Former Passholders Ask Court for Class Action Certification Against Killington

[danny p]

definitely the best thing but for all the wrong reasons.

kinda have to disagree with the "for all the wrong reasons." I would argue the reason it hasn't been crowded has been the demise of the cheap passes. I know what you are getting at, and if we look at the lack of crowds for the BMMC, you are spot on. But the lack of crowds was apparent from opening day, before many of the PR blunders. It's looking like K may be even less crowded next year with them closing this weekend.

 

[mlctvt]

ONE REALLY GOOD THING THIS YEAR: NO CROWDS.

I'm sure the local economy loves this?
Can't be good for hotels, stores etc.
There will probably be some real estate for sale on the access road this summer.

 

[danny p]

I'm sure the local economy loves this?
Can't be good for hotels, stores etc.
There will probably be some real estate for sale on the access road this summer.

I was speaking from the skier's perspective. The slopes being safer is a big plus in my book. I think the shops and hotels still got decent business because of the good snow year.

 

[skiadikt]

kinda have to disagree with the "for all the wrong reasons." I would argue the reason it hasn't been crowded has been the demise of the cheap passes. I know what you are getting at, and if we look at the lack of crowds for the BMMC, you are spot on. But the lack of crowds was apparent from opening day, before many of the PR blunders. It's looking like K may be even less crowded next year with them closing this weekend.

the passes were certainly a big factor but most of powdr's 'blunders' were well before opening day. sure they capped it off by opening a week later than they coulda and not allowing hiking but the damage was done and there couldn't have been a more ugly buzz heading into the season. if anything once the season actually began and people started skiing, the other shit was forgotten and things calmed down a bit.

but you're right, from a skiers perspective, other than a lack of good, consistent bumps, the skiing was great.

and from what i heard, the shops & hotels had a very poor season.

 

[ski_resort_observer]

I think this is all part of the complete makeover by Powdr and it appears to be right on schedule. It's only the first couple of innings and I think Powdr was well aware of all the angst some of their business decisions would cause.

Personally I brush off 75% of the complaints as purely from a self-interest perspective giving little notice and consideration to the overall financial health of the resort.

They started with a resort in financial trouble, skier visits were down 25% while most of their competitors were down slightly, holding steady to some even doing better than the average. Interestingly Mt Snow was down 17% in this 3 season period. Pretty obvious common thread between the two. Alot of folks say kmart was a cash cow for ASC...I don't buy it.

Not discounting the pain kmart regulars and businesses along the access road are going thru but as they say...."no pain, no gain".

Perhaps in the next couple of years the discussions about Powdr/SP Land's ownership will be completely diferent. Course, if your a longtime Mt Bachelor skier, probably not. :lol:

 

[deadheadskier]

but you're right, from a skiers perspective, other than a lack of good, consistent bumps, the skiing was great.

good bumps and Killington seemed to me as synonimous for years. that's unfortunate that will such a great natural snow year, the bumps were subpar.

 

[JimG.]

Hah!

I see we're starting early this year!

Let the pot stirring begin!

 

[ckofer]

It's clear that the new regime wants to keep out the duct-tape wearing crowd.

 

[riverc0il]

If anything this past year or so, it seems that Powdr DOESN'T have any problem with negative publicity

- no more lifetime passes
- delayed opening
- no hiking before opening
- not running Skyeship Base or Pico most midweeks
- early closing
- No BYOB for Bear Mtn Mogul Challenge

.....and probably a couple of others that I'm forgetting off the top of my head

I will bite on that. How is much of that different from a lot of other mountains and big name resorts? The lifetime passes killing thing was legally sound and no other resort that I know of has these but many did start their mountain that way (Wildcat, IIRC, for example). Mid-November through mid-April is standard fair in the ski industry in New England. No one really opens early and stays open really late any more and Killington is about average for a resort its size. Lots of ski areas ask hikers to not hike the ski trails. Many mountains do not run all lifts mid-week (most folks saw Cannon shutting down the tram two mid-week days as sound business decision) and having a sister area closed mid-week has precedent (Haystack). And no BYOB at a ski area that serves alcohol is standard.

These were all changes from the old way of running the place. They have essentially taken a lot of unique and interesting things about Killington away and made the place much like a lot of other similar and comparable resorts. The internet is a buzz with "hard core" skiers, most that probably capitalized on an under valued A41 pass. But what does joe common man that really pays the bills say? I bet they love the changes. I bet they love the lack of crowds, don't ski early/late season, if they went to the BMMC they probably enjoyed it being kid friendly this year (sounds like it wasn't before), and they are probably staying in condos or slopeside so have no use for the Skye Ship which is more of a day tripper benefit from what it looks like (no nearby slopeside and real estate, unless I missed something). And of course, the folks paying the bills don't hike up for free after the lifts closed.

Yes, Killington lost a lot of interesting and unique things about the mountain. But they may gain financially and benefit from skiers with more money and less interest in those lost aspects of Killington patronizing the mountain. I am really interested to see how they do financially with all these changes that have so pissed off their customer base. If you believe the internet, they should have lost so many customers they will need to sell the mountain ASAP and recoup as much loss as possible. I imagine the changes had some up sides financially despite alienating a lot of long time and hard core customers.

Okay, my turn stirring the pot is done, who's next?

 

[ckofer]

Steve, I think you put that well. I was at Okemo at the end of last season. It was a beautiful spring day. I was surprised to find no deck parties, etc. It was actually quiet. Okemo does seem to attract the affluent people who would rather plunk down the cash fewer times for a more premium experience. I'm certain they have their regulars.

Killington is clearly headed the same way. The negative pr is most important to those of use who try to stretch a smallish ski budget into a lot of trips. I'm a bit disappointed that I haven't gotten there this year (usually get there a couple times per season) but I've had a good season so far. I skied quite a few mountains that I hadn't tried (Magic, MRG, Ascutney, Smuggs - and that's just the VT ones).

It's become clear that things have to be done differently in today's world to be successful. I just hope for a few more affordable opportunities at K.

 

[danny p]

It's clear that the new regime wants to keep out the duct-tape wearing crowd.

I don't think that's necessarily true...how many ski resorts do you know of that have a 50% payment plan for season passes (50% due June 2nd, other half billed to credit card end of August)? The new "regime" instituted this. The affluent and elite don't need a payment plan to buy a season pass.

 

[danny p]

they are probably staying in condos or slopeside so have no use for the Skye Ship which is more of a day tripper benefit from what it looks like (no nearby slopeside and real estate, unless I missed something).

several houses on lower great eastern that are owned and rented as ski on/ski off properties, only served by the skyeship as far as I know.

 

[tcharron]

I still have yet to see an argument that indicates these folks are entitled to continued Lifetime Passholders given way the sale of the resort was handled. This one is getting filed under "groundless law suits against the industry that drive prices up" IMO.

The Lifetime pass is actually mentioned specifically in the sale agreement. I don't see how they WOULDN'T be valid. The only reason they where canceled was because the phrase 'lifetime' was later defined by the buyer to mean, 'the lifetime of the company we're buying it from', but if that was indeed the spirit of the agreement, there would have been no point in actually putting it in the agreement in the first place.

 

[tcharron]

They don't stand a chance... It's pathetic at this point...

8.23 Lifetime Passes. Buyer shall honor all Lifetime Passes and shall cause any agreement for the sale of the Resort or the Business to require such subsequent owner to honor such passes; provided that in no event shall Buyer be required to enforce (nor shall it have any liability in respect to) such covenant with respect to such subsequent owner. This covenant shall survive Closing indefinitely.

ARTICLE IX SURVIVAL AND INDEMNIFICATION

9.1 Survival. The representations and warranties contained in Articles III and IV hereof and the covenants and agreements of the parties contained herein to be performed on or prior to the Closing shall terminate on June 30, 2008, except that (a) the representations and warranties set forth in Sections 3.15(a), (b), (c) and (d) shall terminate at Closing, (b) the representations and warranties contained in Sections 3.13 and 3.21 and the indemnification obligation of Buyer set forth in Section 9.3(iii) shall continue in full force and effect thereunder until thirty (30) days after the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations, (c) claims asserted (in writing) on or prior to June 30, 2008 shall survive until the earlier of (i) resolution by the parties or by a court of competent jurisdiction or (ii) if no action is brought before a court of competent jurisdiction, the expiration of the applicable statute of limitation and (d) the covenant of Buyer contained in Section 8.23 shall survive indefinitely. The agreements of the Sellers and the Buyer contained in this Agreement which by their terms require action following the Closing shall survive until the expiration of the applicable statute of limitation or, to the extent such agreements are expressly limited to other dates or times, such agreements shall survive only to such dates or times.

 

[SkiDork]

8.23 Lifetime Passes. Buyer shall honor all Lifetime Passes and shall cause any agreement for the sale of the Resort or the Business to require such subsequent owner to honor such passes; provided that in no event shall Buyer be required to enforce (nor shall it have any liability in respect to) such covenant with respect to such subsequent owner. This covenant shall survive Closing indefinitely.

ARTICLE IX SURVIVAL AND INDEMNIFICATION

9.1 Survival. The representations and warranties contained in Articles III and IV hereof and the covenants and agreements of the parties contained herein to be performed on or prior to the Closing shall terminate on June 30, 2008, except that (a) the representations and warranties set forth in Sections 3.15(a), (b), (c) and (d) shall terminate at Closing, (b) the representations and warranties contained in Sections 3.13 and 3.21 and the indemnification obligation of Buyer set forth in Section 9.3(iii) shall continue in full force and effect thereunder until thirty (30) days after the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations, (c) claims asserted (in writing) on or prior to June 30, 2008 shall survive until the earlier of (i) resolution by the parties or by a court of competent jurisdiction or (ii) if no action is brought before a court of competent jurisdiction, the expiration of the applicable statute of limitation and (d) the covenant of Buyer contained in Section 8.23 shall survive indefinitely. The agreements of the Sellers and the Buyer contained in this Agreement which by their terms require action following the Closing shall survive until the expiration of the applicable statute of limitation or, to the extent such agreements are expressly limited to other dates or times, such agreements shall survive only to such dates or times.

I think this was from a draft, not the final agreement. Could be wrong.

 

[tcharron]

I think this was from a draft, not the final agreement. Could be wrong.

Well, that's the agreement that was filed with the SEC.

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1043432/000110465907016723/a07-7202_1ex10d1.htm

 

[SkiDork]

Well, that's the agreement that was filed with the SEC.

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1043432/000110465907016723/a07-7202_1ex10d1.htm

Thats a draft. Notice the date. The sale didn't complete until sometime in May.

 

[ComeBackMudPuddles]

The lifetime passes killing thing was legally sound

Why legally sound? I don't know enough of the details to say yes or no, but, morally speaking, it's fishy.

Were the passholders compensated? No. A liability was wiped off of Killington's books to the benefit of the seller and the purchaser, but the creditor (the passholder) got nothing. There has to be a legal case in their somewhere.

 

[tcharron]

Thats a draft. Notice the date. The sale didn't complete until sometime in May.

No, that isn't a draft. That's the agreement. The sale was closed in March, and the money changed hands in May, but it was based on the agreement they entered into Feb 16th.

From their 10-Q filing for March 1st:

"On February 16, 2007, we entered into a definitive purchase agreement with SP Land Company, LLC (“SP Land”) to sell substantially all of the assets comprising the Killington/Pico ski resorts in Killington, Vermont. The purchase price to be paid for the Killington/Pico resort by SP Land is $83.5 million in cash plus the assumption of approximately $5.0 million in debt and other liabilities. The purchase price is subject to certain customary adjustments, including certain season pass and working capital adjustments, set forth in the Purchase Agreement. A closing escrow of $3.0 million will be withheld from the purchase price until July 1, 2008, to fund any post-closing indemnification obligations of the Seller."

 

[ski_resort_observer]

Go ahead, knock yourself out...
http://forums.alpinezone.com/16360-...l?highlight=powdr+lifetime+pass+court+vermont

I'm going skiing.

BTW, that nice couple who sued Powdr over the lifetime thing cause they paid $26,000 in 1996 for two of them lost miserably in court a couple of months ago. The Vermont AG had no interest in getting involved. Legal enough for ya. On WCAX the lady even admitted that they knew that they had no chance of winning but they sued cause they could. Powdr spokesperson said on camera that they are considering countersueing them to recoup all legal costs.