Burton to Purchase Mad River?

[thetrailboss]

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

Again, I doubt that it is public land. The topos I look at suggest that CHSF is on the western slope of that area. And as Riv' said, you can try all you want to claim that this is legal discrimination, but I doubt you would have the cases to prove it or provide precedent.

 

[sledhaulingmedic]

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.

A couple of points your missing:

Where's the safety violation? MRG ever been sited? Shut down? Where's the basis?

And how many snowboarders own shares? Let's look...that's right, none.

Now let's say there is ONE snowboarder who owns a share and files such a suit. How well will he hold up to 1699 "Malicious abuce of legal process" suits? (That's if CSI-MRV isn't trying to match the imprint in his/her skull to a 10 year old pair of T-2's)

 

[David Metsky]

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

Wrong on both counts. As I've stated before, it's not prohibiting people, only behavior. And it's private land, not public. See this map which shows the property line boundry surrounding the entire ski area. It's all on private land. Call an error an error.

Personally I like the fact that there are no boarders at MRG, but I can see both sides. But to argue on the basis of discrimination or public access is just foolish.

-dave-

 

[WWF-VT]

From the original blog: http://powderjihad.wordpress.com/

Burton to Purchase Mad River? — Update 3
May 16th, 2006 by powderjihad
At the request of Burton Management, this post has been removed.

Posted in snowboard, Mad River, Discrimination, Resorts That Practice Discrimination | No Comments »

The orginal post was Feb 20th 2006.

 

[from_the_NEK]

From the original blog: http://powderjihad.wordpress.com/

Burton to Purchase Mad River? — Update 3
May 16th, 2006 by powderjihad
At the request of Burton Management, this post has been removed.

Posted in snowboard, Mad River, Discrimination, Resorts That Practice Discrimination | No Comments »

So is this the result of Burton trying to coverup their intentions or is Burton trying to shut off the source of an untrue rumor that may be putting the aspirations of the company in a bad light.

 

[knuckledragger]

With Jake what ever the reason you can bet there is dollar signs behind it.

 

[kcyanks1]

The only reason people would really get pissed about a sale of MRG is because Burton, the name in snowboarding, would be the buyer and in turn allow snowboarders.

I disagree, there are other reasons one might get pissed about the rumored sale. Some of the reasons I would get upset about a sale of MRG to Burton are that it is much more likely that there will be increased lift capacity, snowmaking, and grooming under new ownership. Is it a definite that any of that will happen? No. But I do think it would be a fair concern. The shareholders are committed to keeping the MRG-experience as is. While the article says Burton was too, I don't have to be completely confident in that. Burton is more likely to be in it for the money, while the coop shareholders, I suspect, while happy to make a profit, purchased shares because they love the ski area and its uniqueness, and wanted to make sure it stayed that way.

The mention of a terrain park on the Practice Slope, while not something that would affect me enough that I would personally be concerned, and in the scheme of things a relatively minor change, shows that they are willing to go against the old-school view that MRG has taken. And that is not an anti-snowboarder comment, because snowboarders don't need a terrain park, and likely wouldn't be going to MRG for a terrain park--I'm sure many, like you, want to go right now. The mountain is the park! Parks are more popular with boarders, perhaps, but it's not a prerequisite for allowing boarders (though perhaps someone who doesn't want boarders would be happy to have their attention taken away from the Single and onto the Practice Slope park).

Additionally, I would be concerned about increased traffic, but hopefully maintaining the small parking lot would be a natural limitation of customer visits (regardless of what method they use to get down the slopes).

But really, my post was just a round-a-bout way of saying that I think a sale to Burton has legitimate concerns well beyond and more important than the snowboarder-ban.

 

[kcyanks1]

Yes, economics are economics, but what proff do we have that any of the figures in this guy's post are true? I have little or no faith in those numbers. The Co-op has traditionally been quite conservative with its capital spending initiatives and overall budget. I don't believe anything about the scenario being painted by this guy. And then with the kicker being that Burton would be the buyer? That's comedy gold.

Did you guys know that gullible isn't a word in the dictionary?

I'm with you on not believing the numbers. While I've never seen positive numbers either, this is the first I've heard of MRG being in any financial trouble. The fact that it is in the same article as a possible Burton buyout makes it suspcious.

 

[kcyanks1]

The myth is that Betsy was harassed by a couple of burton employees in Mahurons market. Becaues of the way she was aproched by these 2 individuals he told them if that no riders were welcome at mrg.

I've heard the story/possible myth about 2 snowboarders harrassing Betsy a couple different times, but had never heard them identified as Burton employees.

 

[kcyanks1]

Thats cool Trailboss, I hear ya. Seems unfortunate that people would get worked up enough to lose friendships. We all just want to enjoy the snow.


I really do believe that MRG might just be in dire need of financial assistance, for all the reasons people have mentioned above. MRG has no snowmaking which in turn leaves a short short season and a loss of skier visits. With no snowmaking the mtn is not a guaranteed alternative. People dont spend thousands and their one week of vacation time on a trip like that. Also families with just one snowboarder are going to make the trek elsewhere in Vt, with plenty of alternative very close.MRG also has a bit of a "cult" following, with even the lovers only going 3-4 times a season. Not exactly numbers that are going to pad the books. Not allowing snowboarding also eliminates any family with just a single snowboarder (not trying to ruffle feathers but its still an economic point) from visiting. Season pass sales are also probably not as strong with no guaranteed snow and a short season. These are all economic shortfalls that are pretty much exclusive to MRG, and the way most mtns can hardly stay open without the same challenges, its suprising this is the first youve heard of financial difficulty.

You might be right that MRG gets less income, but you are forgetting the fact that they have far lower expenses than most ski areas. Snowmaking is very expensive, especially with high electricity costs, and MRG saves a lot of money there. MRG also has minimal requirements as far as having people run lifts, staff lodges. etc. They don't need as many visits as other mountains to make a profit.

 

[kcyanks1]

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.

I don't know if public lands would matter too much anyways. Snowboarders are not a suspect class. Even if a government lease of public land were enough state involvement to constitute state action (which very well could be the case), the ban would only be subject to rational basis review, i.e., the state would have to show that the ban is rationally-related to a legtimate conceivable interest (contrast this to a "suspect" class, like race, where the state would have to show it was necessary for a compelling interest, and the least restrictive alternative). I'm sure that the state can come up with something that meets the minimum standard--e.g., attracting tourists into the state. Well, all of that is what the federal constitutional analysis would be. I have no idea if VT has stricter requirements. Perhaps in VT snowboarders are a suspect class

 

[knuckledragger]

One thing I know for sure any development above 2500 ft qualifies for Act 250 and other regulatory oversite. The way Vt law is it does not take a lot to get a group declaired a party status. Any one who is well informed to the procedures could concevably tie it up for years with out incuring a huge legal bill. You just need to keep an eye on public record as all meeting must be warned in this state.

 

[riverc0il]

i think we have sufficiently beat to death the possibility that this ficticious web site is even remotely true or accurate. the evidence and logic presented stands solid and no reliable and reputable information is forth coming it seems. as per usual, we are essentially back to the same old pro- con- arguements for the ban. let's put this one to bed.

I don't know if public lands would matter too much anyways. Snowboarders are not a suspect class. Even if a government lease of public land were enough state involvement to constitute state action (which very well could be the case), the ban would only be subject to rational basis review,

i highly disagree that public lands would not strongly influence a lease clause to be inclusive of all snow sliders. for example, the motto of the WMNF is "land of many uses" and the administration seems very proud (as it should be) of the fact that the public land is used by so many diverse groups (hikers, snow sliders, snow mobiles, timber, etc.). i think a lease stipulating rules against certain forms of standard ski area equipment would meet with MASSIVE resistance both from the forest service and from the public in general. even i would be opposed to such an operation involving public lands banning certain equipment. privately owned? that is not the public's concern, just as i used my prior comparison of night club dress codes.

bottom line: who can blame snowboards for wanting to ride MRG!? :-D they still can, they just can't ride the lift. and that is the way it is and that is the way it is going to continue to be in the forseeable future. nuff said.

 

[BeanoNYC]

Hasn't anyone snuck on with a splitboard?

 

[kcyanks1]

i highly disagree that public lands would not strongly influence a lease clause to be inclusive of all snow sliders. for example, the motto of the WMNF is "land of many uses" and the administration seems very proud (as it should be) of the fact that the public land is used by so many diverse groups (hikers, snow sliders, snow mobiles, timber, etc.). i think a lease stipulating rules against certain forms of standard ski area equipment would meet with MASSIVE resistance both from the forest service and from the public in general. even i would be opposed to such an operation involving public lands banning certain equipment. privately owned? that is not the public's concern, just as i used my prior comparison of night club dress codes.

I'm talking about constitutional law, not about the moto of the land, what the administration is proud of, or whether the public would resist, but what would happen if a snowboarder who was denied access sued alleging a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. You wrote before that the current discrimination is "100% legal and 100% not discrimination as the law defines it," and that if the lands were public, it might then be illegal. I was responding to that point--discussing the legality. The fact that the land is public is certainly relevant. If there is no state action, that makes a huge difference. I was just saying from a legal perspective, it isn't clear that if the lands were public, that MRG would be forced to change it's position.

 

[riverc0il]

certainly from a legal perspective, it theoretically could happen that a public area could have a ban on certain equipment. realistically though? not even a chance, not even worth considering even.

regarding the split board, they are pretty obvious compared to skis. i suspect any liftie worth their skin would notice that easily. i doubt many riders would gamble $50 that it wouldn't be noticed and it certainly would be noticed after the first run down.

 

[madskier6]

Wow, what a thread! I go away for a summer vacation and look at all the controversy I've missed in the last week.

Most relevant viewpoints have already been aired and I don't want to rehash what has already been said. The only perspective I can add as a practicing corporate lawyer is to quickly address the following issues:

1) The MRG Board's fiduciary duties; and
2) Shareholder derivative suits.

The board's fiduciary duty in this situation would be relevant if the board somehow wants to reject an offer and not present it to the shareholders for a vote. In this case, I believe that most of the shareholders would agree 100% with the board and not want to sell to Burton. They bought shares because they want to preserve and support MRG in its current state, not because they are looking for any sort of an economic return through a sale of their shares.

While I'm not familiar with the specifics of Vermont corporate law, I have to believe that the board still owes fiduciary duties to the shareholders notwithstanding what the MRG bylaws say about preserving the character of the mountain and its environment. The board would still have the fiduciary duty to present a serious offer to the shareholders. The practical answer, however, is that once presented with the Burton offer, a vast majority of the shareholders would reject it because their interest in buying the shares is non-economic. Most MRG shareholders are not interested in getting cashed out at a profit.

As a practical matter, Burton would have to line-up enough like-minded individuals to buy 4 shares each (or whatever the maximum number is) so that it could gain control of the corporation and the board. That would be very difficult to pull-off, not to mention finding enough current MRG shareholders willing to sell to enable Burton to obtain control. The only way that could happen is if the corporation was in such dire financial straits that selling to Burton was the only way to preserve MRG as a going concern. Even then, it would still be very difficult as a practical matter.

As to shareholder derivative suits, those are generally filed by shareholders who are suing the board on behalf of the corporation because they believe the board is wasting corporate assets or otherwise not managing the corporation in the corporation's (and ultimately the shareholders') best interest. The bylaw provision about preserving the mountain and its environment is relevant here because that is the corporation's purpose, not returning profits to the shareholders. If the board was managing the corporation in a slipshod manner (or unsafely) this might affect the long term viability of the corporation, which would consequently not permit it to carry out the bylaw provision. But as someone else said, there is no evidence of any safety issues (or of the board running the corporation in a slipshod manner).

Sorry for the long post but I could not resist clearing up some misconceptions on the corporate law issues. In my opinion, this Burton rumor is ludicrous and completely unsubstantiated. Looks like it was started to stir-up trouble between skiers and snowboarders and fling dirt at MRG.

 

[sledhaulingmedic]

Thanks, Jeff!

 

[Tin Woodsman]

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

Again, it's not public lands.

And those individuals are allowed. They just aren't allowed to ride the lifts with snowboards on their feet. Would it be discrimination if MRG had an explicit policy banning fireworks enthusiasts from bringing those on the lift and setting them off? How about if MRG banned acid-washed jeans? While many folks from New Jersey might object, MRG would certainly be well within their rights to institute such a policy, and it wouldn't be discrimination.

Edited to make nice nice.

 

[Greg]

It's not public lands, genius.

Easy on the "genius" type stuff. Unnecessary and a bit provocative. :???: