Burton to Purchase Mad River?

[Greg]

I'm not sure what it would take to convince them to lift the ban.

Source: (item #5)

There are a few snowboards who own shares and they have not been terribly vocal about the issue. It really is a non-issue for the management and the shareholders. It only takes 3 trustees (out of 9) or a petition of 10% of the shareholders to bring it to a vote. This has never happened and there has never even been an initiative of any kind. In fact there was only one “straw poll” taken during the co-op’s first season and it has never come up again.

 

[JimG.]

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.

But I don't think you can randomly apply that psychology to the entire group.

In reverse, I'm sure there are snowboarders who would never go to MRG even if the ban was lifted simply because there was a snowboard ban.

And while CR is somewhat similar to MRG, it's still CR and MRG is MRG.

 

[JimG.]

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.
-dave-

This is the key variable I just don't know. I'm hoping that since we've been civilized that some snowboarders might want to join in and sound off on what they think.

 

[knuckledragger]

I will diagree with Dave on this one. The main reason I wnt to ride at mr is that very reson. I enjoy the trails that have not been groomed out and sculpted by dynamite. One of my favorite places was big spruce and specifically whirla way. This is a perfect example of a trail in its natural state( now this has changed). Seeing how the same man who had a lot to do with the trails at stowe left stowe to buy and run mr it is probably the only place left except for castlerock.When i ride in the b.c. I know that there will be ups as well as downs water and boulders in my way. This surfing the terrain is what I look for. it is much more fun than riding down a trail that is 100 ft wide and has been sterlized for my protection.

 

[David Metsky]

knuckledragger, I know that boarders like you exist. I just don't think there are enough like you to offset the loss of skiers and the "vibe" that the MRG Co-op is seeking to preserve. I never doubted that there are some folks like you, I know several personally, but I just don't think it would be enough who would put up with the often lousy conditions, slow lifts, and lack of amenities.

I'm not sure how you could conduct a real survey to find out numbers. As I stressed in a previous post, the numbers themselves wouldn't convince the co-op to change. Since they don't see a financial problem right now, coming up with a way to increase ticket sales isn't a top priority. Preseving the "MRG experience" is more important to the shareholders. And for better or worse, right now that includes the snowboard ban.

-dave-

 

[dmc]

knuckledragger, I know that boarders like you exist. I just don't think there are enough like you to offset the loss of skiers and the "vibe" that the MRG Co-op is seeking to preserve. I never doubted that there are some folks like you, I know several personally, but I just don't think it would be enough who would put up with the often lousy conditions, slow lifts, and lack of amenities.

I'm not sure how you could conduct a real survey to find out numbers. As I stressed in a previous post, the numbers themselves wouldn't convince the co-op to change. Since they don't see a financial problem right now, coming up with a way to increase ticket sales isn't a top priority. Preseving the "MRG experience" is more important to the shareholders. And for better or worse, right now that includes the snowboard ban.

-dave-

So how about you let boarders in with a recomendation from an existing shareholder(s)...?
That way you could preserve your "MRG experience" and allow people who ride the way you like to enjoy the mountain with you...

Unless it is truley about excluding snowboarders then I'm wasting my breath.....

 

[AdironRider]

Dave, your vastly misunderstanding the snowboarding community. I can confidently say that I have yet to meet a snowboarder who wouldnt go to a mountain because it didnt have a park, or didnt have a 200 foot wide groomer to blow past gapers or something. Every snowboarder I know would rather have sick natural terrain to play on, than the same old 30 foot tables you can get at even the smallest bunny hills these days. That is the lure of MRG, the whole "ski if you can" aspect. Face it, most people if they try it a couple times could land a jump in the park, or 50 50 a rail these days. Its not really that hard, but riding a rediculous natural line takes alot more skill than that Besides, just as many skiers enjoy the park these days as boarders, go down any park in the east and there will just as many skiers as boarders. In fact at Whiteface, I often see more skiers in the park than boarders, and half of them are in full race gear.

 

[David Metsky]

Guys, I'm not a shareholder nor am I a big fan of the ban.

But, it exists. I know a lot of the shareholders at MRG and it's not me you need to convince. The people who are in charge of MRG don't see things the way you guys do. And they don't have a great incentive to change things. To the people who matter, nothing is broken, so there's no need to change.

Having said that, I think you underestimate how strongly shareholders feel about keeping things the way they are. Part of the self-image is the exclusivity of the place, the fact that they are bucking the trend of the world of skiing. The more snowboarders want in, the more it reinforces the desire to keep them out. They'd never add snowmaking, or change the Single, or groom, or allow boarders because to do so would be a surrender to the forces on modernization.

I wish you luck, but it ain't gonna happen any time soon.

-dave-

 

[AdironRider]

I dont think any of us boarders are going to lose any sleep over the issue, but its fun to dream.

 

[JimG.]

I dont think any of us boarders are going to lose any sleep over the issue, but its fun to dream.

And that's all we're doing in this thread...a little dreaming.

I think Dave hit the nail on the head about the exclusivity factor...it seems that MRG's co-op likes the image the mountain has and will do alot to buck current ski resort trends. The more snowboarders want to ride there, the more the notion meets resistance.

I give props to the snowboarders who responded here...you took a chance and I hope you see that we aren't trying to flame you guys. Your opinions are valued here and always welcomed.

I think dmc summed it up best...it's all about the ban and nothing else. Being in the middle and seeing both sides of the argument, I'll admit I don't see any way a peaceable resolution could be reached. A shame in my book, but I'll also admit I won't stop going there because of it.

 

[Greg]

I think Dave hit the nail on the head about the exclusivity factor...it seems that MRG's co-op likes the image the mountain has and will do alot to buck current ski resort trends. The more snowboarders want to ride there, the more the notion meets resistance.

This is possible. As they say, any publicity is good publicity and just look at the popularity of this and similar threads about the MRG snowboard ban. However, I do not think the share holders are specifically maintaining the ban for this psedo-marketing value. I really think they simply just want to preserve the current MRG "experience", whether snowboarders (or skiers for that matter) agree with it or not.

 

[JennyRousseau]

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

Dave --

Thanks for correcting me on this issue. However, the MRG Cooperative does "rebate" profits to it's shareholders through something called a "Patronage Rebate". In essence, it allocates profits from the ski area operations back to the shareholders. So, it isn't a non-profit as you suggest as all profits after expenses are rebated to the shareholders.

Article X of the MRG Bylaws shows that the mountain is "non-profit" to its shareholders in that it does not retain earnings, rather it passes them through to its owners.

An example of a non-profit that you suggest that MRG is would be the Cochran's Ski Area. It clearly says that it is Not for Profit and is registered with the Federal Government as a 501(c)3 Non-Profit and is recognized as such under the IRS code. This Page contains more information about Cochran's non-profit status.

To the best of my knowledge, Mad River Glen is not recognized as a non-profit by the IRS. It is registered with the Vermont Secretary of State's offices as a "Marketing Cooperative" which is a special kind of "for profit" corporation established for the benefits -- including financial benefits -- of it's members.

I'm not a lawyer, but there are plenty here who could comment with some authority, other than quoting magazine articles.

 

[JimG.]

Dave --

Thanks for correcting me on this issue. However, the MRG Cooperative does "rebate" profits to it's shareholders through something called a "Patronage Rebate". In essence, it allocates profits from the ski area operations back to the shareholders. So, it isn't a non-profit as you suggest as all profits after expenses are rebated to the shareholders.

Article X of the MRG Bylaws shows that the mountain is "non-profit" to its shareholders in that it does not retain earnings, rather it passes them through to its owners.

An example of a non-profit that you suggest that MRG is would be the Cochran's Ski Area. It clearly says that it is Not for Profit and is registered with the Federal Government as a 501(c)3 Non-Profit and is recognized as such under the IRS code. This Page contains more information about Cochran's non-profit status.

To the best of my knowledge, Mad River Glen is not recognized as a non-profit by the IRS. It is registered with the Vermont Secretary of State's offices as a "Marketing Cooperative" which is a special kind of "for profit" corporation established for the benefits -- including financial benefits -- of it's members.

I'm not a lawyer, but there are plenty here who could comment with some authority, other than quoting magazine articles.

Damned good retort and 2nd post Jenny...you guys are the experts on this legal stuff.

 

[David Metsky]

Excellent response, and stuff to think about. Has a patronage rebate ever been issued? AFAIK, shareholders are required to spend a certain amount of "annual service committment" each year, which started at $200 and presumably has risen each year since. Any extra money has gone to the Single Replacement fund or other capital improvements.

You are correct that there is a framework for profit to be distributed to shareholders but I don't think it has ever been used. At some point in the future it is possible that shares of MRG could be a money making proposition, but that isn't the case today nor for the foreseeable future. The shareholders know this and no one has purchased a share there with the intent of making money. They know that a share will continue to cost them money each year. It certainly is possible that shareholders would change their minds, but I have a hard time picturing it.

All this is based on conversations with shareholders and reading the bylaws, so I could be completely off base. I'm not a lawyer and don't understand the laws relating to non-profit status.

-dave-

Dave --

Thanks for correcting me on this issue. However, the MRG Cooperative does "rebate" profits to it's shareholders through something called a "Patronage Rebate". In essence, it allocates profits from the ski area operations back to the shareholders. So, it isn't a non-profit as you suggest as all profits after expenses are rebated to the shareholders.

Article X of the MRG Bylaws shows that the mountain is "non-profit" to its shareholders in that it does not retain earnings, rather it passes them through to its owners.

An example of a non-profit that you suggest that MRG is would be the Cochran's Ski Area. It clearly says that it is Not for Profit and is registered with the Federal Government as a 501(c)3 Non-Profit and is recognized as such under the IRS code. This Page contains more information about Cochran's non-profit status.

To the best of my knowledge, Mad River Glen is not recognized as a non-profit by the IRS. It is registered with the Vermont Secretary of State's offices as a "Marketing Cooperative" which is a special kind of "for profit" corporation established for the benefits -- including financial benefits -- of it's members.

I'm not a lawyer, but there are plenty here who could comment with some authority, other than quoting magazine articles.

 

[Mr MRG]

Yikes!!!

Wow, you take a little vacation and all hell breaks loose on "the zone". As you can ascertain from Burton's "request for removal" this story has absolutely no validity. I know all too well who perpetrated this crap. I prefer to take the high road on this one and just leave it at that. Pretty entertaining thread though!

Enjoy and....

THINK SNOW!!!!

Eric

 

[Greg]

Wow, you take a little vacation and all hell breaks loose on "the zone". As you can ascertain from Burton's "request for removal" this story has absolutely no validity. I know all too well who perpetrated this crap. I prefer to take the high road on this one and just leave it at that. Pretty entertaining thread though!

Enjoy and....

THINK SNOW!!!!

Eric

Well, there you have it. Not that many believed it anyways...

 

[thetrailboss]

Wow, you take a little vacation and all hell breaks loose on "the zone". As you can ascertain from Burton's "request for removal" this story has absolutely no validity. I know all too well who perpetrated this crap. I prefer to take the high road on this one and just leave it at that. Pretty entertaining thread though!

Enjoy and....

THINK SNOW!!!!

Eric

The official word. How many websites have this kind of info? Not many.

 

[Greg]

The official word. How many websites have this kind of info? Not many.

And I'd be curious to know how Burton got word of it. Via the blog itself, or this thread...

 

[Tin Woodsman]

Wow, you take a little vacation and all hell breaks loose on "the zone". As you can ascertain from Burton's "request for removal" this story has absolutely no validity. I know all too well who perpetrated this crap. I prefer to take the high road on this one and just leave it at that. Pretty entertaining thread though!

Enjoy and....

THINK SNOW!!!!

Eric

Eric Eric Eric......

Don't you know that there are people on this board who USED to actually work at Burton, and are therefore privy to the REAL information on what's going on? They said it themselves in this very thread! Looks like you're really getting the wool pulled over your eyes.

 

[David Metsky]

Don't you know that there are people on this board who USED to actually work at Burton, and are therefore privy to the REAL information on what's going on? They said it themselves in this very thread! Looks like you're really getting the wool pulled over your eyes.

To be fair, all they said was that the encounter between Betsy and the 2 snowboards that is supposed to have taken place at the ski area in fact took place in town. I have no problem believing that either or both happened, it doesn't seem to change things in the long run.

I think everyone (or almost everyone) safely came to the conclusion that the blog was made up out of whole cloth. But the conversation has brought up some interesting points along the way. And it's July, this is the only skiing we can talk about.

-dave-