Park City/Talisker-Vail Lawsuit

[thetrailboss]

Where do you think all of them are going to go?

Deer Valley? Either to expensive or not family friendly.

Canyons? Canyons has been unsuccessful for everyone who's tried, but I dont see everyone automatically heading there either.

PCMR is as much about the town as it is the mountain. Noone really goes there for the terrain awesomeness, those folks already go to Alta/Bird.

As with most conversations on this board, everyone assumes skiing is the no 1 priority, when in fact, for a large majority of vacationers, its not the primary factor to the extent it would be for me or you, the addict who posts on a skiing message board during summer.

Colorado, Tahoe, etc. Some other "destination" resort area.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone

 

[drjeff]

Where do you think all of them are going to go?

Deer Valley? Either to expensive or not family friendly.

Canyons? Canyons has been unsuccessful for everyone who's tried, but I dont see everyone automatically heading there either.

PCMR is as much about the town as it is the mountain. Noone really goes there for the terrain awesomeness, those folks already go to Alta/Bird.

As with most conversations on this board, everyone assumes skiing is the no 1 priority, when in fact, for a large majority of vacationers, its not the primary factor to the extent it would be for me or you, the addict who posts on a skiing message board during summer.

Don't forget the facility with lights, snowmaking, existing training programs with both high level Park City teams and the US Ski + Snowboarding team at the Utah Winter Sports Park in this potential equation. They have very good, bordering on elite level training facilities in place now. I'd think if pressed, they could accommodate the void that a loss of PCMR would provide, and I don't think the 4-5 miles between PCMR and the winter sports park in Kimball Junction near I-80 would be much of a hindrance to the athletes

 

[thetrailboss]

Don't forget the facility with lights, snowmaking, existing training programs with both high level Park City teams and the US Ski + Snowboarding team at the Utah Winter Sports Park in this potential equation. They have very good, bordering on elite level training facilities in place now. I'd think if pressed, they could accommodate the void that a loss of PCMR would provide, and I don't think the 4-5 miles between PCMR and the winter sports park in Kimball Junction near I-80 would be much of a hindrance to the athletes

Deer Valley also plays host to freestyle events.

 

[deadheadskier]

Where do you think all of them are going to go?

Deer Valley? Either to expensive or not family friendly.

Canyons? Canyons has been unsuccessful for everyone who's tried, but I dont see everyone automatically heading there either.

PCMR is as much about the town as it is the mountain. Noone really goes there for the terrain awesomeness, those folks already go to Alta/Bird.

As with most conversations on this board, everyone assumes skiing is the no 1 priority, when in fact, for a large majority of vacationers, its not the primary factor to the extent it would be for me or you, the addict who posts on a skiing message board during summer.

I don't think anyone is doubting that Park City would survive as a lower mountain park specific area given the town's attraction, but it's financial success would be EXTREMELY small in comparison to what it is today. Essentially, it's probably not even worth the effort for a company like Powdr.

An appropriate comparison for the east would be Mount Snow. What if something similar happened to Peaks and they only owned Carinthia and lost Mount Snow proper? Carinthia would barely hang on despite it's reputation as being one of, if not the best park specific terrain in the east. Families would head to Stratton (kind of the Deer Valley of the East) or Okemo (kind of the Canyons of the east).

It makes ZERO sense for Powdr to hold on to a lower mountain park specific area even with the presence of a classic ski town like Park City at it's base. Their best bet is to sell what they got for 50 cents on the dollar and learn from this epic business failure.

 

[thetrailboss]

The latest: http://www.saminfo.com/news/pcmr-urges-judge-postpone-imminent-eviction-decision

And PCMR admits that the closure would not be good for the town:

Impacts to the local economy could also be severe, PCMR says. If reduced to operating on its owned terrain, visits could shrink by more than 75 percent, and most businesses in Park City would see a drop in visitors—and income—as well. This would "have a catastrophic impact on the local economy," the filing predicts.

 

[Highway Star]

And to HS, those lifts are coming out. Theres no way they stay.

So, you and what army is going to remove them in violation of Utah state law and the lease terms?

 

[wa-loaf]

The latest: http://www.saminfo.com/news/pcmr-urges-judge-postpone-imminent-eviction-decision

And PCMR admits that the closure would not be good for the town:

Taking hostages now ...

 

[mbedle]

I say Woodward Tahoe is coming to Park City. At least they will have a continued source of income. A buy out, in my opinion, would not be a good business decision. Take a step back and look at this from Powdr's business point of view and not just a skier's point of view. A one time buy out from Vail, is just that, one time (closed the books, walk away and take the loss). We (skiers) all want this to end on one side or the other with everything remaining the same (a complete ski resort from the city to the peaks, no matter who owns it). From a sheer business point of view, that may not even be an options. I'm guessing there are a lot of other parties involved that have a financial stake in the resort, included bonding companies, mortgage companies, long term lease agreements with hotel services, real estate ownership issues, HOAs, etc.

Woodward Park City would at least offer a steady stream of income to Powdr. Remember that Powdr is not just in the ski resort business, they own a TV station, network show and four other Woodward facilities across the US. The Woodward Tahoe is located on a ski area with only a 500 foot vertical. At lease with the smaller PCMR, they be around 1,200 foot vertical. And given the significant reduction in PCMR operating costs, it may not be that bad for their bottom line. The option to work jointly with Vail for access, snowmaking, and utility services is also very viable and would provide additional income and keep local businesses happy (I assure you that PCMR says is top priority, but behind closed doors is pretty close to the bottom of their concerns). Plus, as trailboss said, it would keep the PCMR hotels, base lodges, condos and retail leases occupied.

 

[mbedle]

By the way HS - I freaking love Fruit Cake.....

 

[DoublePlanker]

This is all just posturing. If pcmr tries to operate a 1200 ft vertical at the base with no tie in to the upper mountain, I doubt they get much skiing business at all.

 

[thetrailboss]

I say Woodward Tahoe is coming to Park City. At least they will have a continued source of income. A buy out, in my opinion, would not be a good business decision. Take a step back and look at this from Powdr's business point of view and not just a skier's point of view. A one time buy out from Vail, is just that, one time (closed the books, walk away and take the loss). We (skiers) all want this to end on one side or the other with everything remaining the same (a complete ski resort from the city to the peaks, no matter who owns it). From a sheer business point of view, that may not even be an options. I'm guessing there are a lot of other parties involved that have a financial stake in the resort, included bonding companies, mortgage companies, long term lease agreements with hotel services, real estate ownership issues, HOAs, etc.

Woodward Park City would at least offer a steady stream of income to Powdr. Remember that Powdr is not just in the ski resort business, they own a TV station, network show and four other Woodward facilities across the US. The Woodward Tahoe is located on a ski area with only a 500 foot vertical. At lease with the smaller PCMR, they be around 1,200 foot vertical. And given the significant reduction in PCMR operating costs, it may not be that bad for their bottom line. The option to work jointly with Vail for access, snowmaking, and utility services is also very viable and would provide additional income and keep local businesses happy (I assure you that PCMR says is top priority, but behind closed doors is pretty close to the bottom of their concerns). Plus, as trailboss said, it would keep the PCMR hotels, base lodges, condos and retail leases occupied.

I think that a lot of the stakeholders would NOT want a Woodward. And a lot of those tenants and retailers at the base of the area would not either....especially if 800-1 mill skier days evaporates down to 250k or less.

And I don't think that Vail would do any sort of deal regarding access. They are, of course, pushing PCMR off.

 

[mbedle]

They don't need as much ski business, they just need to turn a profit and that profit is a combination of all activities at the resort, not just skiing. That is why I'm trying to say that looking at it from a skier's point of view is not how Powdr is looking at it. If they only pull in 300K ski visits, that might be enough!

 

[mbedle]

But Vail does have to do a deal with PCMR, one way or an other. We are assuming that Vail has any pull over making PCMR sell off it assets at the base. The don't and we are also assuming that the best financial decision for PCMR is to sell it off. What I am trying to point out, is PCMR does not give high priority to the financial status of Park City, its residence nor retail businesses. Their top priority is about making money for the owners (just like every other ski resort). And no one on this forum, including myself, can honestly know what is the best financial choice for PCMR/Powdr.

I think that a lot of the stakeholders would NOT want a Woodward. And a lot of those tenants and retailers at the base of the area would not either....especially if 800-1 mill skier days evaporates down to 250k or less.

And I don't think that Vail would do any sort of deal regarding access. They are, of course, pushing PCMR off.

 

[thetrailboss]

But Vail does have to do a deal with PCMR, one way or an other. We are assuming that Vail has any pull over making PCMR sell off it assets at the base. The don't and we are also assuming that the best financial decision for PCMR is to sell it off. What I am trying to point out, is PCMR does not give high priority to the financial status of Park City, its residence nor retail businesses. Their top priority is about making money for the owners (just like every other ski resort). And no one on this forum, including myself, can honestly know what is the best financial choice for PCMR/Powdr.

I get what you're saying, but PCMR has been playing a different tune with regards to their feelings towards the community.

 

[AdironRider]

So, you and what army is going to remove them in violation of Utah state law and the lease terms?

View attachment 12837

Quit being a dumbass. The three older lifts will stay, but all the new stuff is just bolted down. Thats leaving and you will be getting some nice newer lifts at Killington. You should be psyched.

 

[AdironRider]

There is nowhere on the East Coast that compares to the park scene at PCMR. Maybe Breck competes and thats it.

No doubt its not going to be the same, and certainly not 1 millions skier visits, but they should do fine.

Park City is a great town. Great towns can support businesses. Look at Jackson, Telluride, Aspen. All of these places would still exist and their clientel would still go there even if the skiing was second rate. These are just facts.

Jackson gained 60,000 skier visits total even with Utahs shitty snow year. 60k total. Colorado saw similar increases with Utah clientel.

Thats not much compared to the amount that will still go to the Utah resorts, no matter what happens.

 

[canobie#1]

As long as canyons is around, I'm fine. That was my favorite out of the three. Maybe they could snag the jupiter bowl and thaymes areas..

 

[Edd]

Park City is a great town. Great towns can support businesses. Look at Jackson, Telluride, Aspen. All of these places would still exist and their clientel would still go there even if the skiing was second rate. These are just facts.

On a recent trip to Aspen, the locals mentioned over and over that we have to come back during the summer and we wouldn't regret it.

 

[AdironRider]

On a recent trip to Aspen, the locals mentioned over and over that we have to come back during the summer and we wouldn't regret it.

Most ski towns are you move there for the winter, and stay for the summers.

Best part, no bugs!

 

[mister moose]

Look at Jackson, Telluride, Aspen. All of these places would still exist and their clientel would still go there even if the skiing was second rate. These are just facts.

Disagree. Skiing made these towns great. What's the difference between Alma, CO and Breckenridge, CO? (Answer: A ski hill. Alma is frozen in time and is just over Hoosier pass, Breck is home to 1M$ condos. Or Leadville, or Fairplay, or Hartsel, or a hundred other old mining towns) Because these ski towns are great, they survive well on the odd bad year, but if the skiing decreased by 70% permanently, these towns would see constant, and then rapid decline. Antler arches in the town square and silver dollars on the bar at Jackson is not going to carry the town. Trendy bars, restaurants, and vacation destinations all ebb and flow. Cut off the life blood, in this case, skiing, and the ebb gets very strong. Yes, there is an impressive client list at Aspen, yes, there is lots of wealthy residents, yes there is lots to do in the summer. Who in the 'in crowd' is going to want to be seen at the baby hill once it contracts? They will go where the action is, and take all their entourage, restaurant $$, clothes shopping, hangers on and vacation home $$ with them.