Sugarloaf Bucksaw Chair....RIP

[goldenboy80]

I am going to throw out an idea that sounds crazy but actually makes sense. Sugarloaf became a nationally recognized resort when it installed its base-to-summit lift in 1966. The gondola became a symbol of the Loaf's big mountain, aggressive, iconic nature. With lift accessible snowfields it was the closest thing to skiing out west in the 60's. Cut to the late 90's, Sugarloaf is out of money and mismanaged. It loses its iconic symbol and suffers a loss of brand identity under new management. So here's my idea. The mountain needs not one, but two gondolas to restore the Loaf's brand identity. It needs a super modern base-to-summit 8-person gondola with a mid-station so that it can run consistently. It needs a "nature center" bar / conference center / overnight guest rooms at the top that it can generate income year-round. Trim the scruff in the snowfields so that it can be ridden in December as easily as in April. A new 10-story hotel / spa and expanded base area with retail is needed. AND it needs another "retro" gondola that starts just to the right of the Super Quad and ends at Bullwinkle's with full lunch / dinner / bar service until 10 PM year-round. Mountain biking trails and zip lines should be constructed in the former Bucksaw area, accessible from this second gondola. Sugarloaf Regional Airport needs to be expanded to accommodate semi-regular and well-marketed winter flights from Portland, Boston, and New York. Heck, maybe even add a casino like Bangor/Oxford to bring in visitors and tourist dollars. I love Burton but give the kids back their arcade (and tubing center). Taos found its Louis Bacon to bring their dilapidated mountain back from 1990 and into the modern age. No more patch jobs, fixed grip lift replacements and fading into obscurity. Sugarloaf needs a visionary and deal-maker to bring in substantial new investment, tax breaks, transportation and modern resort amenities so that it lives up to its potential. CNL thanks for the new trail signage and snow guns, buh-bye.

 

[deadheadskier]

I'll have what you're smoking


Sugarloaf is busier today than when it had it's "iconic" lift. 300-350K skier visits a year vs. 250-300 in the 80s.


No bank is going to finance your plan to turn Sugarloaf into a mini-Vail. I mean it's cool to dream, we all do, but you're talking hundreds of millions of dollars in investment with that plan. You'd never make the money back.

 

[ss20]

I am going to throw out an idea that sounds crazy but actually makes sense. Sugarloaf became a nationally recognized resort when it installed its base-to-summit lift in 1966. The gondola became a symbol of the Loaf's big mountain, aggressive, iconic nature. With lift accessible snowfields it was the closest thing to skiing out west in the 60's. Cut to the late 90's, Sugarloaf is out of money and mismanaged. It loses its iconic symbol and suffers a loss of brand identity under new management. So here's my idea. The mountain needs not one, but two gondolas to restore the Loaf's brand identity. It needs a super modern base-to-summit 8-person gondola with a mid-station so that it can run consistently. It needs a "nature center" bar / conference center / overnight guest rooms at the top that it can generate income year-round. Trim the scruff in the snowfields so that it can be ridden in December as easily as in April. A new 10-story hotel / spa and expanded base area with retail is needed. AND it needs another "retro" gondola that starts just to the right of the Super Quad and ends at Bullwinkle's with full lunch / dinner / bar service until 10 PM year-round. Mountain biking trails and zip lines should be constructed in the former Bucksaw area, accessible from this second gondola. Sugarloaf Regional Airport needs to be expanded to accommodate semi-regular and well-marketed winter flights from Portland, Boston, and New York. Heck, maybe even add a casino like Bangor/Oxford to bring in visitors and tourist dollars. I love Burton but give the kids back their arcade (and tubing center). Taos found its Louis Bacon to bring their dilapidated mountain back from 1990 and into the modern age. No more patch jobs, fixed grip lift replacements and fading into obscurity. Sugarloaf needs a visionary and deal-maker to bring in substantial new investment, tax breaks, transportation and modern resort amenities so that it lives up to its potential. CNL thanks for the new trail signage and snow guns, buh-bye.

Pops, I'm sorry to say this but the 60s ended a long time ago. Loooooooong gone are the days where ski resort operators could just build build build.

 

[goldenboy80]

Deadheadskiier- I wish we were riding up in the old gondola together right now and then you'd have what I'm smoking. But honestly they should be able to accomplish something similar. Let's say the Loaf's Total Revenue is $20 million per year and they achieve a 10% EBITDA margin, or roughly $2 million. Doesn't leave much for maintenance capital improvements or interest expense I realize.

So let's say that Sugarloaf borrows $30 million for the cost of 2 gondolas and various facilities. If the Loaf can borrow at 5% with 2% amortization per year (guaranteed by municipality), that's debt service of roughly $2 million per year. Then how to pay for it?

Now you've got a resort that can operate 4 seasons versus 2 seasons. Let's say revenues increase 15% per year and margins increase 5% per year. Now you've got $3.5 million of EBITDA. Assume that a 3rd party hotel operator does a ground lease and revenue share and builds a new hotel complex. Let's say a new hotel operator contributes $250K per year in lease payments/revenue share. Let's say Sugarloaf is able to sell a few condos or lots each year and makes another $0.5 million of EBITDA on their real estate development. Also negotiate for tax credits and other development incentives.

I'm not saying its a no-risk plan but if properly executed with a new financially savvy owner it should be do-able. Obviously I made up the numbers in this scenario but I'm not sure they are totally off-base.

 

[deadheadskier]

Buy your powerball tickets :lol:


I think if you're going to go down that road, it makes most sense to throw all the coin into one lift. Throw a Funitel in. That's really the best solution for how windy it is up there.

I don't think the skier visits would increase enough to cover the debt though. Not without significant increases in day ticket and season pass pricing.

 

[Newpylong]

Ya lost me at retro gondola...

I would remove the Double Runners and put in a top to bottom 8 person 2 stage gondola. I would end the first stage lower than it used to - down near Lombard Xcut so that the lower stage could effectively replace the double runners. Unless you think people wouldn't get off even though it was made apparent that there was no beginner services terrain off the top?

Might be able to remove Bateau if the upper stage ran enough to cut costs.

HSQ up to Bullwinkles eventually.

 

[goldenboy80]

I can get you $30 million. There are ways, dude. The funitel is a pretty awesome solution if not slightly overkill. I *think* that a modern Doppelmayr detachable gondola should be able to run a lot more frequently than the old PHB kit. Other mountains in N. America are also pretty windy and rely on single cable designs. But if Sugarloaf could find the money, funitel all the way! You could skip the mid-station and save some dough and operational cost. I still like the idea of two gondolas because you can build revenue centers at the top and bottom of each (food and beverage, retail, lodging, recreation) and you have two different areas to which you can comfortably shuttle summertime visitors. Plus, you're probably not going to use the summit for heavy apres ski use due to several operational challenges, whereas you could do that at Bullwinkle's without too much trouble. But maybe you're right, the downside to my plan is let's say visitation stays roughly the same and now you have the added costs of running two new high-tech lifts with no corresponding increase in revenues. Bondholders get screwed, another bankruptcy. Still, I truly believe that if you build it they will come. I've skied all over the east, out west, Europe, and yet there's still something about the Loaf...

 

[deadheadskier]

One thing is for certain. No matter what type of "dream lift" they'd put in for the summit; I'd stop riding it after 10AM. The trail capacity up there couldn't handle much. All of the extensions tend to be windblown hard pack as is. Throwing 2400+ people an hour up there is going to result in skied off conditions very fast.

 

[goldenboy80]

By the way, I wonder if anyone has ever looked into a casino at Sugarloaf. That would solve the issue of how to get year-round visitors to a remote location in Maine. I've been doing regional casino site visits all summer for work. I think that a small facility at Sugarloaf would do nicely. I can't see Franklin County turning away the tax dollars if the state would allow it. I'm sure a lot of people would also be opposed.

 

[ss20]

By the way, I wonder if anyone has ever looked into a casino at Sugarloaf....

And that's where I stopped reading. The northeast could not support another casino. Atlantic City and the Connecticut casino's are failing because they're overbuilt. So why do you think this could work in Maine? lol

 

[goldenboy80]

You're absolutely right about the trail capacity as currently configured. You'd have to do something to terraform the drop in area and protect the snow somehow. More snowmaking, grooming and wind screens and/or strategically placed trees to block wind. Not sure about the environmental regulations though I have to believe that where there is a will there is a way.

 

[goldenboy80]

AC and CT are failing because of increasing supply of casinos and relatively consistent demand. You wouldn't build a big facility but you could build a very modest property, perhaps 200 slots and 5 tables. Truthfully you wouldn't compete with AC or CT. I see it more like a differentiating resort amenity versus a major draw.

 

[goldenboy80]

I don't think you could reach the top if you started the gondola at the Double Runners. I hear a lot of people talking about various ways to reach the summit in two stages (run up Bucksaw to Bullwinkle's to Summit, etc) but the line (gondola line) has already been cut, it's the quickest and most direct route between two points and it has worked in the past. When I said retro gondola up to Bullwinkles I just meant in terms of playing up heritage and style. The equipment would obviously be new and I envision the gondola cabins would be like over-sized modern versions of the old PHB cabins. Ride up in style to Bullwinkles for apres ski.

 

[Jully]

I just don't think SL is going to get that many more people going there. It's just too far away to get an increase big enough to justify this. I doubt the number of people who would fly in on an airplane would be a big enough increase to pay for this and I doubt day visits will increase that much

 

[ss20]

I just don't think SL is going to get that many more people going there. It's just too far away to get an increase big enough to justify this. I doubt the number of people who would fly in on an airplane would be a big enough increase to pay for this and I doubt day visits will increase that much

Exactly. The resort has peaked it's skier visits because it's far from everything.

 

[Newpylong]

I don't think you could reach the top if you started the gondola at the Double Runners. I hear a lot of people talking about various ways to reach the summit in two stages (run up Bucksaw to Bullwinkle's to Summit, etc) but the line (gondola line) has already been cut, it's the quickest and most direct route between two points and it has worked in the past. When I said retro gondola up to Bullwinkles I just meant in terms of playing up heritage and style. The equipment would obviously be new and I envision the gondola cabins would be like over-sized modern versions of the old PHB cabins. Ride up in style to Bullwinkles for apres ski.

If this was in reply to me my idea was to put the gondola exactly where it used to be with the exception of the mid station lower than it used to be to service the lower mountain better.

 

[deadheadskier]

If this was in reply to me my idea was to put the gondola exactly where it used to be with the exception of the mid station lower than it used to be to service the lower mountain better.

You put it lower than where it was and you wouldn't be able to get to King Pine from the mid-station. I'm not sure how much better the lower mountain needs to be serviced than what the Whiffletree and Double Runners provide. Admittedly, the Double Runners are darn slow.

 

[Smellytele]

Chondola to Bullwinkles

 

[machski]

Something base to bullies is a great idea. Base to summit lift? Not worth it unless its as wind proof as possible (meaning a 3S gondola or funnitel) which makes it far too costly for SL (ROI too weak). As for a huge lodge at the summit, will never occur in this day and age. SL while not on it is far too close to the AT to put something huge up there without outrage. Plus, high winds will mean less use weakening ROI for it.

 

[Newpylong]

You put it lower than where it was and you wouldn't be able to get to King Pine from the mid-station. I'm not sure how much better the lower mountain needs to be serviced than what the Whiffletree and Double Runners provide. Admittedly, the Double Runners are darn slow.

You people don't listen lol. I said remove the double runners.

Not being able to get to King Pine I don't think should be taken under consideration. Take Whiffletree or ski down to it from the top. The point is to utilize the gondola and cut costs by removing existing (old) lifts which would overlap with the service area of Gondola stage 1.

But maybe all of this is overthinking. You replace the Double runners with another fixed grip quad and make the gondola a single stage, thinking a modern gondola with heavier cabins will run more. Add more wind breaks in bad spots.