Park City/Talisker-Vail Lawsuit

[Highway Star]

You said nothing about your "guessing" being about chair lifts in general. If that was your intent, you need to learn how to communicate effectively.
The discussion went like this:
skiNEwhere: "I think you're way under guessing. How much was the Mittersill Lift again?"
You: "Mitersill was an exceptional case. I'm not guessing."
Me: "According to New England Ski History the Mittersill chair cost $3 million."

I'm not the one who felt the need (and entitlement) to censor a forum member's factual response to a question posed about the cost of a ski lift. In light of that, are you sure I'm the one wasting everyone's time here?

Respectfully, the first rule of holes is to stop digging.

I was CLEARY responding to skiNEwhere's comment regarding me guessing about lift costs, in general. Providing an accurate range for a typical lift is NOT guessing.

Learn how to read, chump.

 

[VTKilarney]

Uh... since for no apparent reason your responses were given in reverse order, it was far from clear. At best, it was extremely poor execution. But you'd never admit that. It's a character flaw you have - and it's just one of the things that makes you so special. Another thing that makes you special is your irritability and your inability to self-reflect. One of my many character flaws is a perverse enjoyment of debating with self indulgent fools. So I guess nobody is perfect.

In any event, you've yet to provide any justification whatsoever for your efforts to censor a factual response to a question posed by another forum member. Things would probably work better around here if you left the moderating to the moderators - especially since you seem to be much more annoyed by the free flow of information and ideas than they are.

 

[AdironRider]

So is all this stemming from you being butthurt that Powdr owns Killington?

I honestly see no reason why else you would give a shit.

 

[Highway Star]

Uh... since for no apparent reason your responses were given in reverse order, it was far from clear. At best, it was extremely poor execution. But you'd never admit that. It's a character flaw you have - and it's just one of the things that makes you so special. Another thing that makes you special is your irritability and your inability to self-reflect. One of my many character flaws is a perverse enjoyment of debating with self indulgent fools. So I guess nobody is perfect.

In any event, you've yet to provide any justification whatsoever for your efforts to censor a factual response to a question posed by another forum member. Things would probably work better around here if you left the moderating to the moderators - especially since you seem to be much more annoyed by the free flow of information and ideas than they are.

 

[Highway Star]

So is all this stemming from you being butthurt that Powdr owns Killington?

Just kicking them when they are down.

 

[Domeskier]

That seems to be pretty generous for Killington. 20 years is pretty old for a ski lift.

Looks like they've agreed that a lift has a useful life of 50 years. Doesn't sound particularly unreasonable if we assume proper maintenance and upkeep.

 

[Highway Star]

Looks like they've agreed that a lift has a useful life of 50 years. Doesn't sound particularly unreasonable if we assume proper maintenance and upkeep.

Current industry practice is a 30 year depreciation, but the Killington lease dates from the 1950's, so who knows.

 

[AdironRider]

Most likely the lease has a different schedule than for their tax purposes.

 

[thetrailboss]

Current industry practice is a 30 year depreciation, but the Killington lease dates from the 1950's, so who knows.

What "Killington Lease"?

Killington has a lease with the State of Vermont, but that is different than here.

 

[Highway Star]

What "Killington Lease"?

Killington has a lease with the State of Vermont, but that is different than here.

Yes, the lease for most of Killington's skiable land with the state of Vermont. I read it or a discussion of it in a ASC SEC filing, many years ago.

 

[thetrailboss]

Yes, the lease for most of Killington's skiable land with the state of Vermont. I read it or a discussion of it in a ASC SEC filing, many years ago.

And what does the Killington lease have to do with Talisker's lease to POWDR?

 

[steamboat1]

Yes, the lease for most of Killington's skiable land with the state of Vermont. I read it or a discussion of it in a ASC SEC filing, many years ago.

And what does the Killington lease have to do with Talisker's lease to POWDR?

The lease expired last month....:grin:

 

[Highway Star]

And what does the Killington lease have to do with Talisker's lease to POWDR?

...............?

http://forums.alpinezone.com/showth...r-Vail-Lawsuit?p=854239&viewfull=1#post854239

Example of a valuation of fixed assets.

 

[drjeff]

The lease expired last month....:grin:

No that's funny! :lol:

Bravo Steamboat1!

 

[Highway Star]

Forbes article on the rent / bond, for the doubters:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielf...in-lease-worth-no-more-than-1-million-a-year/

 

[skiNEwhere]

Forbes article on the rent / bond, for the doubters:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielf...in-lease-worth-no-more-than-1-million-a-year/

Funny that they used Wikipedia as a source for the pic. I bet if I uploaded a K pic onto the PCMR wiki, they'd use that and not know the difference

 

[VTKilarney]

From the Forbes article: [Park City] said the court should consider only the fair market value of the land itself, not its value to Park City as owner of the base area, parking and other amenities that make it a functioning ski area.

I'm not sure I follow Park City's logic. I find it very hard to believe that if the land was put up for sale on the open market that Park City would not be willing to pay a premium for the land because they own the base facilities. The standard for valuation should not artificially exclude the most likely purchaser of the property.

Also from the article: “Presumably Vail took this risk because it saw an opportunity to take over Park City Mountain Resort,” the company said.

No shit, Sherlock.

 

[Highway Star]

From the Forbes article: [Park City] said the court should consider only the fair market value of the land itself, not its value to Park City as owner of the base area, parking and other amenities that make it a functioning ski area.

I'm not sure I follow Park City's logic. I find it very hard to believe that if the land was put up for sale on the open market that Park City would not be willing to pay a premium for the land because they own the base facilities. The standard for valuation should not artificially exclude the most likely purchaser of the property.

Also from the article: “Presumably Vail took this risk because it saw an opportunity to take over Park City Mountain Resort,” the company said.

No shit, Sherlock.

POWDR is run by John Cumming, who is really a business lightweight, and not the smartest tool in the shed.

 

[StevePluvia]

Has the ownership of water rights been discussed here? I know unless used, they will revert back to the state who I would expect would re-issue them to Talisker. Used being defined by proof all water rights are needed (which is likely impossible for PCMR to demonstrate for their owned property)

Also -- does anyone know where a person might find a map defining the PCMR land ownership?

 

[SnowRock]

CNBC with a report on Squak Box this am[video]http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000305981[/video]