Otten To Reportedly Buy Back Sugarloaf, Sunday River

[Greg]

http://www.wcsh6.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=59310

 

[Vortex]

I think this is jumping the gun. He is trying, but not done it. Skip and Gamway73 from the river board.......Gamway post here under another name here.

Anyway they gave us a quick version of a radio interview Less did today explaining how had left the red sox to work on things more in Maine. No specifics.

 

[thetrailboss]

This is being discussed in another board as well. No credible sources...just a rumor...and a high level one too.

 

[andyzee]

Would Otten taking over again be considered a bad thing or a good thing for the mountains?

 

[Vortex]

JerryG started this on the Sr board last night. Looks like old news being discussed again. Maybe its getting closer to reality.

 

[thetrailboss]

Would Otten taking over again be considered a bad thing or a good thing for the mountains?

For those two mountains: a good thing I'd say. Otten knew how to run SR. He ran into a wall with ASC. The wall of not enough money and bad weather.

 

[jerryg]

JerryG started this on the Sr board last night. Looks like old news being discussed again. Maybe its getting closer to reality.

I did indeed bring the topic back up again on the SR board last night after seeing the very brief WCSH posted web article. I thought it was very strange that, what I consider to be a credible news source, would be posting a rumor and slapping their name on it.

The fact that Skip chimed in may further speak to the validity. As to which way, I will not opine as it would be my opinion and not for me to say.

As to answer the other question about LBO owning SR and SL...

LBO knows how to run a mountain. This cannot be refuted. Can he handled multiple businesses? Well, ASC had some bad luck and mistakes were made. The rest has been said and I will not re-hash. I think he would need someone else to be the "face" for SL to keep the locals happy. They don't like him and never will. As for Sunday River, he is the best person for the job. Period. (IMHO)

 

[skiadikt]

For those two mountains: a good thing I'd say. Otten knew how to run SR. He ran into a wall with ASC. The wall of not enough money and bad weather.

yeah i agree. he made sunday river into a real contender then got greedy ...

 

[andyzee]

yeah i agree. he made sunday river into a real contender then got greedy ...

You think he got greedy? Or was it more a matter of having to have to answer to stock holders in a publicly traded company?

 

[skiadikt]

You think he got greedy? Or was it more a matter of having to have to answer to stock holders in a publicly traded company?

from my perspective i think the greed came first. at one point he had a virtual monopoly on eastern skiing, at various times owning killington, sunday river, sugarbush, attitash, mt. snow, haystack, waterville, sugarloaf, cranmore & pico. also da boat & that money pit, the canyons. not exactly your most diverse portfolio ... things went south and THEN he had to answer to stockholders AND the banks. unfortuneately i've seen this first hand where my compnay had to become the biggest & baddest. you owe a ton of money and WHAM!

 

[Newpylong]

You think he got greedy? Or was it more a matter of having to have to answer to stock holders in a publicly traded company?

Greedy... went after too much too fast....

 

[JimG.]

You think he got greedy? Or was it more a matter of having to have to answer to stock holders in a publicly traded company?

What's the difference?

If the stockholders didn't like his answers, it was probably because he was too greedy.

 

[Vortex]

http://www.wgme.com/News/story_13.shtml

a bit more info. an admittance to his goals.

 

[MikeTrainor]

I think it will be good for Sunday River and am mixed on Sugarloaf. Sugarloaf is suffering under ASC but the Sunday River / Killington philosophy of high speed quads everywhere does not work for every mountain.

 

[andyzee]

What's the difference?

If the stockholders didn't like his answers, it was probably because he was too greedy.

Big difference and I am talking in general since I am not familiar with Otten. In a private company, the president can do as he wishes, it's his company. Even in a partnership, chances are the partners will be concerned about the company’s future. As a result he may choose to forgo profits today to realize bigger profits tomorrow. In a publicly held company, especially in today's world, stockholders look more for immediate profits; their concerns aren't necessarily what's good for the company long term.

Now I don't know what the case is here since I am not familiar with Otten. That is why I'm asking the question.

 

[JimG.]

Big difference and I am talking in general since I am not familiar with Otten. In a private company, the president can do as he wishes, it's his company. Even in a partnership, chances are the partners will be concerned about the company’s future. As a result he may choose to forgo profits today to realize bigger profits tomorrow. In a publicly held company, especially in today's world, stockholders look more for immediate profits; their concerns aren't necessarily what's good for the company long term.

Now I don't know what the case is here since I am not familiar with Otten. That is why I'm asking the question.

You missed my point...I didn't ever consider that Otten was answering to anyone other than the stockholders of a publicly traded company.

My point is that if he bailed because he had to answer to the stockholders, it was probably because he was greedy. So, regardless of whether he had to answer to stockholders or not, he bailed because he was greedy.

The sentiment that in publicly traded companies stockholder's financial concerns are top priority is quaint but naive. Stockholders get the crumbs left over after the big execs take their cut. You know that.

 

[andyzee]

The sentiment that in publicly traded companies stockholder's financial concerns are top priority is quaint but naive. Stockholders get the crumbs left over after the big execs take their cut. You know that.

Whole heartedly disagree with that one, but I thing that would be best left as a discussion for another thread or in person. See you Sunday at K?

 

[ctenidae]

Whole heartedly disagree with that one, but I thing that would be best left as a discussion for another thread or in person.

Yeah, I wouldn't touch that one with a 10 foot pole. Popular misconceptions can be awfully difficult to dislodge.

 

[jerryg]

I doubt as though it's really even an issue as to whether or not he is/was greedy or arrogant. We know all of this to be the case. The question at hand is, can he effectively run Sunday River and Sugarloaf. In my opinion, if he keeps to those two mountains and doesn't try to exapnd to other resorts like he did with ASC, then of course, and they will be hugely successful. (As much as any ski repsrt can be)

ASC's downfall is not totally the fault of Otten. He was the driving force, but he had principal investors and advisors. The moeny to buy those properties came from somewhere! Other people thought it could all work. The NYSE thought it could. Obviously his model fail. This happens in business.

 

[Newpylong]

I think it will be good for Sunday River and am mixed on Sugarloaf. Sugarloaf is suffering under ASC but the Sunday River / Killington philosophy of high speed quads everywhere does not work for every mountain.

Killington doesn't have High Speed quads everywhere, and that's part of the problem! There are two that are greatly needed...


JerryG.... 100% correct. Shame on the people who gave them all the money...