One change

[BenedictGomez]

All mountains:

Stay open at least 30 minutes later for Daylight Saving Time.

 

[ceo]

New gondola at Sugarloaf, on the same alignment as the old one, with appropriate steps to make it more windproof.

Also move the Village and extend Double Runner down so you don't have to hike to it or the Superquad from the base lodge.

 

[deadheadskier]

Extend the Spaulding Turnpike all the way to Center Conway.

 

[prsboogie]

Extend the Spaulding Turnpike all the way to Center Conway.

+1²

 

[skiNEwhere]

+1²

Sure it shouldn't be +1[SUP]3[/SUP]?

 

[steamboat1]

I tend to disagree with you. Sure, they may be operating but EB-5 funding aside, both would be barely operable and not seeing the opportunities that may come their way through this means of funding. It's effectively an economic stimulus package for these more rural VT mountains. Sure, I also don't like all the political/economic strings attached and question whether these loans will be paid back, but plopping a 100+ bed hotel at mid-Burke can only help, not hurt, the sustainability of the mountain.


I beg to differ. Without the hotel, the only potential buyer, who would see value, would likely be BMA. With the hotel, and the management fee associated with it, along with the increased skier visits, it will open up the mountain to another pool of potential buyers, in that event.

Again, your speaking like getting a $100 M injection of funding is a bad thing, when in fact, any way you slice it, it is most likely good for the viability of the mountain going forward.

It did wonders for Ascutney.

 

[ScottySkis]

This.

+100. After all snow storms no warm ups. Lake effect snows fall over 300 inches at all the east coast winter mountains.

Platty start using the Ocean on top this winter for snowmaking so I can buy a pass and know money invested I will enjoy it.

 

[ScottySkis]

Hunters owners.....

Why. I had a spring pass last winter they made crazy amount of snow. It was lots of fun times I looking forward to skiing their several times this winter in prime months.

 

[Savemeasammy]

Significant upper mountain glade expansion at Wildcat.

Is wildcat limited to glades only below a certain elevation?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[deadheadskier]

I can only assume. The only on map stuff is lower elevation. Its all super thick soft woods, so it would take a lot of work to open things up.

 

[machski]

Forget a plain vanilla Gondola, make it a base to summit Funnitel. That will make it as windproof as possible!

New gondola at Sugarloaf, on the same alignment as the old one, with appropriate steps to make it more windproof.

Also move the Village and extend Double Runner down so you don't have to hike to it or the Superquad from the base lodge.

 

[HD333]

Keep the Sachem lift at Okemo opened until 6:00 so we can après without sending the wife home early to bring the car down or stopping early then scrambling to make it on Sachem before it closes.

 

[skiNEwhere]

Have GF/Wife/Significant other complain that I'm not skiing enough

 

[Smellytele]

Have GF/Wife/Significant other complain that I'm not skiing enough

All three?

 

[BenedictGomez]

Again, your speaking like getting a $100 M injection of funding is a bad thing, when in fact, any way you slice it, it is most likely good for the viability of the mountain going forward.

Fixed assets cost significant money to run and maintain. While the initial "Magical $100M" you speak of instantly increases revenue and appears to all casual onlookers like successful manna from heaven, the long-term implications/costs catch up to you if that magical money isn't accompanied by a legitimate business plan and a healthy market that leads to sustained revenue. If you dont believe me, we can revisit this thread 5 years from now and see how Sochi, Russia is doing. By your logic it should thrive. That ski resort received Billions of dollars, with a capital B, many multiples of $100M (and I predict it will be a failure).

+
Platty start using the Ocean on top this winter for snowmaking so I can buy a pass and know money invested I will enjoy it.

Was it not in use last year? Sadly I only got to ski Platty I think 3 times last season and I don't recall. That was one impressively large dirt hole though.

 

[prsboogie]

Sure it shouldn't be +1[SUP]3[/SUP]?

Na, I was just being a smart ass squaring my +1

 

[SkiRaceParent]

Fixed assets cost significant money to run and maintain. While the initial "Magical $100M" you speak of instantly increases revenue and appears to all casual onlookers like successful manna from heaven, the long-term implications/costs catch up to you if that magical money isn't accompanied by a legitimate business plan and a healthy market that leads to sustained revenue.

So you don't mortgage your homes either and just pay cash? That's really what this is -- a subsidy loan that enables an area mountain, which on its own without this vehicle, couldn't justify this investment in one tranche (or at higher bank rates) to do so. It's local economic stimulus--without it, it wouldn't happen. With it, you do need to cover enough to a) payback principal and the small interest and b) cover operating costs, but without it, you'd have to a), b) and also pay-back your initial funding and/or a higher interest rate loan from a local or national bank. I agree a certain level of occupancy in the rooms will be needed to reach this break-even, but I know it is a lot lower 'breakeven' in the EB-5 scenario than it would be without it. In fact, without it, it probably would be unreachable, and certainly not fundable by a rational bank not expressly committed to local market economic development.

If you dont believe me, we can revisit this thread 5 years from now and see how Sochi, Russia is doing. By your logic it should thrive. That ski resort received Billions of dollars, with a capital B, many multiples of $100M (and I predict it will be a failure).

Because that's a perfect analogy. Last I checked,the northeast kingdom is not: a) a warm summer resort, b) ruled by dictator that just invaded its neighboring country and c) almost impossible to get to by car from anywhere, including Moscow and d) just hosted the olympics. I appreciate the attempt to compare, but it's illogical.

Lastly, perhaps the divide in our belief set is driven by how you define success. To me, success is that, irrespective of who owns it in 10-20 years, it's still operating and functional to the general public. To me, without the hotel, the only thing keeping it from irrelevance is BMA. With the hotel, it is another asset to drive revenue and opportunity, that even if it gets sunk into Chapter 11 once or twice, it is still driving visitors and some revenue stream that could create (if managed well) some cash flow. I can't account for execution, or lack thereof (esp when it comes to Q), that's a separate discussion, but to me I can't find why having the hotel could possibly be a bad thing when trying to ascertain Burke being a going concern in the mid-long term.

 

[BenedictGomez]

So you don't mortgage your homes either and just pay cash? That's really what this is -- a subsidy loan that enables an area mountain, which on its own without this vehicle, couldn't justify this investment in one tranche (or at higher bank rates) to do so.

No, that's not what this it. When you "mortgage your home" you get a loan that the bank lends because it believes you will be able to repay it, and the bank has deemed the risk low enough and the return acceptable enough to take that risk. The reason these EB-5 projects aren't simply financed by banks in the first place is because the project isn't deemed financially viable.

Anyway, this EB-5 conversation already exists in another thread with reasoning why the program may do more harm than good in the long run and has been well-discussed if you search for it.

 

[SkiRaceParent]

No, that's not what this it. When you "mortgage your home" you get a loan that the bank lends because it believes you will be able to repay it, and the bank has deemed the risk low enough and the return acceptable enough to take that risk. The reason these EB-5 projects aren't simply financed by banks in the first place is because the project isn't deemed financially viable in the first place.

Anyway, this EB-5 conversation already exists in another thread with reasoning why the program may do more harm than good in the long run and has been well-discussed if you search for it.

I will look for that thread, but I understand the argument well. If you isolate what it means though specifically for Burke, I still find the argument I am making valid. Basically, that something is getting funded which otherwise wouldn't (ie., we both agree here). From this, there is a fighting chance that this mountain survives, and perhaps even thrives (well, as long as Q is around I know that is unlikely but, maybe in the future). I don't believe that the foreigners have enough rights that they will essentially come in and make the mountain so liable that the whole thing goes under. There are lawyers and language to protect against that. Even in that event, then that liability will get flushed during Chapter 7/11, and the asset that will end up on the block after the bankruptcy period is completed (or perhaps during it) will be a mountain plus a hotel, not just a mountain.

 

[hammer]

Paved parking lots. Do not understand why many ski areas do not have them.