Saddleback

[mbedle]

I think the key thing that keeps Saddleback high on the quality scale of ski areas is the lack of traffic. If the Berrys had done what they wanted to do at this place, it would most likely offer a very different ski experience.

 

[steamboat1]

From NYC SB (230 miles) SL (225 miles). Coming from central VT. as I often did when heading to that area of ME. SB is closer.

 

[yeggous]

From NYC SB (230 miles) SL (225 miles).

And that is the problem. It might as well be the moon. That is a LONG drive. At that point you might as well fly west.

 

[tipsdown]

I think the key thing that keeps Saddleback high on the quality scale of ski areas is the lack of traffic. If the Berrys had done what they wanted to do at this place, it would most likely offer a very different ski experience.

Respectfully, I disagree....The amount of skiable acreage they could expand onto is mind-numbing. That mountain has a lot more give. Every peak lookers left of Saddleback proper is in play, along with the West Bowl which is diagonally off the back of the mountain. Aside from a visual easement on the top couple hundred ft. or so of The Horn, it's wide open.

 

[steamboat1]

And that is the problem. It might as well be the moon. That is a LONG drive. At that point you might as well fly west.

Depending on which route I take Killington is between 165 - 185 miles from my house. I do this trip regularly during the winter. I'm actually surprised the difference in mileage is not more.

edit: not surprised anymore. When I went on the ski area websites (SL, SR) the 230/225 mileage is what they gave me from NYC. When I mapquested directions from my house the mileage is 438/444. That's more like I thought it would be.

 

[xwhaler]

Special place for sure---tipsdown is so right...the potential is really insane up there. I highly doubt it would ever get skied out.
Really incredible skiing up there on trail, trees and hike to

 

[deadheadskier]

It would seem to me that the opportunities for growth would really be only in stealing market share from SR and SL. Grabbing more market share even from Boston would be challenging given the drive.

What do people think are the reasons why the Berry's weren't able to steal more customers from SR and SL to make the place profitable with what they built already? Is it the lack of a high speed quad for the Rangeley alone? Would a new owner need to add all that massive terrain we've seen proposed or does the increased expense associated with the added terrain make the resort even more difficult to sustain?

 

[steamboat1]

As others have said lack of local lodging is a big reason Saddleback didn't attract more ski vacationers. What little lodging there is in the area is often filled with snowmobilers not skiers. With the lack of natural snow last season even the local lodging establishments had a very tough time. The place where I normally stayed in Rangeley shut down last winter because of lack of business. I hope it was just a seasonal closing.

 

[crank]

As others have said lack of local lodging is a big reason Saddleback didn't attract more ski vacationers. What little lodging there is in the area is often filled with snowmobilers not skiers. With the lack of natural snow last season even the local lodging establishments had a very tough time. The place where I normally stayed in Rangeley shut down last winter because of lack of business. I hope it was just a seasonal closing.

The one time I stayed in Rangeley there were so many sleds ripping around Friday night that I couldn't get to sleep until after 2AM because of all the noise. THEy may have been there Saturday as well but I was too tired to notice.

 

[fiddleski]

It would seem to me that the opportunities for growth would really be only in stealing market share from SR and SL. Grabbing more market share even from Boston would be challenging given the drive.

What do people think are the reasons why the Berry's weren't able to steal more customers from SR and SL to make the place profitable with what they built already? Is it the lack of a high speed quad for the Rangeley alone? Would a new owner need to add all that massive terrain we've seen proposed or does the increased expense associated with the added terrain make the resort even more difficult to sustain?

Regarding the "more customers", I was always under the impression that they operated pretty much at capacity on weekends, at least the with respect to the Rangeley double. The times I was there were on weekdays, when it was pretty empty.

The second question is the key, but even with that, I would think everything hinges on developing the real estate market on the mountain and building a hotel. Large scale ski resort development seems like a tough financing challenge these days, unless you commit fraud...

 

[jimk]

Nice photo xwhaler! I never made the hike to the summit above the ski trails in my two days there. We drove from the Washington DC area to Saddleback, ME in about 12 hours and spent three nights in the Maine Roadhouse Hostel north of Rangeley for $20 each per night. It’s convenient to Saddleback (and Sugarloaf) and there were never more than two or three others staying in the hostel during our visit. In addition to a large bunkroom and several individual bedrooms, it has a kitchen where we inexpensively prepared our own meals. It also had what I could only describe as a large "party" room. This was a big room with a piano in it and some couches, chairs and table and it's own restroom IIRC. This facility quit operating the next year. I am not sure why. It seemed to have an association with a sister lodging place in nearby Stratton, ME. When I was there in 2012 I kept thinking this Roadhouse would be a fabulous place to bring a club or group of about 25 budget minded skiers/boarders for a long weekend. It was about ten miles from SBK. There was a friendly guy there about age 65-70 who rented one of the individual bedrooms for a couple months for dirt cheap and was skiing at Sugarloaf most of the time. I think he was a former patroller or instructor there and met friends everyday on the mtn.

 

[shwilly]

Ah, the Roadhouse. I spent many a happy evening there.

I guess they just didn't have the business to make it profitable. One night we had the "party" room to ourselves to watch the Pats-Chargers playoff game. Fun, but I can believe they weren't making much money.

 

[steamboat1]

We rented cottages in town right on Rangeley Lake. Each cottage had two bedrooms that slept two to a room. Each cottage had a full kitchen & was stocked with pots, pans & utensils. Cable TV too. A nice outside porch which was nice on warm spring afternoons. When we first started going there a cottage was about $90 per night. They're now $175 per night (weekdays) & $225 (weekends). Still not a bad deal.

http://rangeleytownandlake.com/

 

[tipsdown]

It would seem to me that the opportunities for growth would really be only in stealing market share from SR and SL. Grabbing more market share even from Boston would be challenging given the drive.

What do people think are the reasons why the Berry's weren't able to steal more customers from SR and SL to make the place profitable with what they built already? Is it the lack of a high speed quad for the Rangeley alone? Would a new owner need to add all that massive terrain we've seen proposed or does the increased expense associated with the added terrain make the resort even more difficult to sustain?

2 things...The Berry's made plenty of mistakes along the way...that's been well documented. In a rural area the margin for error is considerably smaller and they know that as well as anyone. But, 2 things happened that jettisoned the plan. One, they overspent for the Lodge, which pushed out the timeline (indefinitely) for the Rangeley replacement of a HSQ. The running joke is that the new quad is buried in the lodge somewhere. And 2, the recession happened and real estate slowed at a critical time in their development plan. Had they been further along, they likely would have been able to absorb more. So, they weren't going to sell more real estate without a new lift and they weren't going to buy a new lift without selling more real estate. The family threw in the towel as the recession ended. When the Berry's bought it, there was ALOT needed to make the place a viable ski area. The irony of all this is now, the place is very close to being ready for the next level. Infrastructure-wise, everything is set and ready to go. They could accommodate another 1200 beds tomorrow as I understand it...Permitting and Utilities are in place. They hit a ceiling at about 100k visits and they wanted 130k plus to be sustainable with a cushion...If you do the math on a 100+ day season... there's not a lot of ground to make up. A shiny new lift alone probably gets you close, if not there....The residual impact of the new lift i.e. new real estate, hotel...would. The real estate market hasn't been hotter in 10 years and we're back at all time highs in the stock market. The economy is chugging along...You have to think that someone can pull together $15mil of working capital and get a deal done...

 

[cdskier]

Depending on which route I take Killington is between 165 - 185 miles from my house. I do this trip regularly during the winter. I'm actually surprised the difference in mileage is not more.

edit: not surprised anymore. When I went on the ski area websites (SL, SR) the 230/225 mileage is what they gave me from NYC. When I mapquested directions from my house the mileage is 438/444. That's more like I thought it would be.

I was going to say there was absolutely no way 230 from NYC to anywhere in ME was right. From North Jersey to Sugarbush is just under 300 for me. If it was <250 to ME I would easily go there. Anything under 300 isn't a big deal to me.

 

[steamboat1]

I was going to say there was absolutely no way 230 from NYC to anywhere in ME was right. From North Jersey to Sugarbush is just under 300 for me. If it was <250 to ME I would easily go there. Anything under 300 isn't a big deal to me.

You didn't catch my error with my mileage to Killington. It's not 165-185 miles from my house. It should have read 265-285 miles, usually about a 5 hour drive. Not a big deal to me either but definitely not day trip range.

 

[bdfreetuna]

I don't think they made a lot of money at 75pp per night including lift tickets in a brand new well equipped slopeside condo.

 

[xwhaler]

I don't think they made a lot of money at 75pp per night including lift tickets in a brand new well equipped slopeside condo.

That is also part of the problem and I say this as a real passionate Saddleback fan. Currently there are very few revenue streams with which they can make $ on once you have paid for lodging and lift tickets.
Their bar/restaurant may be open for dinner but beyond that there is nothing on mtn. If you want entertainment apres ski you have to drive 7 miles back down into Rangeley.

Of course an on mtn hotel, some summer revenue streams (zip line, MTB, etc) could change that but right now its show up and ski and then stay in Rangeley or stay on mtn and play checkers/drink in the condos.

 

[deadheadskier]

That lack of on mountain apres ski activities maybe a big part of why they didn't pull as much business away from Sugarloaf as they needed to be viable. Sugarloaf you park the car for the weekend and everything you need is right there. I love that aspect of the Loaf.

Did SB offer a shuttle from the condos into Rangeley?

 

[SIKSKIER]

The only shortcoming of SB is low vertical for the terrain they have.I'm sure nobody here skis below the lodge so leaves about 1550 ft of vert.