Burton to Purchase Mad River?

[riverc0il]

There are hundreds of other places and thousands of acres that are open. Is MRG really that great? Go to Jay. Go to Bolton. Go to Sugarbush. Go to Magic. Go to Burke. Similar terrain and snow.

whoa boss! nothing similar about MRG! only jay gets better snow than those areas mentioned and only bush or jay could hold a candle to MRG's terrain. :smile:

 

[JimG.]

in non-analyzing opininated terms, i think new england would loose something very special if such a deal ever went through. if it was ever sold, we would see huge snow making, trail widening, grooming, slopeside, high speed lifts, the death of the single, and complete destruction of the great atmosphere that mrg has. yes, i don't like the idea and it doesn't work for me. that is not why i posted previously about the hoax being not accurate. but if you want to take this thread down this direction, long live MRG in its current form.

That's all I was looking for...your opinion. Forget about the false article, we all know it was nonsense. But it did spur a conversation about the ban topic, and recently it has been pretty civil which makes me glad. And that's all that interested me.

Sorry I got on your case, but your post kind of summarized everything I didn't care about regarding this thread and I was determined to bring the conversation back to the hypothetical scenario of a snowboard company taking over MRG. So yes, I do want to take the thread down that path. Moderator's perogative I guess.

Alot of folks feel like you. I for one do not think that the mountain would be trashed as you suggest because of snowboards. In fact, I think a vast majority of snowboarders would want the mountain to stay exactly as it is...its' current state IS the reason they want to ride there. But I would agree with you if a company like ASC took over and I would never want to see that.

Not that I support the sale of MRG to anyone for that matter. But I've got alot of snowboard buddies who can't enjoy the place when I go there and frankly, that bothers me.

 

[thetrailboss]

in non-analyzing opininated terms, i think new england would loose something very special if such a deal ever went through.

I agree.

if it was ever sold, we would see huge snow making, trail widening, grooming, slopeside, high speed lifts, the death of the single, and complete destruction of the great atmosphere that mrg has. yes, i don't like the idea and it doesn't work for me. that is not why i posted previously about the hoax being not accurate. but if you want to take this thread down this direction, long live MRG in its current form.

Whoa. Just because snowboards would be allowed does not guarantee that these actions would take place. The place could be sold to a private group, ala Haystack, and the same thing could happen. Those factors have little or nothing to do with snowboarding.

whoa boss! nothing similar about MRG! only jay gets better snow than those areas mentioned and only bush or jay could hold a candle to MRG's terrain. :smile:

Well, you just said that MRG, Jay, and SB "could hold a candle" to the terrain...that seems to imply that they are similar. Stowe is also pretty close...the BC options at least.

 

[thetrailboss]

Not that I support the sale of MRG to anyone for that matter. But I've got alot of snowboard buddies who can't enjoy the place when I go there and frankly, that bothers me.

They can go....they just get a free ski/tele rental.

 

[riverc0il]

Whoa. Just because snowboards would be allowed does not guarantee that these actions would take place. The place could be sold to a private group, ala Haystack, and the same thing could happen. Those factors have little or nothing to do with snowboarding.

i should have clarified that statement. i would find it hard to believe that any one would buy MRG and not want to turn a profit. if you enjoy MRG and don't care about profit, you buy a share. therefore, it seems logical that someone buying MRG would only do so either to A: keep it the same if it was in danger or B: do it for profit. in order to run at a profit, the area would need substantial work, especially considering that a sale of the area would likely piss off the mountain's primary clientel that put the most money into the place (i.e. the current share holders and die hards). haystack doesn't seem like a good comparison, that place is getting the high speeder resort treatment. could it potentially be bought out and not changed? it theoretically could happen? is it likely? no, i think that is even less likely than the coop selling out to begin with. it just seem likely to follow that the mountain would remain the same if it was sold. it doesn't have anything to do with snowboarding on the surface, but it does have everything to do with how for profit ski areas operate, and i would think that to be profitable after selling out it's major shareholders, the place would certainly need to appeal more to a mainstream audience, snowboarders and skiers alike.

this is all so moot it is beyond reason. sorry it has to come back to that, but it is ludicrous to talk about mrg being sold.

 

[AdironRider]

River, your being just a tad hypocritical. In the last 5 pages of replies, at least a third are yours, yet you continue to rant about how we shouldnt talk about it.

Making assumptions that boarders only care about pipes, hits, and widening of trails is a vast assumption made on your part. Watch any snowboard flick of the last 4 years and its filmed mostly in the backcountry. More and more snowboarders would rather take a romp through the trees, or a nice backcountry and find different hits/lines/etc on natural terrain. Anyone can hit a booter, but a natural hit ... thats something that you can make your own. The sport has changed from the mid ninties, something you wouldnt understand as youve probably never given the time of day to really think it through. Just because Burton would be the "hypothetical" owner doesnt mean theyre going to McMountain the whole place. Just because Burton is a snowboard company doesnt mean theyre going to bulldoze paradise, make it a 200 yard wide groomer, and put a superpipe right where the single is, beneath a new high speed six pack or something. Since when does making a profit mean all the previously mentioned things? I agree, a new private owner would be interested in those things, but only a moron would buy a place like MRG, then completely remake the place into something its not. The only reason people go there now is because the place has that old school feel and great natural terrain, a new owner would want to keep these aspects alive. If they didnt, theyd go buy some other palce, where they could do just as you assume a new owner would, and deal with infinately less red tape. Dont take my comments the wrong way, but you have a very biased opinion on the issue, and your opinion is leading to some vast assumptions about the sport. .

 

[riverc0il]

River, your being just a tad hypocritical. In the last 5 pages of replies, at least a third are yours, yet you continue to rant about how we shouldnt talk about it.

perhaps i got caught up in a debative spirit or rather i don't like seeing posts stand that i disagrree with without a proper rebutal. which is the only reason i am replying once more, then i am taking my soap box and leaving this thread. you are right, i am biased on this issue, but i think my points are valid and you have not considered my entire arguement, but rather, you have only responded to the points of my arguement that support your view of the situation, which also suggests that you are very biased on the issue and are probably like wise making assumptions. watch any ski flick of the last 4 years and its fimled mostly in the back country. that doesn't mean ski areas that ignore groomers can make any money if it isn't a niche market. MRG would never have survived if it wasn't a niche market, and the niche market is skiers. there are not enough board popular to make up for that niche market. which is the very point you failed to address in your reply.

Since when does making a profit mean all the previously mentioned things?

how many other areas are profitable or sustainable business that don't have those things? you have turned my entire arguement around into an anti boarder arguement or made it appear that way when it is not the case. my arguement is how else could the mountain potentially survive without its hardcore niche base? that not enough boarders would ever go to MRG to make up for that niche base, which is also considering the fact that a boarders are a smaller percentage of the overall sliders in the area. i just don't see it, without a niche market, the mountain would need to change to survive, if it could survive at all (doubtful).

i'm off this hot potato. no sense being "hypocritical" just to ensure some words of reason are being heard.

 

[sledhaulingmedic]

Three actually; MRG, Alta, and Taos.

-dave-

I thought it was 4 MRG, Taos, Alta and Dear Valet?

 

[John84]

I thought it was 4 MRG, Taos, Alta and Dear Valet?

It is.

 

[JimG.]

the niche market is skiers. there are not enough board popular to make up for that niche market. which is the very point you failed to address in your reply.


my arguement is how else could the mountain potentially survive without its hardcore niche base? that not enough boarders would ever go to MRG to make up for that niche base, which is also considering the fact that a boarders are a smaller percentage of the overall sliders in the area. i just don't see it, without a niche market, the mountain would need to change to survive, if it could survive at all (doubtful).

You assume alot here.

Yes, the current niche market is skiers. How do you know there would not be enough snowboarder business to make up for even a total loss of skier visits? How do you know that all skier visits would cease? If there were enough boarder visits to make up for a total loss of skiers, why would the mountain have to change? Why couldn't boarders run it the same way as today? Why do you assume boarders would run it for profit?

I'm not up on snowboarder demographics, but I think we need some factual numbers here to back up these assumptions or these statements are as speculative as the post that started this thread.

 

[highpeaksdrifter]

You assume alot here.

How do you know there would not be enough snowboarder business to make up for even a total loss of skier visits? .

I think they'd do more business with boarders. Where would the skiers who frequent MRG go to? Oil will probably say they'll earn their turns, some probablly will, but I still think it would be a net plus for their revenue.

 

[thetrailboss]

Again, I'm not sure what the burning desire is.....

Is it folks want to snowboard there because they can't?

Or is it because of the terrain?

I just don't understand why there is so much attention to this issue and so much energy spent on it. It is only one of three/four or so areas that snowboarders aren't allowed. Is there a snowboards only place anywhere?

 

[JimG.]

I think they'd do more business with boarders. Where would the skiers who frequent MRG go to? Oil will probably say they'll earn their turns, some probablly will, but I still think it would be a net plus for their revenue.

I think alot of current MRG skiers would still ski there as much as now. They would groan and moan about it, and probably threaten too, and I'm sure a bunch would cut off their own noses to spite their faces and stop going, but most MRG skiers would still ski there.

In a year nobody would even notice the change.

 

[JimG.]

Again, I'm not sure what the burning desire is.....

Is it folks want to snowboard there because they can't?

Or is it because of the terrain?

I just don't understand why there is so much attention to this issue and so much energy spent on it. It is only one of three/four or so areas that snowboarders aren't allowed. Is there a snowboards only place anywhere?

Some because they can't. The forbidden fruit thing.

But I think the majority because of the terrain and vibe of the place. These riders are not the park rats who spend all day in the pipe. They are the freeriders who would eat up the terrain at MRG. Most of them wouldn't even want to see a terrain park and most wouldn't even use it.

 

[Greg]

But I think the majority because of the terrain and vibe of the place. These riders are not the park rats who spend all day in the pipe. They are the freeriders who would eat up the terrain at MRG. Most of them wouldn't even want to see a terrain park and most wouldn't even use it.

I can see the off-trail stuff, but are there really that many riders that are into bumps which almost all official trails at MRG will have?

 

[JimG.]

I can see the off-trail stuff, but are there really that many riders that are into bumps which almost all official trails at MRG will have?

Good riders have no issues with bumps.

Who goes to MRG for the official trails though?

 

[thetrailboss]

Some because they can't. The forbidden fruit thing.

But I think the majority because of the terrain and vibe of the place. These riders are not the park rats who spend all day in the pipe. They are the freeriders who would eat up the terrain at MRG. Most of them wouldn't even want to see a terrain park and most wouldn't even use it.

Why not go to Castlerock then? That is open to all.....

On that vein, how have snowboarders impacted C-Rock vs. MRG since the terrain is very similar?

 

[JimG.]

Why not go to Castlerock then?

Sorry, I don't know how else to put this...

because it's not MRG.

 

[thetrailboss]

Sorry, I don't know how else to put this...

because it's not MRG.

So it is the "forbidden fruit" thing then.

Again, I wonder if you can compare impacts of CR to MRG to see how things would come out.

 

[David Metsky]

I think they'd do more business with boarders. Where would the skiers who frequent MRG go to? Oil will probably say they'll earn their turns, some probablly will, but I still think it would be a net plus for their revenue.

We're all engaging in wild speculation, but I seriously doubt it. I just don't think there is much of a market for boarders who ski that kind of terrain or conditions. Sure, there are some, but not many and not many who would come there repeatedly. And you would lose some skiers who feel that MRG would be turning into just another small New England ski area. Some skiers enjoy the place because it's different. They fear the vibe would change, rightly or wrongly.

And I think you underestimate the core of MRG, the shareholders. These are the folks who have voted for the snowboard ban and show no signs of changing their minds. I'm not sure what it would take to convince them to lift the ban. Keep in mind, they aren't looking to drastically increase the number of skiers/riders at MRG. There's no uphill capacity for them anyways, the weekend lines already hit 30 minutes at times.

The only thing that might make sense to me would be to open things to boarders on weekdays, when there is excess capacity. If that went well for a few years, it might open the door to full access. That would be an interesting experiment.

-dave-