Cannon Mountain...thoughts

[riverc0il]

False.

Mad River Glen is as steep as anything in the Vermont 250+" snow belt. That makes it steeper than anything lift-serviced in New Hampshire where they get much less natural snow.

I wasn't completely on board with Jack's original statement about MRG until you posted this map. This map makes MRG look far less steep than I remember it. If you have access, maybe you can post the Cannon/Mittersill map for the sake of comparison as related to this discussion? Thanks.

Cannonball is spot on on this one. MRG is not steep overall. From the mid-station to the summit (Chute, Fall Line, Paradise) it is fairly steep. And the upper part of the Double is steep as well (Gazelle, Panther, Slalom Hill, etc). But that is only the top 1/3 - 1/4 of the mountain at best and even then nothing is overly steep. Liftline is knarly but not steep. Don't believe me? Ski Glade which parallels Liftline. The lower 1/3 of the Sunnyside is downright mellow in terms of pitch. It is all good. You can find cliffs and steep pitches plenty at MRG. But overall, the mountain does not have the steepest pitch though plenty of pucker and cliffiness.

 

[jack97]

The point has nothing to do with accounting accuracy and everything to do with spin. JD wrote that Cannon has been profitable recently. But would it be if capital expenses were on Cannon's books rather than the state's books? In other words, if they operated like a non-state run ski area and held profitability to the same standards. I am still awaiting a verification that this is indeed the case as threecy suggests. It is pretty damning of JD's statement if it is the case.

IMO, private versus public will operate under different business models or restrictions depending on how you look at it. If JD has leveraged captital espenses tallied under the state budget... I see that as a budgeting issue or where the money is counted.

A large corporation manipulates this just as well, I don't see this as damning.

 

[riverc0il]

IMO, private versus public will operate under different business models or restrictions depending on how you look at it. If JD has leveraged captital espenses tallied under the state budget... I see that as a budgeting issue or where the money is counted.

A large corporation manipulates this just as well, I don't see this as damning.

Again, it is not an issue with how the dollars and cents are actually handled. The accounting is sound and I am not suggesting otherwise. You are correct, that it is not an issue. Unless you are trying to make the case that Cannon makes a profit or loses money. If Cannon's profits are not large enough to off set capital expenses (even if tallied under the state budget balance sheet instead of Cannon's), then it is disingenuous to suggest that Cannon is making a profit. Threecy has a legitimate argument here that non-state run ski areas can not simply bury/hide capital expenses to make them look profitable (unless you are a car company or bank... for example....). In other words, I don't disagree with your rebuttal but you have not rebutted anything I have stated. Which is how most people are arguing with threecy so I can feel for him in that regard.

And just for the record, I will again assert I am not in favor of a lease. But I am trying to give a fair thinking man's critical evaluation to some of the very valid points that threecy makes. Addressing valid issues could actually help Cannon to be state run. Otherwise, the pro-lease contingent will continue to slam the lease through.

 

[threecy]

Can anyone verify if this is accurate? Can someone cite where the Double install went financially and what depreciation effects would have had on Cannon's bottom line?

The double would be a FY11 depreciation, which hasn't been completed. I can confirm that there is no depreciation on Cannon's Statements of Income and Expenses through FY09 (last year currently available). I suspect these statements will make their way online at some point.

I'm sure this will sound like a huge red flag to Threecy. But it's completely appropriate to to handle accounting on scales that suit the business. Large private ski corporations with multiple holdings will often cover improvement costs at one area with the profits from another.

The depreciation would show up on the income statement/balance sheet of the operation with the assets (in this case Cannon).

I figure for the past 5-6 years, Cannon has been on the cross-hair by the Republicans for privatization, any "creative" bookkeeping would have trigger some sort in legislative hearing by now.

This was discussed during the HB2 hearing on the Senate floor on June 1.

The point has nothing to do with accounting accuracy and everything to do with spin. JD wrote that Cannon has been profitable recently. But would it be if capital expenses were on Cannon's books rather than the state's books?

Until the depreciation information is made public, one interesting way to do some quick math would be to look at the Cannon operating profits (not including depreciation and recent bond interest, which are not on the Statements of Income and Expenses), then compare to the annual Sunapee lease infusion. The first two 'profittable' years of the often cited four year stretch would show a net deficit.

 

[deadheadskier]

Is this lack of reporting depreciating values unique just to Cannon?

Curious if any of the 14M investment in Hampton Beach State Park was depreciated and reflected in the income statement of that park.

 

[threecy]

Is this lack of reporting depreciating values unique just to Cannon?

Curious if any of the 14M investment in Hampton Beach State Park was depreciated and reflected in the income statement of that park.

Is the head of Hampton Beach State Park is bragging about the park outperforming Mt. Sunapee's lease revenue?

 

[deadheadskier]

Why does that matter?

I'm just curious if the numbers are being reported consistently for all parks.

 

[threecy]

Why does that matter?

Cannon is being presented as a government run profitable venture for the state, to the point in which the Sunapee lease is being antagonized. The Sunapee lease has actually brought the state millions in new income, whereas Cannon has been fed millions of dollars (off of its income statement).

I'm just curious if the numbers are being reported consistently for all parks.

Offhand, I'm not aware of the other park managers touting other parks in the manner Cannon has across the state recently (as a million dollar money maker).

NH legislature commissions lots of studies so I'm not sure which one you are reffering to but it might be this one: http://nhstateparks.org/uploads/pdf/Appendix%201%20-%20SB5%20Legislation%20and%20Report.pdf

The Cannon income numbers reported in the above file cited many pages ago are straight from the Statements of Income and Expenses - and thus do not include depreciation, etc.

 

[deadheadskier]

Offhand, I'm not aware of the other park managers touting other parks in the manner Cannon has across the state recently (as a million dollar money maker).
.

I'm not interested in what the other park managers are saying. That doesn't matter.

My question is if all parks report their numbers the same way.

I see this has become a bit of a personal thing for you with JD.

 

[threecy]

My question is if all parks report their numbers the same way.

I don't know the answer to this question at the moment, however Cannon has reported in this manner dating back to at least FY00.

I see this has become a bit of a personal thing for you with JD.

I'm not sure how you're coming to that conclusion? My issue is with Cannon being a government run ski area.

 

[deadheadskier]

looking at that document, it would appear that none of the State Parks report capital expense depreciation in their fiscal reporting.

Instead of just throwing JD and Cannon under the bus for this, shouldn't the entire State Park system receive equal scrutiny?

 

[bobbutts]

looking at that document, it would appear that none of the State Parks report capital expense depreciation in their fiscal reporting.

Instead of just throwing JD and Cannon under the bus for this, shouldn't the entire State Park system receive equal scrutiny?

A ski area is not like the rest of the state parks. Active recreation dependent on significant infrastructure at a cost of > $50 per day. Name another similar park.

A more applicable parallel would be if the state had an amusement park competing with Canobie Lake.

 

[deadheadskier]

Just stating that there's a park right down the road from me that's receiving a 14M face lift with taxpayer funds. Doesn't appear they report depreciation in their financials.

 

[threecy]

A ski area is not like the rest of the state parks. Active recreation dependent on significant infrastructure at a cost of > $50 per day. Name another similar park.

Indeed...and Cannon requires millions in new improvements on a regular basis. It's time for the state to get out of the ski business.

 

[Cannonball]

Indeed...and Cannon requires millions in new improvements on a regular basis. It's time for the state to get out of the ski business.

Schools need millions in new improvements on a regular basis. Is it time for the state to get out of the education business? I'm actually curious (and slightly afraid) of what your answer will be.

 

[UVSHTSTRM]

Schools need millions in new improvements on a regular basis. Is it time for the state to get out of the education business? I'm actually curious (and slightly afraid) of what your answer will be.

Education is paramount to the succes of us as a culture and as a people, while skiing is a very expensive recreation activity. However don't get me started on the building of schools and the added expenses that come with them in regards to the over the top design and the over the top price.

 

[threecy]

Schools need millions in new improvements on a regular basis. Is it time for the state to get out of the education business?

So you're implying that it's as essential for the state to fund a major ski area as it is to teach a child to learn how to read?

 

[Cannonball]

So you're implying that it's as essential for the state to fund a major ski area as it is to teach a child to learn how to read?

I'm not implying anything.

 

[deadheadskier]

It definitely is no where near as important to fund a recreational facility as it is schools.

I still don't have a problem with the state funding recreational facilities including Cannon. Project down the road from me cost each of us residents about $10. I rarely use Hampton Beach, but I've got no problem with ponying up that $10.

 

[bobbutts]

So you're implying that it's as essential for the state to fund a major ski area as it is to teach a child to learn how to read?

I guess he's hoping you'll say something that decisively proves you are a radical.. Then your arguments about Cannon will be more easily refuted.