense for burton:

http://www.skipressworld.com/us/en/...n_gets_wet_buys_surfboard_co.html?cat=Finance

 

[Tin Woodsman]

Moving on from AWF's pointless post thanks Jim G for clarifying the thread, I was beginning to get a tad frustrated myself.

Moving on to the benefits of Burton having possible ownership...

Burton has the financial capital to make the neccesary renovation that will improve MRG. 2 mil is nothing to a company as large as Burton (well not nothing, but certainly less than a Coop of 1700, each with varying financial background). That the single renovations right there.
Other renovations to the various other parts of the mtn would also be easier to complete. Plus theyd open the mountain up for all to enjoy. It sounds as if they could use a little snowmaking at the base (correct me if Im wrong but didnt they close wicked early solely because they didnt have the snowpack at the base - the ret of the mtn was skiable?). Burton could make these changes happen. I guess what Im trying to say is that MRG can only exist if the finances are available to do so, and with Burton as the principal owner, that would never be a problem.

The problem with much of this analysis is that it rests on the assumption that MRG hasn't made the changes you propose b/c of limited finances. In most cases, the Co-op has CHOSEN to take the direction they have in a conscious effort to maintain the quality of the skiing experience. Minimal grooming and snowmaking have a significant positive impact on snow conditions in normal years, given the configuration of MRG's trails. They don't have it b/c they don't want it. In the case of snowmaking, it probably isn't even an option - there's no water source up in the App Gap to tap.

 

[JimG.]

The problem with much of this analysis is that it rests on the assumption that MRG hasn't made the changes you propose b/c of limited finances. In most cases, the Co-op has CHOSEN to take the direction they have in a conscious effort to maintain the quality of the skiing experience. Minimal grooming and snowmaking have a significant positive impact on snow conditions in normal years, given the configuration of MRG's trails. They don't have it b/c they don't want it. In the case of snowmaking, it probably isn't even an option - there's no water source up in the App Gap to tap.

Agreed; I made the same point below.

This is something that I've learned from this thread: I think alot of folks don't realize that MRG is the way it is by choice, not necessity. It's the way the co-op wants it to be.

So, they don't understand the opposition to change and assume it is directed at snowboarders when in reality it's just the desire to remain old school.

 

[riverc0il]

Even though the internet posting that spurred this discussion is probably untrue, could it hurt to discuss the potential outcome as if it were true? Why does everything have to be proven or disproven to the exclusion of theretical conversation?

JimG, I have to take issue with this statement. There is no harm in speculation backed up by evidence. But playing hypotheticals that are purely unsubstantiated is silly, in my opinion. Nothing need be completely proven or disproven here, but if people want to speculate, they need to back up the speculation with some cold hard facts. Else I could speculate a high speed quad is going to be built up to Tuckerman Ravine or that Les Otten is planning a hostile take over of IntraWest. See where that eventually goes? Straight down the garbage can, which is where there thread was heading from post one. Check out this guy's page, there is no first hand information to indicate this wish that MRG would allow snowboards is even a possibility. Some links to off site material and speculation without evidence including a friend of a friend comment. Let's see a respectible and reliable news source talking with Burton and confirming this crap.

This has nothing to do with Mad River Glen. This has everything to do with unsubstantiated rumor, wishful thinking, and a Blog perporting to be a trustworthy news source. I would be disappointed in this if it was any ski area, resort, or any other business or non-profit or any other issue at all. This strikes close to home at one of my core beliefs in the failings of human nature: most people don't fact check and verify and then rumors get started and before you know it, Dewey beats Truman. I will step off my soap box now.

 

[Bumpsis]

They could just forgo the single chair lift and really go way back to real roots of skiing, making people earn their turns.

Mad River Glen - hike up first and ski it if you can.

 

[David Metsky]

Mad River Glen - hike up first and ski it if you can.

It happens every powder day.

-dave-

 

[Big Game]

Co-op status is not a defense to a shareholder's derivitive suit. The basis of the suit? Managment is not acting outside the "biz judgment rule" in intentionally turning down revenue and not making safety improvements.

Who would file such a suit? Any snowboarder who happens to own a shares and wants to see a change in policy.Or any shareholder who actually believes the above. A shareholder's d's suit would probably bankrupt ---regardless if management was victorious.


Only problem with Burton is that his boards suck and are for the Boston fancy-lads who read Outside magazine. Otherwise, I hope this rumour is true. (I kind of doubt it). If it is done, I would perhaps buy a pair of Burton gloves to show my support.

 

[AHM]

Sorry..................

All: very very sorry that it is summer and most are apparently jonesing to ski. MRG will open as usual next season, when MN allows. The single will run, as it has since it was installed and skiers will be enjoying it as they have since it opened. Now, its a nice long weekend................although some are cleaning up flood waters around and in their homes, the rest should be hiking, biking, kayaking, and enjoying themselves in "summer" type ways................'cus soon the snow will fly, and if you didn't ride, ride, ride, and hike, hike, hike, then you will be in no shape to go ski MRG or whereever you ski (it is all skiing, wether its on one plank, two (or your butt), tele, hard binding or AT.................). Time for me to go ride my MTB (then kayak, hike tomorrow).AHM

 

[marcski]

Co-op status is not a defense to a shareholder's derivitive suit. The basis of the suit? Managment is not acting outside the "biz judgment rule" in intentionally turning down revenue and not making safety improvements.

Who would file such a suit? Any snowboarder who happens to own a shares and wants to see a change in policy.Or any shareholder who actually believes the above. A shareholder's d's suit would probably bankrupt ---regardless if management was victorious.

First. You're logic is flawed. As someone else pointed out above, its a not for profit corp. Therefore, revenues and increasing a shareholders share or profit plays little or no role whatsoever.

Finally, has there ever been a safety concern at MRG? I've never heard of one if there has been?

 

[thetrailboss]

Finally, has there ever been a safety concern at MRG? I've never heard of one if there has been?

Shareholder Derivative suits have nothing to do with safety.

 

[knuckledragger]

How does it follow that b/c you used to work at a snowboard manufacturer, it is to be believed that you have the straight dope on this story? If I worked for a gun manufacturer, would that mean that I know who killed JFK?

Well when you know the people involved,discussed the subject with them and read several company wide memos on the subject every time the story comes up you tend to pick up a thing or two.

 

[knuckledragger]

And I wouldnt personally call it a "ban" id call it a "Choice" that MRG makes in order to cater to what they feel is their "core market"...Ban is a strong word...its like they were allowed there once, but now are banned...and to my knowledge..snowboarding was never allowed at MRG..but I am OFTEN wrong..Ha

M

CAll a spade a spade. It is what it is discrimination.

 

[knuckledragger]

thanks for the correction...but again I stand by my points...what would really be affected at MRG should they again allow snowboards.....??? I'd venture to say nothing except some crap from "elitist" skiers who think they have some "right" to a certian spot...

IMHO its a silly ban...but again...MRG's choice...they have to deal with the contreversy and it doesnt seem to affect them at all so I guess it won't ever change...

Anyone know if MRG is private or state land???

M

The top of the mountain is indeed in the Camels Hump State Forest.

 

[thetrailboss]

The top of the mountain is indeed in the Camels Hump State Forest.

No it's not in the CHSF. That ends at App Gap.

 

[AdironRider]

First. You're logic is flawed. As someone else pointed out above, its a not for profit corp. Therefore, revenues and increasing a shareholders share or profit plays little or no role whatsoever.

Finally, has there ever been a safety concern at MRG? I've never heard of one if there has been?

Revenue doesnt mean profit, and a ski resort, regardless of their financial intentions, still needs revenue to run.

 

[David Metsky]

Call a spade a spade. It is what it is discrimination.

Discrimination is against people, not activities. Not alloweing snowboarding at MRG isn't discrimination, just like not allowing sledding on the ski slopes wouldn't be discrimination. It's a rule that the owners of the ski area have decided on and for this ski area, it works.

All co-op members vote on these issues, and have spoken with a very solid majority, I can't see how any lawsuit would gain any traction since the board is only following the owners clearly stated desires. If the co-op members voted not to accept any hypothetical offer what basis would there be for a lawsuit?

Again, it's all moot since there is no financial crisis, there is no desire for change by the co-op members, and there is no snowboard company that would touch this with a 10 foot pole.

-dave-

 

[knuckledragger]

Prohibiting the free use of public lands against a subset of individuals. A spade a spade.

 

[John84]

Prohibiting the free use of public lands against a subset of individuals. A spade a spade.

It's not prohibiting the free use of public land against snowboarders. Like someone said previously, snowboarders are free to hike up and then board down.

 

[riverc0il]

Prohibiting the free use of public lands against a subset of individuals. A spade a spade.

if mad river glen was public land, you might have an issue. i invite you to prove to this forum that mad river glen exists on public lands since you believe it. very likely a place like sugarbush that has public land space would have a much harder time working into their lease with the forest service a ban on snowboards. but just like a nightclub can not let you in for wearing jeans and sneakers, a ski area can not let you on the lift based on the equipment strapped to your feet. 100% legal and 100% not discrimination as the law defines it. you can disagree with this fact, but your disputation with the facts thus far has been absurd and illogical. disagree all you want with the ban, but it is a legitiment and the point about this not being discrimination stands. in order to argue a point, standard definitions must be agreed upon. you can not change the very definition of the word discrimination to suit your needs, purposes, and arguements.