Vail to buy Stowe?

[KD7000]

There is a fair amount of parking down at the nordic center, but who wants to take a bus up to the resort.

If I'm with my family, I'd much rather park in a lower lot and get a bus up that drops me right at Spruce, rather than have to haul all my crap over the silly transfer gondola.

 

[BenedictGomez]

I agree with your sentiments on VT's government budget situation. The government is very lucky that so many people like to visit and spend money in their state. It would be in their best interest to be pro-development.

LOL. Good luck with that! Vermont is going to hell-in-a-handbasket quicker than perhaps any state in the union. It's almost as if the politicians want to kill the Golden Goose, and actively invent new ways to do so. Worse? They're being further encouraged to do so by voters rather than backing away from this eventual and reliably predictable financial destruction. The future will not be kind to State of Vermont.

 

[BenedictGomez]

What's interesting here is Vail wanted the East Coast with a major resort...that we know. They got the hill, not the "resort" aspect though. So do they treat it as a feeder hill? Or as a resort (where they don't own the lodging)?

It's a total win-win for Vail. They get the ski operations and can cobble their pass together with Stowe as a big, fat, eastern carrot, with which to get eastern people to ski their myriad western resorts. As has been noted prior, they can always try to purchase the other toys at a later date. I think those who think this doesn't make sense are not aware of US population dynamics and how such a large portion of the US population lives from NY, PA, NJ, up through New England. The "mountains of population" are in the corner of the map (below) where Stowe draws from.

 

[thetrailboss]

There's no need to construct a lift over Sterling pond - it would get pretty close though.

I agree with your sentiments on VT's government budget situation. The government is very lucky that so many people like to visit and spend money in their state. It would be in their best interest to be pro-development. I suspect they'll try to squeeze as much out of Vail and its customers as they can before ultimately letting them do most of what they would want. It will be interesting to follow.

Not to get any more political, but you're thinking too logically for Vermont.

Signed,

Vermont Refugee


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone

 

[farlep99]

There's no need to construct a lift over Sterling pond - it would get pretty close though.

I agree with your sentiments on VT's government budget situation. The government is very lucky that so many people like to visit and spend money in their state. It would be in their best interest to be pro-development. I suspect they'll try to squeeze as much out of Vail and its customers as they can before ultimately letting them do most of what they would want. It will be interesting to follow.

You do realize that your lift plan here goes directly over the Long Trail? I think there might be a slight opposition to this type of plan

 

[EPB]

You do realize that your lift plan here goes directly over the Long Trail? I think there might be a slight opposition to this type of plan

Well aware. I’d expect a huge amount of anger over that, too…

Re: VT politics – I agree with BG and Boss. I was trying to tread lightly, because there’s nothing worse than debating politics on a ski forum. Lets just say I used conditional language for a reason.

I’d see Vail coming in as a budgetary blessing, but I don’t expect Montpelier to see it that way – granted, I’m from the Granite State, so that is not my area of expertise. Vail potentially making a huge investment in Stowe parallels the Balsams development in a way. I’d probably pony up the bonds for Les Otten if I were running the state of NH - not because I think he’s a genius and is going to save the Great North Woods, but because there’s a high probability that nobody will seriously consider investing 9 figures in the area, all at once, ever again.

The money will talk, I have no idea whether the state of VT will listen.

 

[gnardawg]

I'll throw my $0.02 in here - I've been a regular Killington skier - wouldn't call it my home mountain but in the past 7 years I've skied at Killington 36% of my days - Usually I buy some K tickets and this year I got a Max Pass + K tickets. I've only been to Stowe one time in my life.

I love Killington but if the Epic Pass includes Stowe and is less the $1k I'm buying that - it's the exact same time to drive from my house to K1 as it is to Stowe. Sorry Beast.

 

[WWF-VT]

There's no need to construct a lift over Sterling pond - it would get pretty close though.

Part of the rumor swirling this winter — that Vail would also buy Smuggler's Notch Resort, the ski area just over the mountain from Stowe, in Jeffersonville — was pure fiction.

"I can officially squash that rumor right now," Mike Chait, public relations director at Smugglers' Notch, said last month as the rumor gained traction.

The owner of Smuggler's, Bill Stritzler, authorized Chait to dispel the rumor.

"He said anything you hear about Smugglers' in negotiation with Vail can be considered sincerely fake news,” Chait explained.

 

[BenedictGomez]

You do realize that your lift plan here goes directly over the Long Trail? I think there might be a slight opposition to this type of plan

Though there shouldn't be, it's a 300 mile trail and we'd literally be talking about perhaps a 100 yard section for heaven's sake, but of course, you're correct. These people will file lawsuits if you intend to cut a single tree. They are not the conscientious and respectful stewards of the environment that they purport to be, they are bullies and self-righteous "religious" ideologues with a cult-like mentality, who ironically & unwittingly often do more harm than good to the environmental causes they support.

In this case, however, their silly, self-righteous, histrionics will lead to the outcome that I support (i.e. no Stowe/Smuggs merger), so.... go them.

I’d see Vail coming in as a budgetary blessing, but I don’t expect Montpelier to see it that way

I have a theory that this is perhaps why Vail bought the ski operations for $50M, and not the entire operation. I'm not at all confident in this theory, but I think there's at least a 10% chance it has some merit.

It would be cagey on Vail's part if they thought perhaps the government would put up roadblocks to their in toto purchase since the folks running State of Vermont have a, "big company = bad people" mentality. I wonder if Vail thought this was the safest way to get this transaction through. Then, a few years from now, once people are happy with Vail (or more succinctly, not angry with them), they come back for the bigger bite of the apple and buy the entire thing. Because, IMO, that's going to happen. There has to be a very good reason why the purchase was not in its' entirety. Either AIG thought Vail was undervaluing it, but still wanted out of ski ops, or Vail thought they couldnt get the deal done in its' entirely due to the political reasons I mentioned, or some other reason....... but as many have mentioned, this deal is atypical for them.

 

[jaybird]

If I'm with my family, I'd much rather park in a lower lot and get a bus up that drops me right at Spruce, rather than have to haul all my crap over the silly transfer gondola.

Right On !

Keep in mind that Gomez' graphic is not representative of skier population density .. Nationally estimated at 10% of Total US.
In many regions outside of the NE, despite the smaller density, the skier percentage is much higher.

Curious, whether MTN will expand mountain bike activity on Mansfield. That's where the real growth and density lies.

 

[cdskier]

I have a theory that this is perhaps why Vail bought the ski operations for $50M, and not the entire operation. I'm not at all confident in this theory, but I think there's at least a 10% chance it has some merit.

It would be cagey on Vail's part if they thought perhaps the government would put up roadblocks to their in toto purchase since the folks running State of Vermont have a, "big company = bad people" mentality. I wonder if Vail thought this was the safest way to get this transaction through. Then, a few years from now, once people are happy with Vail (or more succinctly, not angry with them), they come back for the bigger bite of the apple and buy the entire thing. Because, IMO, that's going to happen. There has to be a very good reason why the purchase was not in its' entirety. Either AIG thought Vail was undervaluing it, but still wanted out of ski ops, or Vail thought they couldnt get the deal done in its' entirely due to the political reasons I mentioned, or some other reason....... but as many have mentioned, this deal is atypical for them.

Interesting quote in the VTDigger article on the purchase from Blaise Carrig at Vail:

He said Vail did not pursue the real estate component of Stowe resort because it’s not the company’s area of expertise.

“Our core business is really in operating the ski mountain business. That’s really what we have been focusing on,” Carrig said.

That statement surprised me a bit.

 

[VTKilarney]

Part of the rumor swirling this winter — that Vail would also buy Smuggler's Notch Resort, the ski area just over the mountain from Stowe, in Jeffersonville — was pure fiction.

"I can officially squash that rumor right now," Mike Chait, public relations director at Smugglers' Notch, said last month as the rumor gained traction.

The owner of Smuggler's, Bill Stritzler, authorized Chait to dispel the rumor.

"He said anything you hear about Smugglers' in negotiation with Vail can be considered sincerely fake news,” Chait explained.

Haven't we learned that denials don't mean much?

 

[EPB]

Haven't we learned that denials don't mean much?

They have all the incentive in the world to say that Smuggs isn’t for sale. It shouldn’t be difficult to see. Which attitude is likely to get you a better price from Vail:

Option 1: “Wow! This is great! We’d be lucky to have Vail buy is one day!”
Option 2: “We’re not for sale. You’re going to have to blow us away to pry the resort from our hands.”

This is not to say I think there’s a high likelihood that Stowe/Smuggs gets connected. I would say, however, that the odds have gone up significantly. For example, moving from a 2% likelihood to a 10% likelihood is a significant jump. Still a low probability.

 

[BenedictGomez]

They have all the incentive in the world to say that Smuggs isn’t for sale.

The owner's pushing 80. I would not find it shocking were it sold soon regardless of who the acquirer might be. If I win the PowerBall tomorrow night, I'm making a bid!

 

[dlague]

Though there shouldn't be, it's a 300 mile trail and we'd literally be talking about perhaps a 100 yard section for heaven's sake, but of course, you're correct. These people will file lawsuits if you intend to cut a single tree. They are not the conscientious and respectful stewards of the environment that they purport to be, they are bullies and self-righteous "religious" ideologues with a cult-like mentality, who ironically & unwittingly often do more harm than good to the environmental causes they support.

In this case, however, their silly, self-righteous, histrionics will lead to the outcome that I support (i.e. no Stowe/Smuggs merger), so.... go them.



I have a theory that this is perhaps why Vail bought the ski operations for $50M, and not the entire operation. I'm not at all confident in this theory, but I think there's at least a 10% chance it has some merit.

It would be cagey on Vail's part if they thought perhaps the government would put up roadblocks to their in toto purchase since the folks running State of Vermont have a, "big company = bad people" mentality. I wonder if Vail thought this was the safest way to get this transaction through. Then, a few years from now, once people are happy with Vail (or more succinctly, not angry with them), they come back for the bigger bite of the apple and buy the entire thing. Because, IMO, that's going to happen. There has to be a very good reason why the purchase was not in its' entirety. Either AIG thought Vail was undervaluing it, but still wanted out of ski ops, or Vail thought they couldnt get the deal done in its' entirely due to the political reasons I mentioned, or some other reason....... but as many have mentioned, this deal is atypical for them.

Vail just wants the pass holders - I do not see them as thinking full blown resort. There is literally no advertising for eastern skiing here or at local ski shows as in zero exhibitors from the east. I have seen ads for Banff, Jackson Hole, Big Sky, Utah etc. but never for anything back east. However, I can see Vail marketing to the Northeast and placing ads to draw people out west. The sales pitch at next years ski show with be like handing candy out, but not everyone will bite.

 

[dlague]

Interesting quote in the VTDigger article on the purchase from Blaise Carrig at Vail:


That statement surprised me a bit.

They want the pass holders and that's it!

 

[EPB]

They want the pass holders and that's it!

My merger hypothesis is predicated on overcrowding mediation. It’s rare to have a whole second ski area at your disposal if your skier traffic shoots through the roof. That can raise the amount of pass holders they can accommodate to your point.

 

[VTKilarney]

Well, speaking of business climate, our Progressive Party state auditor has weighed in on the sale of Stowe to Vail. He made this comment in the Vermont Digger article about the sale:
The Stowe Mountain Resort leases some of the most iconic and valuable public lands in the state. The current lease terms are almost 50 years old and are out of date. There is reason to believe that Vermonters are not receiving a fair return for the lease of these unique public assets. According to the terms of the lease, the sale of the resort has to be approved by the State. This is a rare opportunity for the State to use its leverage to revise the lease terms.

 

[cdskier]

They want the pass holders and that's it!

I agree and made this point as well shortly after the details of the deal were announced. I still find the statement from Carrig surprising as from the comment it makes it almost sound like the Stowe deal is the "typical" deal they would want to do while all the other deals that include real estate are the "atypical" ones. Meanwhile most of us "outsiders" view it as the opposite.

I think in the Stowe deal they would have definitely taken the real estate too for the right price, however they simply didn't want to spend what AIG wanted or AIG was firm in not wanting to get rid of the real estate period. The statement is then more of a cover in the sense of "well we didn't want it anyway so we don't care that we didn't get it."

 

[Jcb890]

Well, speaking of business climate, our Progressive Party state auditor has weighed in on the sale of Stowe to Vail. He made this comment in the Vermont Digger article about the sale:
The Stowe Mountain Resort leases some of the most iconic and valuable public lands in the state. The current lease terms are almost 50 years old and are out of date. There is reason to believe that Vermonters are not receiving a fair return for the lease of these unique public assets. According to the terms of the lease, the sale of the resort has to be approved by the State. This is a rare opportunity for the State to use its leverage to revise the lease terms.

What does this mean? It sounds like it means they want to charge more for the leasing of the land. If the current lease terms are almost 50 years old, that would mean there is about 49 more years remaining on the lease terms since they are generally 99 year leases, correct?