So I read the SKI Magazine article last night. I'm sure that it will surface on their webpage soon...almost all their content eventually gets posted online. It was indeed dated....I'd say that it was obviously done last season or so and is referring to November 2013 data. Their reference to the Newport Marina and Hotel should have been deleted since that project is dead for now.
More eerily enough was Stenger gloating about how he "may not even have to repay" the investors at all....or could repay them on his terms. Obviously he said that before this summer's clusterfuck and would not be making the same statement in 2014. He made that statement at least twice in the article. That really made Jay look bad IMHO.
Other than that, I noticed some clearly ambitious Stenger Talk © about how great things were and their awesome plans. First, they now have 3,000 beds and claimed a 90% occupancy rate for a random weekend in November, attributed to 600 people for a hockey tournament, a couple weddings, and some other parties. By my calculations I think he was exaggerating a bit there. The 600 people would account for 600 beds at most. That leaves 2,100 beds. Those weddings probably are only 200 people or so each...so that is 400 beds max. That leave 1,700 beds if not more to account for. Those are some big parties.
As to the plans, they said again that big changes are coming including replacing the Jet, Bonnie, and the West Bowl. I remember in 2003 a ski patroller telling me on the Freezer that the West Bowl was coming "next year". 12 years later.....
The article also referred to Q in it and offered the lame excuse to why they renamed it Q Burke "to distinguish themselves" from previous failures. Judging by that stupid comment, I'd place the date on this article to be about December 2013 or January 2014 since Q Sr. trotted out that line (and his slanderous comments) in January.
In sum, my critical read of the article made Jay look worse than before. Joe Cutts is a good freelance author, so I doubt that he screwed up here. I'm not being negative, just reading it with a critical eye because of my education, experience, and training. I think that a superficial read of it is positive until you dig down and pay attention to what was said and the logic (or lack thereof) behind it.
More eerily enough was Stenger gloating about how he "may not even have to repay" the investors at all....or could repay them on his terms. Obviously he said that before this summer's clusterfuck and would not be making the same statement in 2014. He made that statement at least twice in the article. That really made Jay look bad IMHO.
Other than that, I noticed some clearly ambitious Stenger Talk © about how great things were and their awesome plans. First, they now have 3,000 beds and claimed a 90% occupancy rate for a random weekend in November, attributed to 600 people for a hockey tournament, a couple weddings, and some other parties. By my calculations I think he was exaggerating a bit there. The 600 people would account for 600 beds at most. That leaves 2,100 beds. Those weddings probably are only 200 people or so each...so that is 400 beds max. That leave 1,700 beds if not more to account for. Those are some big parties.
As to the plans, they said again that big changes are coming including replacing the Jet, Bonnie, and the West Bowl. I remember in 2003 a ski patroller telling me on the Freezer that the West Bowl was coming "next year". 12 years later.....
The article also referred to Q in it and offered the lame excuse to why they renamed it Q Burke "to distinguish themselves" from previous failures. Judging by that stupid comment, I'd place the date on this article to be about December 2013 or January 2014 since Q Sr. trotted out that line (and his slanderous comments) in January.
In sum, my critical read of the article made Jay look worse than before. Joe Cutts is a good freelance author, so I doubt that he screwed up here. I'm not being negative, just reading it with a critical eye because of my education, experience, and training. I think that a superficial read of it is positive until you dig down and pay attention to what was said and the logic (or lack thereof) behind it.
