The "Sugarbush Thread"

[MrGlen]

What is the correct figure / your source?

That figure is incorrect

 

[ducky]

What is the correct figure / your source?

I heard $5000 a day, plus the extra $1000 per kid over the pass price.

 

[elfnif1016]

I heard $5000 a day, plus the extra $1000 per kid over the pass price.

IRS Form 990 is what non profits have to file in lieu of an income tax return. One of the schedules on the return is essentially a profit/loss statement that details items of income and expense. Unless they are burying it somewhere else in the statement, I am more inclined to believe the $227K figure than hearsay of $5K per day and an extra $1K per child.

 

[vtboarder]

The situation the past few years with GMVS has changed greatly from 10, 15, 20 years ago. I used to feel they were a net positive, other than the once in awhile speed demon on the regular runs (in their race gear). But things have shifted so far the other way - loss of access to terrain, kids being far less careful on open runs, trainers that want to jump lift lines with a big group, equipment left where ever they feel like to the detriment of others, etc, etc. I'll stop waving my fist at the clouds now.

 

[MrGlen]

Ok so the $5,000 a day would already be included into that expense on their 990. There are 200 kids max with that pass so call their pass another $200k in revenue.

All I’m saying is the usage cost of $226k is well below what SB / Alterra should charge. I would easily rent the mountain out for a day for $5k and have it to myself. Heck I wouldn’t even require them to make snow for me.

 

[HowieT2]

$225k is pretty small at the end of the day for what they are getting. That’s equivalent to roughly 150 Ikon passes. With GMVS let’s say you also gain another 200 Ikon passes, that’s only $300k in additional revenue. Hypothetically, if GMVS were to not operate at Sugarbush, I think you would retain a decent amount of Ikon pass buyers / families under the Ikon umbrella. All I’m saying is I think SB / Alterra could squeeze a bit more juice out of the partnership. Let’s say they charged $1.5 - $2.0 million, we might see some more capital improvements around the mountain that make a better experience for everyone.

and if they balked and went somewhere else, say Bolton, SB would get exactly zero while the costs would be essentially the same.

 

[MrGlen]

and if they balked and went somewhere else, say Bolton, SB would get exactly zero while the costs would be essentially the same.

That’s not true. I bet a lot of families would not go to Bolton and maybe shift to Stratton or another built up resort. Alternatively, maybe some families would just join the SB race program. While you would certainly lose the $226k in fees paid by GMVS it’s a lot harder to predict what pass sales would stay in the Alterra ecosystem. You could also certainly save on snow making costs for Inverness and brambles.

Certainly a lot more for GMVS to lose vs Alterra / SB

 

[MrGlen]

I didn’t think my first post would provoke so much debate on the GMVS / SB relationship.

At the end of the day, I don’t think they should break this relationship, morally it would be wrong to break this long standing relationship and GMVS is one of the best race academies there is.

All I’m saying is GMVS has a great deal, and while it provides SB / Alterra with some marginal uplift, I think it is a bit lopsided towards GMVS in terms of what they are getting vs paying. With Alterra being such a large platform now, GMVS has to be careful to maintain this relationship, since they have a lot more to lose with mountain access limited or even provoked.

 

[cdskier]

Trying to extort GMVS for more money seems like an odd suggestion...there really seems to be more risk/downside than upside to doing that. What they're paying does not seem at all insignificant...

Never mind the fact that I'm not sure what Alterra/SB getting more money would accomplish for us "regular" people. I don't think we'd see one bit of difference operationally speaking even if GMVS paid much more.

 

[thetrailboss]

If I were Sugarbush or Alterra, I would squeeze GMVS for some ridiculous annual fee, and if not received, provoke access. What the mountain provides for GMVS is so lopsided compared to what they receive back in return in terms of visitors and spend.

Yikes. I interpret this to

 

[Hawk]

Considering that GMVS has partnered with the mountain longer than most of us have been here, it seems hard to swallow that they would fleece them just so some weekend warriors can get a few more perks. I have no issues with the School and what they pay. Management is not going to open the hill any earlier and Inverness is not a great jewel we are giving away. Also there are a large number of alumni here in the valley that do a large amount of the fundraising and volunteer work for the comps and for the school. I can't see any issues here.

 

[thetrailboss]

$225k is pretty small at the end of the day for what they are getting. That’s equivalent to roughly 150 Ikon passes. With GMVS let’s say you also gain another 200 Ikon passes, that’s only $300k in additional revenue. Hypothetically, if GMVS were to not operate at Sugarbush, I think you would retain a decent amount of Ikon pass buyers / families under the Ikon umbrella. All I’m saying is I think SB / Alterra could squeeze a bit more juice out of the partnership. Let’s say they charged $1.5 - $2.0 million, we might see some more capital improvements around the mountain that make a better experience for everyone.

Yeah, no. I think that Alterra, and its private equity owners, are doing fine as it is. I also think that you are only thinking of this from a bottom-line persepective. Vermont, and the MRV, still value the community and there are some assets that are not really tangible in terms of revenue (however, "goodwill" is something that is calculated as a monetary value for a business). GMVS is not rolling in cash. It's a non-profit educational institution. It is not Intel or Micron that is a for-profit business. I think the fee should be really only to cover the cost and perhaps a small profit but nothing more.

 

[Hawk]

Also, it is my experience that the grand majority of the full time kids are not an issue. They are serious about their skiing and stick to the program. It's the weekend crew that show up and rip around the hill. I know a few of them and I am not impressed with what they get away with. Just my opinion.

 

[thetrailboss]

P.S. perhaps "MrGlen" is the guy at Alterra HQ tasked with identifying more revenue streams and who came up with the "Reserve Pass" program. Perhaps we are his "focus group" to consider this "new" GMVS proposal.

 

[Hawk]

Good catch. LOL

 

[HowieT2]

That’s not true. I bet a lot of families would not go to Bolton and maybe shift to Stratton or another built up resort. Alternatively, maybe some families would just join the SB race program. While you would certainly lose the $226k in fees paid by GMVS it’s a lot harder to predict what pass sales would stay in the Alterra ecosystem. You could also certainly save on snow making costs for Inverness and brambles.

Certainly a lot more for GMVS to lose vs Alterra / SB

I'm not sure you understand what GMVS is. Its not a weekend race program.

 

[HowieT2]

That’s not true. I bet a lot of families would not go to Bolton and maybe shift to Stratton or another built up resort. Alternatively, maybe some families would just join the SB race program. While you would certainly lose the $226k in fees paid by GMVS it’s a lot harder to predict what pass sales would stay in the Alterra ecosystem. You could also certainly save on snow making costs for Inverness and brambles.

Certainly a lot more for GMVS to lose vs Alterra / SB

Very trumpian of you