Burton to Purchase Mad River?

[Big Game]

Most MRG shareholders are not interested in getting cashed out at a profit.

Indeed. And the Coop's purpose (so I understand) is not even to maximize shareholder revenue. So really, to initiate a shareholder D's suit on that basis that the baord is not maximizing returns would get no where.

Rather, a stronger case (assuming the facts were there) would be in that current management is not fulfilling its mission in securing the future of MRG.

Now would a shareholder's D case succeed? It would be tough. There would have to be serious mismanagement. I could be wrong, but I don't think anything is there. But compared to constitutional claims (although that gimpy golfer case makes me think twice) a shatreholder's D suit at least has a chance.

Wait...thinking about that gimpy golfer case. What if you were a snowboarder who couldn't ski because of bad knees and only could snowboard. Bring a suit under ADA? Of course the counter-argument would be there are other places to snowboard, but not other places to play professional golf. And if you snowboard, I think its difficult to claim you're disabled. And what kind of gimpy snowboarder would be able to handle the terrian at MRG? And what kind of snowboarder would sue for access? I just don't think a snowbaorder would do that.

On the other hand, and I really don't want to start a flame war or anything, but something I read on the internet about this skier was running late at Nordstrom's and backs his Lexus SUV into a lightpole because his was too distracted talking on his cell phone to his broker, but then he later claimed that the lightpole gave him emotional distress and sued the mall owner for creating such a hazard.

Again, I have no idea if the above is true. But something else I read was written in the bathroom at the orphanage I volunteer is "Skiers have city hands. From counting money all day."

Please, no attacks. I am just a simple messenger.

 

[JennyRousseau]

Indeed. And the Coop's purpose (so I understand) is not even to maximize shareholder revenue. So really, to initiate a shareholder D's suit on that basis that the [board] is not maximizing returns would get no where.

MRG is a for-profit corporation, owned by shareholders, *not* a non-profit cooperative.

The Board has every reason to maximize shareholder value as well as fulfill it's mission statement to "preserve and protect" General Stark Mountain. I feel that the board should be held accountable for their actions if they were shown to decrease shareholder value. Anyone who believes that the Board wouldn't have any liability has been hanging with the Canadian snowboarding team for far too long.

Jenny

 

[SkiDog]

I think that's an insane statement and ignores the truth.

MRG is a for-profit corporation, owned by shareholders, not a non-profit cooperative. The Board has every reason to maximize shareholder value as well as fulfill it's mission statement. And I feel that the board should be held accountable for their actions. Anyone who believes that the Board wouldn't have liability (and liability to each member personally) has been hanging with the Canadian snowboarding team for far too long.

Jenny

Sorry...BUT SEE BELOW


Mad River Glen
by Mitch Kaplan

Mad River Glen

Courtesy, Mad River Glen/TJ Greenwood
Mad River is the standard by which all others eastern resorts are measured. Now owned and operated as a non-profit membership cooperative

M

 

[David Metsky]

MRG is a for-profit corporation, owned by shareholders, not a non-profit cooperative.

No, you are wrong. The MRG Co-operative is a non-profit cooperative.

Section 1.3 - Purpose. The purpose for which the Cooperative was formed is to preserve and protect the forests and mountain ecosystem of Stark Mountain in order to provide skiing and other recreational access and to maintain the unique character of the area for present and future generations. The Cooperative shall be operated exclusively on a cooperative and nonprofit basis for the primary and mutual benefit of its owners and other patrons.

People should read up a little on this before replying.

-dave-

 

[SkiDog]

Another source....

http://skiamericacanada.com/madriverglen/index.html

Mad River is America's only skier-owned, nonprofit cooperative.

M

 

[SkiDog]

No, you are wrong. The MRG Co-operative is a non-profit cooperative.


People should read up a little on this before replying.

-dave-

I know...right??? Blatantly comes out like they've "got the facts" when they couldnt be more wrong...geez it dosent take that long to find that information at all.....and on the FIRST post...

Hmmmm off on the wrong foot???? ;-)

M

 

[David Metsky]

To be fair, there is the Mad River Corporation, the former owners of the ski area. That company (owned mostly by Betsy, IIRC) still has significant land holdings abutting the ski area. That's not part of the Cooperative and there may be some confusion on that part. But the ski area really is a non-profit cooperative, which may be a hard concept to grasp.

-dave-

 

[noski]

I know...right??? Blatantly comes out like they've "got the facts" when they couldnt be more wrong...geez it dosent take that long to find that information at all.....and on the FIRST post...

Hmmmm off on the wrong foot???? ;-)

M

What's the snowboard term for "wrong" foot forward? Goofy?

 

[JimG.]

WOW! Take off a few days and I come back to this.

You guys are as serious as a heart attack!

Try to start a little theoretical conversation and you wind up with a room full of lawyers.

You should all be ashamed of taking this nice little ski related thread and turning it into an episode of Perry Mason.

Bleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeech!

 

[marcski]

I'm looking forward to JennyRousseau's retort and 2nd post if there will be one.

 

[SkiDog]

WOW! Take off a few days and I come back to this.

You guys are as serious as a heart attack!

Try to start a little theoretical conversation and you wind up with a room full of lawyers.

You should all be ashamed of taking this nice little ski related thread and turning it into an episode of Perry Mason.

Bleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeech!

You started it..HA



M

 

[JimG.]

You started it..HA



M

I did? No, Greg did.

But I'm the idiot who thinks we can discuss anything about MRG without it turning into a skier/snowboarder flame war.

And I'm the idiot who thinks that we can discuss theoretical scenarios, even ridiculous ones, without picking the source apart and proving that it can't possibly be correct because of blah-blah-blah.

Fact is, we really don't know.

So would it hurt to discuss a theoretical outcome without some folks getting multiple knots in their shorts?

 

[SkiDog]

I did? No, Greg did.

But I'm the idiot who thinks we can discuss anything about MRG without it turning into a skier/snowboarder flame war.

And I'm the idiot who thinks that we can discuss theoretical scenarios, even ridiculous ones, without picking the source apart and proving that it can't possibly be correct because of blah-blah-blah.

Fact is, we really don't know.

So would it hurt to discuss a theoretical outcome without some folks getting multiple knots in their shorts?

I know I looked after I posted that...sorry....

Yeah I dont think skiers and snowboarders can ever discuss MRG without it going wrong...just how it is...sad state of affairs if you ask me...

IMHO...we're all "snow sliders" some choose 2 planks...some choose 1...simple as that..

M

 

[JimG.]

Yeah I dont think skiers and snowboarders can ever discuss MRG without it going wrong...just how it is...sad state of affairs if you ask me...

M

Agreed...sad.

 

[riverc0il]

So would it hurt to discuss a theoretical outcome without some folks getting multiple knots in their shorts?

i hate to lay down another semantical post, but in defense of those that have dissected this thread (myself included), the route word of theoretical is theory and theories must stand up to scrurinization and facts and evidence. if we want to discuss things without any facts or evidence, we might as well start a 'fanfic' section of AZ. just my opinion on that one. i am very much into logical arguements. theoretical and hypothetical discussion is very much welcome, but these types of discussions must be supported on either side by available evidence and facts. opinion threads are fine too. an opinion would be preference on the snowboard ban, cool--we all have opinions. but analyzing the hypothetical proposition that the coop is being bought out is not an opinion issue but rather an issue of fact and evidence. it is either right or wrong. i don't think any one is getting knots in their shorts, but rather many people do not appreciate seeing incorrect information disseminated as fact to support a partisan opinion and/or rumor mill.

 

[Tin Woodsman]

i hate to lay down another semantical post, but in defense of those that have dissected this thread (myself included), the route word of theoretical is theory and theories must stand up to scrurinization and facts and evidence. if we want to discuss things without any facts or evidence, we might as well start a 'fanfic' section of AZ. just my opinion on that one. i am very much into logical arguements. theoretical and hypothetical discussion is very much welcome, but these types of discussions must be supported on either side by available evidence and facts. opinion threads are fine too. an opinion would be preference on the snowboard ban, cool--we all have opinions. but analyzing the hypothetical proposition that the coop is being bought out is not an opinion issue but rather an issue of fact and evidence. it is either right or wrong. i don't think any one is getting knots in their shorts, but rather many people do not appreciate seeing incorrect information disseminated as fact to support a partisan opinion and/or rumor mill.

Agreed...sad.

 

[AdironRider]

You guys need to lighten up. What about that thread where you could create your ideal seasons pass to any mtn, that was even more hypothetical than this thread, and all you guys were gung ho about it, now its MRG. Noones spreading rumors, thats been said many times. Its the damn summer and theres not really much to talk about it here.

 

[skibum1321]

Noones spreading rumors, thats been said many times. Its the damn summer and theres not really much to talk about it here.

Actually, the very post that spurred this thread was a rumor. Therefore, powderjihad was spreading rumors and it has taken 10 pages of useless discussion to get to this point.

Let's lay this one to rest.

 

[thetrailboss]

Again, let's stop the :flame: please.

 

[JimG.]

i hate to lay down another semantical post, but in defense of those that have dissected this thread (myself included), the route word of theoretical is theory and theories must stand up to scrurinization and facts and evidence. if we want to discuss things without any facts or evidence, we might as well start a 'fanfic' section of AZ. just my opinion on that one. i am very much into logical arguements. theoretical and hypothetical discussion is very much welcome, but these types of discussions must be supported on either side by available evidence and facts. opinion threads are fine too. an opinion would be preference on the snowboard ban, cool--we all have opinions. but analyzing the hypothetical proposition that the coop is being bought out is not an opinion issue but rather an issue of fact and evidence. it is either right or wrong. i don't think any one is getting knots in their shorts, but rather many people do not appreciate seeing incorrect information disseminated as fact to support a partisan opinion and/or rumor mill.

Are you and others really this anal? Excuse my faux pas, I meant to say "hypothetical" instead of "theorectical". There, better?

Here's what you're really saying...you don't like the idea of a snowboard company buying MRG and you won't even discuss the idea because you can't give it any mental space; it just doesn't work for you.

OK, we've heard from you and many others along those lines. I'd like to hear from folks open minded enough to consider the possibility. Please try to be a little open minded.

I could care less about the scientific method or the root origin of vocabulary.