Let's Talk About Killington

[GrilledSteezeSandwich]

I kinda figured that's what they were dumping money into. They're not going to see any return on that because of the exact reason you outlined, people who ski there are diehard. They already have their market locked down and won't really attract anyone new by spending money. It's a component of the reason I'm saying spending money at K this year would not be a good move. Spending 3 million at Mt. Snow will also net you more than 30 million at Stowe because it's such a friggin' drag to get to Stowe for local market skiers. I hope they're atleast spreading it out over 10-15 years to keep things from seeming stale 10 years from now. I'd also argue K is the skiing capital of the east, not Stowe. K has always been way more on the radar than Stowe in my opinion.

Yeah but Stowes wealthy die-hards from Boston, Connecticut, and the NYC megalopolis are snapping up the on-mountain lodging and continure to invite their friends/relatives on ski trips. Stowe is known as the Skiing Capital of the East due to it's history..one can't argue with that. Some of the origional trails were cut by the CCC..Civilian Conservation Corps during the Great Depression..Ski Trains from downcountry brought the masses up to Stowe..where they rode a single chair 2k feet of vert up the side of Mount Mansfield. Yes Killington does more skier visits than Stowe because Stowe is a longer drive from the masses...and Killington has double as much trail acerage..I definitely think Stowe will make their money back on their investments...yes they charge an arm and a leg for a lift ticket..but there are internet and multi day deals around..But you're paying alot for a very modern..well run..efficient..mountain where you can crank out sustained vert to your hearts content and be booted back up mad quick....

 

[snowman]

Yeah but Stowes wealthy die-hards from Boston, Connecticut, and the NYC megalopolis are snapping up the on-mountain lodging and continure to invite their friends/relatives on ski trips. Stowe is known as the Skiing Capital of the East due to it's history..one can't argue with that. Some of the origional trails were cut by the CCC..Civilian Conservation Corps during the Great Depression..Ski Trains from downcountry brought the masses up to Stowe..where they rode a single chair 2k feet of vert up the side of Mount Mansfield. Yes Killington does more skier visits than Stowe because Stowe is a longer drive from the masses...and Killington has double as much trail acerage..I definitely think Stowe will make their money back on their investments...yes they charge an arm and a leg for a lift ticket..but there are internet and multi day deals around..But you're paying alot for a very modern..well run..efficient..mountain where you can crank out sustained vert to your hearts content and be booted back up mad quick....

I didn't say they wouldn't make their money back, I said they wouldn't see a return on their investment, there's a difference. ROI (positive) is the entire point of business. :grin:

 

[GrilledSteezeSandwich]

I didn't say they wouldn't make their money back, I said they wouldn't see a return on their investment, there's a difference. ROI is the entire point of business. :grin:

I think it's more about creating great customer service and maximizing your profit margin. But I'm in a different kind of business. It's more about profit but writing off enough business expenditures to not get nailed too bad in taxes. Now when the business was first bought alot of the profit went to paying off loans on the business...Is ROI really the entire point of business? I have a degree in Business Administration and I now wonder why I studied marketing, accounting, business law, and management....They should have just stuck with ROI..:uzi:

 

[snowman]

I think it's more about creating great customer service and maximizing your profit margin. But I'm in a different kind of business. It's more about profit but writing off enough business expenditures to not get nailed too bad in taxes. Now when the business was first bought alot of the profit went to paying off loans on the business...Is ROI really the entire point of business? I have a degree in Business Administration and I now wonder why I studied marketing, accounting, business law, and management....They should have just stuck with ROI..:uzi:

Yeah, A lot of ski hills are improved for "the love of it" with no expectation of positive ROI. I'm surpised AIG would place money into a venture like this though. They're a REAL business..lol.

 

[deadheadskier]

They're not going to see any return on that because of the exact reason you outlined, people who ski there are diehard. They already have their market locked down and won't really attract anyone new by spending money.

Man, there's were you are dead wrong. First off, the vast majority of this 400 mil project (which is about it's fifth year out of a ten year plan) is already paid for in the real estate sold. Second, Stowe's skier visits have been flat or in slight decline ever since the last on mountain improvements were made - the Gondola and Forerunner installs in the early 90's. The reason? A minimum amount of slopeside ski in ski out lodging. That's a big problem when the majority of the dollars in the market are spent by families who not only want terrain, but expect convenience and amenities - both of which Stowe as a ski resort had none. Families were going to Smuggs, Okemo, Stratton, Killington et al because they had these amenities. Canucks like yourself were staying in Canada at Tremblant.

Their market was far from locked down and it was an unsustainable one. The reason for this development is the exact same reason why Sugarbush has gone out and done the same thing, though to a much lesser scale. I'm sure Sugarbush would love to have the opportunity to build a village like Stowe is doing, they simply couldn't get the approval from the town.

Stowe will absolutely see a return on this investment. There are only two ways a mountain will increase skier visits and that's either terrain expansion or increasing the slopeside bed base. The latter is what Stowe is doing and what Killington plans on with their village because both areas don't have the ability to expand terrain.

 

[eastcoastpowderhound]

I know as A FACT Sunday river had one crappy chair (that broke down most seasons) and 2 or 3 T-bars and next to no snowmaking when Les started there with SKI in the 70's = T bar hill. Nothing was done with it lift and expansion wise until Les took it over in the early 80's. Okemo also had 3 crappy chairlifts and 4 or 5 T-bars/pomas when the Muellers bought it at the same time also = T-bar hill. As far as I'm concerned you're a T-bar hill until you get into some serious marketing and have atleast 1 high capacity lift. Case in point, Even though everyone in here is not exactly "joe public", how many of you have heard of "Big Rock" in Maine? They're just as big as Okemo and SR were until the dumptrucks of cash arrived. I don't need to fact check on stuff I ALREADY KNOW.

We weren't talking about the 70's or even the early 80's...we were talking about the last recession which really didn't even hit until the early 90s...how SR and Okemo made their names during that recession by investing in their infrastructure and their marketing and by which time both mtns were much more than just t-bar hills. Hell, SR already had White Heat by 1990 with a fixed grip quad running up the side of it..I competed in the bust n burn that year and rode the lift...long way from a t-bar hill by the time the recession hit.

So you think Powdr is wise not to invest in KL now...one bacause of the looming recession, and two, because ASC cooked the books. Okay, we covered the first point and the folks at Peaks and Boyne disagree with your bis plan. On to the second, ASC was a holding company, each one of the resorts was a wholy owned subsidiary with their own management teams. You really think the senior management teams at SR, SL, AT, and MS wouldn't have said boo (folks whose bonuses were based on their resort's performance) if ASC corporate decided to play a shell game and take some of the revenues earned at those resorts and slide them over to KL's p&l? Also, corporate overhead was distributed to the resorts based on their volume...you think KL management would have quietly sat by while they absorbed a greater share of the corporate burden than they should have? ASC wanted to sell all of their resorts, not just KL...cooking the books to make KL look more profitable and thus fetch a higher price would have made the other resorts look less profitable and fetch a lower price...where's the upside for ASC trying to run a scheme like that? Why would they even bother risking it? They've had internal auditors and KPMG going over the books for the last several years...you don't think those folks would have noticed something fishy? You got some inside line that gives you access to a second set of books that weren't uncovered by their internal auditors, external auditors, or Sarbanes Oxley? Enlighten those among us who are simple pedestrian thinkers and don't have the starthinker power you so humbly claim.

 

[deadheadskier]

We weren't talking about the 70's or even the early 80's...we were talking about the last recession which really didn't even hit until the early 90s...how SR and Okemo made their names during that recession by investing in their infrastructure and their marketing and by which time both mtns were much more than just t-bar hills. Hell, SR already had White Heat by 1990 with a fixed grip quad running up the side of it..I competed in the bust n burn that year and rode the lift...long way from a t-bar hill by the time the recession hit.

So you think Powdr is wise not to invest in KL now...one bacause of the looming recession, and two, because ASC cooked the books. Okay, we covered the first point and the folks at Peaks and Boyne disagree with your bis plan. On to the second, ASC was a holding company, each one of the resorts was a wholy owned subsidiary with their own management teams. You really think the senior management teams at SR, SL, AT, and MS wouldn't have said boo (folks whose bonuses were based on their resort's performance) if ASC corporate decided to play a shell game and take some of the revenues earned at those resorts and slide them over to KL's p&l? Also, corporate overhead was distributed to the resorts based on their volume...you think KL management would have quietly sat by while they absorbed a greater share of the corporate burden than they should have? ASC wanted to sell all of their resorts, not just KL...cooking the books to make KL look more profitable and thus fetch a higher price would have made the other resorts look less profitable and fetch a lower price...where's the upside for ASC trying to run a scheme like that? Why would they even bother risking it? They've had internal auditors and KPMG going over the books for the last several years...you don't think those folks would have noticed something fishy? You got some inside line that gives you access to a second set of books that weren't uncovered by their internal auditors, external auditors, or Sarbanes Oxley? Enlighten those among us who are simple pedestrian thinkers and don't have the starthinker power you so humbly claim.

voice of reason right there, especially concerning why in the world ASC would want Killington to look more profitable than the other areas. Very strong point that I wish I had thought of myself. The goal was to get the highest dollar for each property. De-valuing one to benefit another would serve zero purpose.

 

[snowman]

We weren't talking about the 70's or even the early 80's...we were talking about the last recession which really didn't even hit until the early 90s...how SR and Okemo made their names during that recession by investing in their infrastructure and their marketing and by which time both mtns were much more than just t-bar hills. Hell, SR already had White Heat by 1990 with a fixed grip quad running up the side of it..I competed in the bust n burn that year and rode the lift...long way from a t-bar hill by the time the recession hit.

.

Are you a woman?? You're trying to argue the opposite point to what you were arguing earlier?!?!?

You need to listen to your own advice and do some more research before you rant. You're trying to say Okemo and Sunday River were NEW back in the 80s and 90s you're DECADES off...Sunday River was established in 1958...their 50th anniversary is right around the corner. Not sure when Okemo was est but I was skiing there in the mid 80s and the main lodge was old and crusty by then. You're critcizing everyone elses' arguments like you've got all the answers and speak with a great deal of conviction...too bad your "facts" are wrong.

Your ACTUAL argument was that I was saying that SR and Okemo didn't exist before the 70's and 80's which I counterpointed that I had already stated they did in a much different state and was backed up on my statement about the exact type of skiing facilities they existed as. WE, meaning YOU AND I were then arguing about the 70's and early 80's when you stuck your nose into a conversation I was having with Deadhead about how investment at these resorts worked in the late 80's and early 90's. Now you're trying to say I was saying SR existed as a T bar hill in the 90's?!?!? I'm just not going to argue anything else with you because you're being ridiculous and arguing for the sake of arguing. It's pointless. You're just twisting stuff around in an argument you've already lost.

 

[millerm277]

snowman, it looks more like you've lost, as you have just argued the unimportant parts, and completely skipped over the actual important part of his post, which is why it's impossible (or at least, very unlikely) for K's numbers to have been false/misleading.

 

[deadheadskier]

Agreed. It's the ONLY decision for K, not everyone. If Revelstoke was to put in the 2 lifts they're putting in this year and stop due to economic conditions in the US it would be extremely detrimental to them. Okemo and SR were T bar hills (that no one had heard of )coming on the scene as NEW giants with heaps of new lifts and massive marketing. Although I like new lifts, I could care less if K put in a new 8 pack this year or not. I've already skiied the mountain and it wouldn't be new to me. Once they get their house in order, figure out what they need to do traffic wise and the economy upswings, they will do well to embark on a new lift program though

in eastcoast powhounds defense, YOU were the one who first argued that Okemo and Sunday River were T Bar hills, evidenced by this post. My initial arguement that investment can work during recessions was based around the late 80's early 90's recession. At that point, which many people have pointed out, Okemo and Sunday River were far from T-Bar mountains. I know first hand having skied Okemo at least 50 days a season from 84 through 94.

To be honest, when you first brought this up, I let it slide not wanting to get in a pissing match with you based on a 'technicality'. Yes, late 70's, early 80's - Okemo and Sunday River were T-Bar resorts. My arguement didn't concern that time frame though. It didn't because the early 80's were a time of economic prosperity, not recession. My arguement was that it is possible for resorts to prosper with investment during a recesion, ie. Okemo and SR around 1990.

You really can't argue with eastcoastpowhounds, snoseek and other's point. You pretty much shot yourself in th foot with this above comment. Like Killington is today, Okemo and SR were very much established resorts during the last recession when they made massive investments. Granted, they had an ability for terrain expansion that Killington now does not.

I still standby my original point though. Scaling back expenses is not the ONLY option as you pointed out and have so fiercely argued with me and everyone else since. I brought in Stowe as another example as their situation parallels Killington's in that they have no available terrain for expansion. They're going for it despite a possible recession coming on. I think their gamble will bring a much larger ROI than Killington's stance of cutting corners, slashing services everywhere possible AND raising pricing. This last statement is what has everyone up in arms on this message board. It does so especially because the other operators who took on the other ASC resorts and places like Stowe, Sugarbush, Burke, Jay etc are doing the exact oppisite.

What Killington is doing is not the ONLY option as you stated nor it is the right option based upon everything else going on the market.

 

[Greg]

snowman, it looks more like you've lost

Should I add a poll? :lol:

 

[threecy]

I look forward to the AZ challenge hopefully putting an end to these circular debates.

 

[snowman]

in eastcoast powhounds defense, YOU were the one who first argued that Okemo and Sunday River were T Bar hills, evidenced by this post. My initial arguement that investment can work during recessions was based around the late 80's early 90's recession. At that point, which many people have pointed out, Okemo and Sunday River were far from T-Bar mountains. I know first hand having skied Okemo at least 50 days a season from 84 through 94.

To be honest, when you first brought this up, I let it slide not wanting to get in a pissing match with you based on a 'technicality'. Yes, late 70's, early 80's - Okemo and Sunday River were T-Bar resorts. My arguement didn't concern that time frame though. It didn't because the early 80's were a time of economic prosperity, not recession. My arguement was that it is possible for resorts to prosper with investment during a recesion, ie. Okemo and SR around 1990.

.

Are you kidding me? I agreed with you on the fact the late 80's early 90's build up worked to take SR and Okemo from unheard of T bar hills they were from the early 80's on back to modern resorts during a recession. That is exactly what was said in no uncertain or confusing terms. There is nothing incorrect about that in the least. We didn't have an argument. My point was I'm not arguing another god damn thing with Eastcoast because he's taking points I've already made and turning them around to try and state I was saying the opposite. More than a woman, it's like talking to the media. I talked to them once, they reversed everything I said in the exact same manner. When they ask me for comment now they get told to go pound sand. I just told Eastcoast the same.

 

[deadheadskier]

Should I add a poll? :lol:

No need, I'll just end it. I was going to wait for snowman's response, but I don't want to waste anymore of my time even though it probably not as valuable as snowman's which he already pointed out :lol:

Snowman - give it up. Seriously, you are looking more and more like Jean Van de Velde at the British open five years back


You're arguement concerning SEC filings, accounting conspiracy et al is mute. It's obvious that ASC wanted to make ALL of the resorts look good for sale, not just killington.

You're condescending attitude and strong affrimation that the averge Joe doesn't know the difference between a regular quad and a high speed one, though it has some validity, was pretty darn classless and did little to back up your arguement.

I think everyone could probably care less about the THREE tax evading business's you own and how you buy your lawyers and accountants cars to avoid paying the tax. Even though you'd happily pay it if your country's tax code was better :rollseyes:

Cutting down Greg - never a good move

Doing whatever you could to argue against me regarding my simple point that resorts can invest during recessions and be succesful. Yes you conceded some to me, but still did what you could to build yourself up on your stance that the ONLY way for Killington to operate now is to do so sans investment. You did so by mis-statements regarding the mountains, reaching out west, wherever you could go, even though history shows what I said as my point to be exactly right.

Not knowing a lick about Stowe and their challenges and skier base, yet bashing their plan, which is pretty much a proven philosophy that every resort out there in the country is doing to increase market share, which is increase amenities and bed base - not good.

Calling everyone crazy for arguing with you for the simple point of arguing because you're either crazy or we're all too stoopit to share in your infanant knowledge of accounting, SEC filings and ski resort operations.


Face it big guy. Put the driver back in the bag, take out your three iron and aim for the fairway. Your slice right now is quickly taking on the status of legendary.

 

[deadheadskier]

More than a woman, it's like talking to the media. I talked to them once, they reversed everything I said in the exact same manner. When they ask me for comment now they get told to go pound sand. I just told Eastcoast the same.

Can I be your spokesperson? I'm not a woman. I promise to represent you truthfully in front of the big bad media.



Care to borrow a shovel? It's been a long time since I've seen someone try and dig as hard as you are in this thread.

 

[BeanoNYC]

Snowman - give it up. Seriously, you are looking more and more like Jean Van de Velde at the British open five years back

I was just thinking that he was looking more and more like Beswift...

 

[snowman]

I still standby my original point though. Scaling back expenses is not the ONLY option as you pointed out and have so fiercely argued with me and everyone else since. I brought in Stowe as another example as their situation parallels Killington's in that they have no available terrain for expansion. They're going for it despite a possible recession coming on. I think their gamble will bring a much larger ROI than Killington's stance of cutting corners, slashing services everywhere possible AND raising pricing. This last statement is what has everyone up in arms on this message board. It does so especially because the other operators who took on the other ASC resorts and places like Stowe, Sugarbush, Burke, Jay etc are doing the exact oppisite.

What Killington is doing is not the ONLY option as you stated nor it is the right option based upon everything else going on the market.

I did re-cant my broad statement and state it was the ONLY option for THEM, thank's to YOUR good point. I'm more than willing to say I'm wrong when given a good reason why. Where they can't expand terrain and they already have good snowmaking infrastructure, the best play for year one in this economic environment is to do nothing.

Stowe. I have no idea what is going on at Stowe. I know nothing about it other than they're built out ski area wise. Grilled said the 400 mil was going to new lifts, snowmaking, a hotel, and their base market was intact and not going anywhere. I took his word for it. To me, if you spend 400 mil, THERE, in that manner, you'll be lucky to get it back, never mind make money on it. Then someone else chimed in and said most of the 400 mil was going into condos because they didn't have any. Ding ding. You CAN make money on that. #1, you're not paying for it, the shmoes you sell them to are. #2. If you have no lodging at a fairly remote place like Stowe, you DO have a problem. In that instance, all they're doing is fronting a bit of money short term to get a quick 20 to 300% ROI if people are hot to buy condos there. That's not dumb, that's smart. A hotel there is also dumb unless it's some elaborate ASC like scheme where you sucker people into paying for that for you too. Who builds a hotel somewhere where your rooms sit empty for 80% of the year? Not me!

 

[millerm277]

snowman, you STILL have avoided the question of how ASC could have faked K's numbers.

 

[snoseek]

this thread makes my head hurt.

 

[WWF-VT]

Killington competes with the other NE resorts, comparing it to out West or Canada is not a valid comparison.

I can guarantee that if they built the Pico interconnect, it would spark a hell of a lot of interest in Killington, and would draw people from other areas.

Why is Pico interconnect such a big deal ?