# Park City/Talisker-Vail Lawsuit



## thetrailboss (Mar 12, 2012)

Apparently a significant portion of PCMR is located on land owned by Talisker/Canyons and leased to PCMR.  Despite negotiations and even a deal to connect the two resorts via lift, PCMR has filed suit claiming that talks have broken down.  

http://www.saminfo.com/news/article.php?tid=5624


----------



## thetrailboss (Mar 12, 2012)

Park City Mountain Resort's PR site on the suit:  http://www.supportpcmr.com/

'


----------



## Highway Star (Mar 12, 2012)

*POWDR - Apparently unpopular in Park City.....*

...geee, who would have though???

http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/...-Mountain-Resort-Files-Lawuit-Againt-Talisker

Anybody starting to see a pattern here?


----------



## thetrailboss (Mar 12, 2012)

Highway Star said:


> Anybody starting to see a pattern here?



Yes, we already have a thread on this too!  :lol:


----------



## Highway Star (Mar 12, 2012)

Well, just needed to point out that they are almost as unpopular out there as they are around here. 

Your thoughtful moderation "keeps the bar high".


----------



## Highway Star (Mar 12, 2012)

Bump.  People need to be aware that POWDR owns Killington, Mt. Bachelor, and Park City Mountain Resort.  All of which are evidently poorly run.  They seem to be a scourge on the ski industry,


----------



## AdironRider (Mar 12, 2012)

While I can see on the surface how this is easy POWDR bashing, but out here more people have beef with Talisker right now that POWDR, court of public opinion will be interesting on this one. 

Id flip the coin, and argue that Talisker is playing its power position right now hard. They own the land, probably signed a lease on the property decades ago before they are what they are now, and today are trying to take it back and ride all of Park City's efforts to improve the given terrain. 

Im not super familiar with the exact plots in question, but it doesnt seem like the best practice on Taliskers end to completely strongarm everyone. They are trying to force a land swap through Congress, now it seems they wont play ball with PCMR. Kind of heavy handed business tactics to by throwing around, and pretty much a huge gamble from a marketing perspective. Most people think the connect to Solitude is pretty bad already. 

That being said, PCMR could be little bitches about the whole thing and trying to swing another sweetheart deal. Im sure the lease terms from back in the day are a little more palatable than what current market value is now. 

Ultimately, this isnt that big a deal really to me from a business perspective. Its just two big dogs duking it out. Both sides are pretty reliant upon one another, and their are some pretty big ramifications involved, in this day and age this is how this shit gets worked out, unfortunately.


----------



## deadheadskier (Mar 12, 2012)

Side question as the topic involves an eventual interconnect

What's the terrain like between the two resorts?  Connecting them I believe would make for the largest ski area in the US.  Vail has ridden that marketing pony for years and is I believe the most popular ski area in the country.   To be able to unseat Vail as the largest ski area in the USA as well as being less than an hour from an International airport would be a HUGE deal IMO.   If I were a local business owner, I know I'd want to see that happen.


----------



## AdironRider (Mar 12, 2012)

I agree with you. However, the terrain isnt really ultimately all that amazing, its more so a connect ala Sugarbush's express or even moreso like Europe. 

I didnt really have a problem with it. The court of public opinion (and Trailboss could probably enlighten on this, I just get the telemarker bc dudes bitching in my ear on the Glory bootpack for my news) seems to be against it as some massive invasion to "pristine" backcountry with no less than 70 lifts within a 10 mile radius. The way they are going about things is also pretty shady, with a foreign owned company trying to force feed a land swap through Washington without any local insight. I thought it was a pretty neat idea and liked the whole "euro" aspect of it. 

This issue is pretty interesting as it can really shine through on Talisker's true colors IMO. Park City has a whole lot more to lose so they'd probably end up going to court no matter what, what in today's litigious society.


----------



## marcski (Mar 12, 2012)

thetrailboss said:


> Park City Mountain Resort's PR site on the suit:  http://www.supportpcmr.com/
> 
> '




You and I both know....that this entire website is complete total bullshit and a marketing campaign.  If they are so sure of their position, post the lease!  They either took advantage of a lease extension provision or they didn't.  Or perhaps it was a 40 year lease? Either way, they are clearly playing games and posturing.


----------



## Highway Star (Mar 12, 2012)

Fair enough, but some of the newspaper comments are quite insightful......

http://www.parkrecord.com/ci_20141104/pcmr-fighting-survival-resort-sues-talisker



> bubba1111
> Hmmm.  Seems a little fishy. Looks more like an article written by Patrick  Parkinson. One sided and small town newspaper drama. I'm sure Talisker  is going to shut down PCMR. Give me a break!! Poor little defenseless  PCMR... (defender of local jobs, saviour of the environment, champion of  the poor and meek, humble steward of Park City skiing and mentor of the  terrain park Grom ) is bullied by Big Bad Rich Talisker (destroyer of  the watershed, raiser of season pass prices, deranged heater of orange  lift seats,  killer of soft cute bunnies). C'mon. Really?
> Here is what I think is going on.  PCMR and Talisker's negotiations  have been going on now for years it seems on the renogiation of the  lease which ended in 2011. I understand that PCMR pays $150,000 a year  for the lease of a majority of the slopes at the resort. Not a bad deal.  I'm guessing Talisker thinks it can get a lot more per year than that  going forward and both parties disagree on price. The creation of the  website ( supportpcmr.com  ) tells me that PCMR does not have the upper hand in this discussion  and seems like a desperate move on their part (Talisker to SHUT DOWN  Park City Mountain Resort and eradicate 1,200 local jobs !!!) Give me a  frickin break.
> Will be fun to watch this unfold. We just need a Kenny Griswold quote  at this point. "This is my worst fear realized"...... hahahhhahahahha
> ...





> MQBitsko
> "Corporate  citizens"?  Let' me tell you something about the wonderful "corporate  citizens" who sold that land to Talisker in the first place.  It was  just a scam to avoid dealing with mine closure requirements and  environmental remediation, which was going to cost them a fortune.   Instead, they played on the innocence of a Canadian company who is in  the business of operating ski resorts, not American mine companies, and  stuck Talisker with THEIR mess.
> Oh, by the way.....the taxpayers of Park City are stuck with enormous  cleanup bills themselves, now and in the future, because of those  "corporate citizens" you miss so much.  They have managed to wash their  hands of the whole mess and leave YOU to deal with it.  Enjoy.
> Be glad you have Talisker up there on the hill.  They're far more  ethical, believe me.  I've been watching this happen for years.  I'm  glad to see the chickens come home to roost, actually.  I'm going to buy  a Talisker tee shirt.  Meanwhile, enjoy paying those taxes so that the  former United Park City Mines can avoid cleaning up their own mess.





> MQBitsko Collapse
> For  many years United Park City Mines played a shell game with  environmental regulators.  They kept their "Mining" and their "real  estate" and their "ski resort" businesses separate so that they could  alternately claim to be a "mine company" or "land developer" or "resort  operator" as it was convenient in order to avoid dealing with mining era  clean up requirements and licensing issues, or to hide their  development business behind their status as a "mining company", etc.   The whole thing was a huge scam.
> Now it has come back to bite them in the backside.  When they sold  the land itself to Talisker, a company that everybody knows is in the  business of owning and operating ski resorts rather than just playing  landlord to ski resorts, they thought they could foist the mining  cleanup issues on Talisker and keep the resort for themselves.  Talisker  found themselves maneuvered into ownership of a big mess, while the guy  who originally MADE the mess slithered away laughing.
> WRONG!  Payback time, boys.  I'm with Talisker on this one.  They got  sold a bill of goods by United Park City Mines, and they haven't been  happy about it at all.  Revenge is a dish best served cold, and the time  has come.
> ...





> butter1111
> Really  people????? Are we all going to jump on the Talisker hate train??????  Anybody out there remember when Powder corp bought out the Badamis" Now  that was %#$@#. Oh yea and they raised season passes every year since.  Do any of you really believe that Talisker would move on such a huge  public relations nightmare? I agree with Bubba1111, seems a little fishy  to me. I think maybe someone at PCMR was asleep at the wheel. Either  way, shouldnt we all wait till the facts come out instead of jumping at  the chance to get on the hate train. One more thing, if Talisker wants  more money for land that it owns.....their right. Any of you out there  willing to sell/rent your rental property or land for less than its  worth????? If so let me know. Im an old school local with no  money......Wait till the truth comes out, wait to jump in line with the  down to corporate america. Wake up SHEEPEOPLE, if it isnt Talisker, it  would have been Vail. With Kenny Griswold in the cracks.





> MQBitsko
> Talisker  never had any intention of renewing the lease.  $150K per year?  That  is a remnant of the days when the Mine Company leased the mountain to  its own resort.  Talisker, if they WERE to renew the lease, would want  what it's actually worth.  It wouldn't be $150K, I guarantee it.  At  least ten times that figure, MAYBE.
> How could anybody not have seen this coming years ago, when Talisker  bought the property?  They're running a business, not a skiing-based  charity.




:-o:-o:-o:-o:-o


----------



## Highway Star (Mar 12, 2012)

More gems:

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/faith/53686577-78/resort-park-lawsuit-mountain.html.csp



> ratskrad
> You  all understand that Talisker is not our friend, as they are in business  to develop land and sell it.  They pretty much have ruined Canyons as a  resort except for the very rich. They doubled season pass prices this  year and sold 2000 fewer season passes and guess what they meaning upper  management are happy because it eliminated the riff raff from the  resort meaning us the locals.  By the first of the year Canyons resort  was down 35,000 skier days and again they were happy.  Nothing like a  big loss to show a major tax write off.  Canyons (Talisker) is off 10's  of millions of dollars in projected revenue this year as a result of  being very narrow minded in who they want to ski at their resort. I  understand this was not a good year skier number wise but you can not go  from $599 to $1149 for a seasons pass in a year and expect to generate  any revenue as those 2000 season passes they did not sell meant those  people did not by goods and food at the resort.
> This is not a company that needs to own another resort in our town as  guess what they will price us the locals right out of the game. I see  them as wanting to own both Canyons and PCMR creating the largest resort  in North America but at what cost.
> It is funny though that Canyons resort does not own the land on which  its resort sits but it does own the land on which one of the other  resorts in town does sit.
> ...


----------



## snoseek (Mar 12, 2012)

Not that I really care what happens on the Wasatch back but I'm actually rooting for powder on this one only because I do not support Taliskier and their way of doing business. 

I guess the Wasatch really is the new Jerusulam...


----------



## thetrailboss (Mar 12, 2012)

Adiron: the locals HATE Talisker and Canyons. Not sure how much of it is that it is "The Canyons," or how much of it is "Talisker," but the locals I talk with and the folks I ski with don't take them seriously. Last summer they were practically giving away passes to locals and in the early fall had a very lame ad campaign that they ran on billboards en route to Big and Little Cottonwood Canyons. 

To be clear: the whole SkiLink project is NOT related to this. SkiLink is the proposal to run a Slide Brook Express-esque lift from the top of Canyons to the base of Solitude. The ramming it through DC act got people upset (rightfully so) and the BC folks would be upset anyways. What is laughable though is that this so-called BC is so heavily skied that you would not know that it was BC. The whole Wasatch is accessible and skied a lot. As for me, the jury is out. I would not use it and there are too many people at the Canyons as it is.  The biggest reflection of the fact that this won't come anytime soon is the fact that Deer Valley, PCMR, and Canyons are side-by-side on essentially the same ridge and won't connect with each other.  Instead there are fights like this (and DV pushing up the price to keep the unwanted out).  

I did see an article in the SL Tribune that the congressional delegation supports eventually linking up all the resorts (Alta/Snowbird -> Brighton/Solitude -> PC Resorts). They are that close, but that is a long ways off. 

And I agree about the PCMR "PR" site, which is pure exageration. I don't really know what they aim to accomplish since this is a civil lawsuit between two private parties. There is no place for public opinion per se. As to the real deal, I don't really know how much is hyperbole. I have no idea what portion of PCMR is at stake, but from reading the articles you'd think that it was the whole damn resort. I doubt that.


----------



## thetrailboss (Mar 26, 2012)

So here is an update on this story.  Last week, the SL Tribune ran an article that shed more light as to what is going on here and what is at stake.  

As many know, most of the land surrounding Park City was mined in the past, and a good portion of the land, or the claims, are still owned by mining companies or their successors.  Land that Deer Valley and PCMR sit are some of this former mining land.  In 1969 or so, Deer Valley's predecessor, Powder Park, found that their lease was terminated and they went out of business for 12 years when Deer Valley took over the lease.  

PCMR sits on land owned by an entity named the United Park City Mines.  Only the base lodges and water rights are wholly owned by PCMR.  PCMR has a 40 year lease with United Park City, that is set to expire this year.  The leased land composes a majority of PCMR, and PCMR pays United Park City $150,000 per year.

In 2003 Talisker entered the picture by purchasing United Park City Mines, and becoming PCMR's landlord.  

As many know, Talisker purchased the Canyons in 2007/2008.  Ironically, most of the Canyons are on leased land with the former resort operator, Wolf Mountain, being the landlord.  Talisker/Canyons pays $3 million annually to lease the land that the Canyons sits on. 

According to the PCMR/United Park City lease, PCMR gave "unequivocal notice" to United Park City that they intended to renew the lease for another 40 years, or until 2051.  PCMR claims that United Park City (Talisker) is refusing to renew the lease.  PCMR has sued stating that United Park City (Talisker) is negotiating in bad faith.  

So if the rumor that Talisker wishes to take over PCMR via a hostile takeover is true, then it was a plot that was devised back in 2003 or so.  

I wonder if Deer Valley is worried about its landlord not renewing....but then again, I don't know how much land is leased there.

The SL Trib story:  http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/53718069-78/pcmr-park-resort-ski.html.csp


----------



## Highway Star (Mar 26, 2012)

thetrailboss said:


> So if the rumor that Talisker wishes to take over PCMR via a hostile takeover is true, then it was a plot that was devised back in 2003 or so.


 
In all seriousness, that's how I read it. POWDR is run by chumps who completely lack vision. This is just the first phase in a multi-decade plan.

It doesn't take much to see that taking all these UT resorts and connecting them (just like in europe) creates *the* premier north american ski destination. I'll bet talisker has been planning this for a while, and it's pretty brilliant. In 2003, it was clear that ASC would eventually go out of business and the Canyons would become available, so buy the neighbors land ahead of time and........oops!

How many lifts and skiable acres is this:

Canyons
PCMR
Dear Valley
Brighton
Alta
Solitude
Snowbird


----------



## deadheadskier (Mar 26, 2012)

Highway Star said:


> How many lifts and skiable acres is this:
> 
> Canyons
> PCMR
> ...



Probably double the size of Whistler/Blackcomb.  I doubt they pull it off


----------



## thetrailboss (Mar 26, 2012)

Yeah but Alta, Snowbird, and Brighton are not, and will not be, for sale.


----------



## Geoff (Mar 26, 2012)

Highway Star said:


> In all seriousness, that's how I read it. POWDR is run by chumps who completely lack vision.



I'd spin it a little bit differently....

Billionaire Ian Cumming bought a string of ski areas so his son the mountain climber could "do something with his life".   I imagine he also hired and installed a bean counter to make sure his scion son didn't simply squander the whole thing.    When daddy hands you a string of ski areas and you know that you have a billion of family money to fall back on, there isn't a whole lot of incentive to do the best you can possibly do in your business.   I'm sure "the little people" do all the day-to-day.   This guy is a dilettante and won't starve to death if his ski areas don't do well.

Vision?   Why would somebody like that need vision?


----------



## Highway Star (Mar 26, 2012)

thetrailboss said:


> Yeah but Alta, Snowbird, and Brighton are not, and will not be, for sale.


 
They will be plenty willing to join up once they have a 800-lb gorilla next door.


----------



## drjeff (Mar 26, 2012)

thetrailboss said:


> So here is an update on this story.  Last week, the SL Tribune ran an article that shed more light as to what is going on here and what is at stake.
> 
> As many know, most of the land surrounding Park City was mined in the past, and a good portion of the land, or the claims, are still owned by mining companies or their successors.  Land that Deer Valley and PCMR sit are some of this former mining land.  In 1969 or so, Deer Valley's predecessor, Powder Park, found that their lease was terminated and they went out of business for 12 years when Deer Valley took over the lease.
> 
> ...



TB, has it been reported how much Talisker is asking for the annual land lease rights to PCMR's curret terrain??  If this is just a case of Powdr/PCMR just asuming that the lease will be rolled over at rates negotiated 40 years ago vs. what todays "fair market" rate would be that's a whole different situation.  Especially since PCMR in 2012 is far different (and larger) than PCMR was 40 years ago.

The amount of land that the Canyons sits on, and leases from Wolf Mtn isn't that much different in size than what PCMR sits on.  If Talisker is paying Wolf Mtn 3 mill a year for use of that amount of land, it isn't in anyway crazy to expect that in new lease talks that a figure of 3 to maybe 4 million per year for the land that PCMR is on would be a faiur, current market figure.  

If Talisker is looking for say 10 million, well then that wouldbe a different story


----------



## thetrailboss (Mar 26, 2012)

Highway Star said:


> They will be plenty willing to join up once they have a 800-lb gorilla next door.



FWIW Alta/Snowbird and Brighton/Solitude already sell a joint ticket.  And there has long been plans to connect all the resorts via a railway or some other method (and have it be publicly financed).  

Alta is local ownership that is committed to staying that way.  Snowbird is owned by Dick Bass, who apparently has decided that the resort will be put into a trust when he passes.  Brighton is a CNL/Boyne venture.  But Solitude is actively working with Talisker on this SkiLink project.


----------



## thetrailboss (Mar 26, 2012)

drjeff said:


> TB, has it been reported how much Talisker is asking for the annual land lease rights to PCMR's curret terrain??  If this is just a case of Powdr/PCMR just asuming that the lease will be rolled over at rates negotiated 40 years ago vs. what todays "fair market" rate would be that's a whole different situation.  Especially since PCMR in 2012 is far different (and larger) than PCMR was 40 years ago.
> 
> The amount of land that the Canyons sits on, and leases from Wolf Mtn isn't that much different in size than what PCMR sits on.  If Talisker is paying Wolf Mtn 3 mill a year for use of that amount of land, it isn't in anyway crazy to expect that in new lease talks that a figure of 3 to maybe 4 million per year for the land that PCMR is on would be a faiur, current market figure.
> 
> If Talisker is looking for say 10 million, well then that wouldbe a different story



You know from what I have heard the issue is along the lines of renewal of the lease, not the price.  Yes, I thought $150k was low and indicative of only a small amount of land at stake.  But I was wrong.  From what I have heard the issue is Talisker saying no renewal and PCMR being screwed.


----------



## Highway Star (Mar 26, 2012)

thetrailboss said:


> FWIW Alta/Snowbird and Brighton/Solitude already sell a joint ticket. And there has long been plans to connect all the resorts via a railway or some other method (and have it be publicly financed).
> 
> Alta is local ownership that is committed to staying that way. Snowbird is owned by Dick Bass, who apparently has decided that the resort will be put into a trust when he passes. Brighton is a CNL/Boyne venture. But Solitude is actively working with Talisker on this SkiLink project.


 
As I thought.  But the big picture is in the branding and the marketing of it as a connected region, which is what will draw crowds to spend big money.  The ones who own most of the resorts when that happens will be the big winners.


----------



## thetrailboss (Mar 26, 2012)

Highway Star said:


> As I thought.  But the big picture is in the branding and the marketing of it as a connected region, which is what will draw crowds to spend big money.  The ones who own most of the resorts when that happens will be the big winners.



Yep, very true.  I think it is interesting that Talisker was interested in getting a PC resort way back in 2003, even if it involved pushing a tenant out.


----------



## Highway Star (Mar 26, 2012)

thetrailboss said:


> Yep, very true. I think it is interesting that Talisker was interested in getting a PC resort way back in 2003, even if it involved pushing a tenant out.


 
There is no question that this has the potential to the new dominant desination resort in north america in the next decade or so.  Access, terrain, snow fall, are huge factors.


----------



## bigbog (Mar 27, 2012)

snoseek said:


> Not that I really care what happens on the Wasatch back but I'm actually rooting for powder on this one only because I do not support Taliskier and their way of doing business.
> 
> I guess the Wasatch really is the new Jerusulam...



Not a bad description.  Deep pockets in business don't always coincide with positive and neighborly thinking and they often take the road of _You Never Know What You Can Do Until You Try It_ in life...


----------



## Geoff (Mar 27, 2012)

thetrailboss said:


> Yep, very true.  I think it is interesting that Talisker was interested in getting a PC resort way back in 2003, even if it involved pushing a tenant out.



I think it's even more interesting that John Cumming was asleep while this happened.   He could very well have ended up blowing something like $50 to $100 million of daddy Ian's billion dollars by screwing this up.   Even to a billionaire, that ain't chump change.

It also makes me wonder how they are doing at Copper.   Copper had a lean season and it's damned tough to compete with the Vail empire with their cheap season passes and millions of skier visits.


----------



## thetrailboss (Mar 27, 2012)

Geoff said:


> I think it's even more interesting that John Cumming was asleep while this happened.   He could very well have ended up blowing something like $50 to $100 million of daddy Ian's billion dollars by screwing this up.   Even to a billionaire, that ain't chump change.
> 
> It also makes me wonder how they are doing at Copper.   Copper had a lean season and it's damned tough to compete with the Vail empire with their cheap season passes and millions of skier visits.



It's interesting that POWDR didn't buy Canyons instead of Talisker.


----------



## Highway Star (Mar 27, 2012)

bigbog said:


> Not a bad description. Deep pockets in business don't always coincide with positive and neighborly thinking and they often take the road of _You Never Know What You Can Do Until You Try It_ in life...


 
I hope Talisker drives POWDR out like the vermin they are.


----------



## drjeff (Mar 27, 2012)

thetrailboss said:


> It's interesting that POWDR didn't buy Canyons instead of Talisker.



If I recall correctly, at the end it was down to Talisker vs. Vail to buy the Canyons. Powdr was never really in the mix


----------



## Geoff (Mar 27, 2012)

bigbog said:


> Not a bad description.  Deep pockets in business don't always coincide with positive and neighborly thinking and they often take the road of _You Never Know What You Can Do Until You Try It_ in life...



Ian Cumming is roughly the 800th richest person in the world.   I think you have your deep pockets parties confused here.   If daddy wanted to cough up the pin money to his scion son, POWDR could have bought anything and everything related to skiing in Utah.


----------



## Highway Star (Mar 28, 2012)

Thread over on TGR is getting even more interesting...

http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/...ain-Resort-Files-Lawuit-Againt-Talisker/page3

Starting to sound more like an interconnect play, not just lease issues.


----------



## drjeff (Mar 28, 2012)

BTW - Talisker at auction today for 50 mill bought the 1000 acres that makes up part of the Canyons that the Wolf Mtn trust group was sitting on


----------



## thetrailboss (Mar 28, 2012)

drjeff said:


> BTW - Talisker at auction today for 50 mill bought the 1000 acres that makes up part of the Canyons that the Wolf Mtn trust group was sitting on


 
So they don't have a landlord anymore?


----------



## legalskier (Mar 28, 2012)

thetrailboss said:


> SkiLink is the proposal to run a Slide Brook Express-esque lift from the top of Canyons to the base of Solitude. The ramming it through DC act got people upset (rightfully so) and the BC folks would be upset anyways. What is laughable though is that this so-called BC is so heavily skied that you would not know that it was BC. The whole Wasatch is accessible and skied a lot. As for me, the jury is out. I would not use it and there are too many people at the Canyons as it is.



Still, would you like seeing this go through?...


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 6, 2012)

The lawsuit continues, but PCMR and Talisker are in agreement that PCMR will open this season.  

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/54437185-78/pcmr-park-talisker-ski.html.csp

And FWIW PCMR pays $155,000 in lease payments to Talisker; Talisker has to pony up $3 million to lease the land that the Canyons sits on


----------



## thetrailboss (Aug 9, 2013)

http://www.powdermag.com/stories/ne...hreatened-and-100-inch-dump-in-south-america/

Still going.....now PCMR is saying that they should have had a right of first refusal before Talisker leased Canyons to Vail for $25 million a year.


----------



## thetrailboss (Aug 9, 2013)

More...including the caveat on the PCMR passes:

http://ski.curbed.com/archives/2013/05/will-park-city-close-next-season.php


----------



## ScottySkis (Aug 9, 2013)

thetrailboss said:


> http://www.powdermag.com/stories/ne...hreatened-and-100-inch-dump-in-south-america/
> 
> Still going.....now PCMR is saying that they should have had a right of first refusal before Talisker leased Canyons to Vail for $25 million a year.



This is ridiculous, they should accept the money they already agreed to.


----------



## thetrailboss (Aug 9, 2013)

Scotty said:


> This is ridiculous, they should accept the money they already agreed to.



??????

Talisker is saying that the lease is over; get off.


----------



## ScottySkis (Aug 9, 2013)

thetrailboss said:


> ??????
> 
> Talisker is saying that the lease is over; get off.



Oh I read that wrong, finally.


----------



## thetrailboss (Aug 29, 2013)

Wow!

http://www.parkrecord.com/ci_23966883/talisker-corporation-moves-evict-pcmr-matter-days


----------



## thetrailboss (Aug 29, 2013)

PCMR is still confident that they are going to open:



> Park City Mountain Resort is confident it will operate business as usual for the 2013-14 season, its 50th anniversary. Talisker Land Holdings, its landlord, has stated publicly numerous times that it will not interfere with Park City Mountain Resort’s ability to operate. In the unlikely event the Resort is forced to close for the 2013-14 season, the Resort will refund the full season pass price paid by holders of 2013-2014 season passes. If the Resort is forced to close for a portion of the 2013-2014 season, the Resort will prorate the refund based on the period the Resort is closed.



http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/56798697-78/pcmr-eviction-notice-park.html.csp


----------



## jimmywilson69 (Aug 29, 2013)

Interesting...

So if Canyons and PCMR were 1 large resort.  Would it be the largest resort in SLC?  That's very much Vail's MO...


----------



## ScottySkis (Aug 29, 2013)

thetrailboss said:


> Wow!
> 
> http://www.parkrecord.com/ci_23966883/talisker-corporation-moves-evict-pcmr-matter-days



Hopefully everyone opens up this winter.


----------



## thetrailboss (Aug 29, 2013)

jimmywilson69 said:


> Interesting...
> 
> So if Canyons and PCMR were 1 large resort. Would it be the largest resort in SLC? That's very much Vail's MO...



Yep to both. 

Canyons is already the largest resort acreage-wise. 

Vail was pretty upset in 2007-2008 when they lost the bid for the Canyons to Talisker. Now they are pretty eager to run the place. In May when they announced the lease of the Canyons, Vail was not shy to say that the deal included the Ski-Link Project and this lawsuit against PCMR. Vail took over the case and apparently is being very aggressive.


----------



## drjeff (Aug 29, 2013)

jimmywilson69 said:


> Interesting...
> 
> So if Canyons and PCMR were 1 large resort.  Would it be the largest resort in SLC?  That's very much Vail's MO...



Yes, and considering that by all accounts Talisker has a very good working relationship with Deer Valley (Talisker has done a great deal of the housing and hotel development at Deer Valley) if the Deer Valley snowboarding stance was changed, you could easily have all 3 Park City area resorts connected with out much effort


----------



## thetrailboss (Aug 29, 2013)

drjeff said:


> Yes, and considering that by all accounts Talisker has a very good working relationship with Deer Valley (Talisker has done a great deal of the housing and hotel development at Deer Valley) if the Deer Valley snowboarding stance was changed, you could easily have all 3 Park City area resorts connected with out much effort



I think it's fair to say that there will never be any snowboarding at Deer Valley...as long as Edgar Stern's family/heirs own the majority of the place.  He apparently has it written into the corporation documents that if the company decides to allow snowboards then they have to buy his interest in the company.  

I also think it's fair to say that Canyons may eventually get PCMR but they will probably never get Deer Valley.  Deer Valley is independent.


----------



## ScottySkis (Aug 29, 2013)

thetrailboss said:


> I think it's fair to say that there will never be any snowboarding at Deer Valley...as long as Edgar Stern's family/heirs own the majority of the place.  He apparently has it written into the corporation documents that if the company decides to allow snowboards then they have to buy his interest in the company.
> 
> I seriously don't understand why. They don't want to make more money. Alta to I don't get it.


----------



## thetrailboss (Aug 29, 2013)

Scotty said:


> thetrailboss said:
> 
> 
> > I think it's fair to say that there will never be any snowboarding at Deer Valley...as long as Edgar Stern's family/heirs own the majority of the place. He apparently has it written into the corporation documents that if the company decides to allow snowboards then they have to buy his interest in the company.
> ...


----------



## steamboat1 (Aug 30, 2013)

Vail pledges not to interfere with PCMR during upcoming ski season
Jay Hamburger THE PARK RECORD
Posted:   08/29/2013 05:08:51 PM MDT

Vail Resorts on Thursday afternoon said in a prepared statement there is  no intention on its side to interfere with Park City Mountain Resort's  operations during the upcoming ski season, a position that will be  welcomed as the community begins to prepare for the winter.
The Colorado-based firm issued the statement during a week of rising  tensions in a lawsuit between PCMR and a firm under the Talisker  Corporation umbrella centered on a contention that the resort's lease of  Talisker Corporation land expired in 2011. The Talisker Corporation  side on Wednesday served PCMR with a notice to leave the premises, which  is essentially an eviction notice.
Vail Resorts is overseeing the lawsuit for the Talisker Corporation side  as a part of an agreement to lease and operate Canyons Resort.
The prepared statement is a rare comment from Vail Resorts about the  case. It is attributed to Kelly Ladyga, the vice president of corporate  communications for Vail Resorts. It follows:
"As we have previously stated, under the terms of our agreement with  Talisker in connection with our lease of the Canyons, we have assumed  oversight of the litigation between Talisker Land Holdings LLC and Park  City Mountain Resort. We have an obligation to protect and preserve  Talisker's and our interest in this matter. We are concerned with the  behavior that Park City Mountain Resort has demonstrated in this  situation. Talisker issued Park City Mountain Resort the Notice to Quit  as a necessary legal step to bring this issue to the Court and we  anticipate that there will be a number of actions required to bring this  dispute to closure. With that said, there is no intent by Talisker to  take any action that would prevent PCMR's ability to operate their  resort during the upcoming 2013-2014 ski season. We are very cognizant  of the importance of this situation to the entire Park City community  and we look forward to bringing this situation and its uncertainty to a  conclusion."


----------



## thetrailboss (Aug 30, 2013)

steamboat1 said:


> Vail pledges not to interfere with PCMR during upcoming ski season
> Jay Hamburger THE PARK RECORD
> Posted: 08/29/2013 05:08:51 PM MDT
> 
> ...




I saw that.  They are sending so many mixed messages.


----------



## jimmywilson69 (Aug 30, 2013)

They are playing nice because it's almost snow time.  Imagine what it would mean to Vail and it's shareholders if all of the sudden PCMR was under Vails umbrella.  

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


----------



## thetrailboss (Aug 30, 2013)

SAM's Article on it:

http://www.saminfo.com/news/pcmr-operations-safe-2013-14-season


----------



## wa-loaf (Aug 30, 2013)

thetrailboss said:


> I saw that.  They are sending so many mixed messages.



Sounds like they are just checking off the legal steps they need to make to ultimately boot PCMR off of the land. (or at least get them to pay more for the lease ...)


----------



## thetrailboss (Aug 30, 2013)

wa-loaf said:


> Sounds like they are just checking off the legal steps they need to make to ultimately boot PCMR off of the land. (or at least get them to pay more for the lease ...)



It's that, and also that Vail took over the lawsuit this summer, so different folks at the wheel of the effort and they are doing different things.


----------



## Nick (Sep 4, 2013)

*Park City handed Eviction Notice*

Anyone read this news? Some dramarama


> The latest and perhaps most provocative salvo in a war between the PCMR parent and a division of Talisker Corporation, which owns 2,800 acres of the 3,700-acre ski resort, the five-day Notice to Quit served upon Powdr and some of its principals on August 28 expired on Monday.




http://www.firsttracksonline.com/2013/09/03/park-city-mountain-resort-owners-handed-eviction-notice/

More at the link. 

If I understand correctly:

Talisker Land Resolution LLC (who owns Vail), issued this to Powdr Corp, who operates Park City on land leased from Talisker. (phew).


----------



## First Tracks (Sep 4, 2013)

Nick said:


> If I understand correctly:
> 
> Talisker Land Resolution LLC (who owns Vail), issued this to Powdr Corp, who operates Park City on land leased from Talisker. (phew).



Almost, Nick. Powdr Corp does indeed own Park City Mountain Resort (PCMR), but nobody owns Vail other than Vail Resorts. Nevertheless, the whole tale is far more convoluted, so I can't fault anyone for getting some of the details wrong.

Talisker Land Resolution is a division of Toronto-based Talisker Corp. Talisker Corp. owns a number of commercial real estate holdings, including Canyons Resort in Utah and a number of residential subdivisions in the Park City area. United Park City Mines owns the land upon which most of PCMR operates. That land is leased to Powdr via an agreement first executed in the 1960s with PCMR's former owner, and which was up for renewal in 2011. Powdr acquired the lease when it bought PCMR in 1994. In 2007, Talisker Land purchased United Park City Mines, and thus also acquired that lease with Powdr for PCMR's land.

However, Powdr Corp officials allegedly failed to provide timely notification to Talisker Land of their intention to renew the lease in 2011. Had they done so, the original lease would have been renewed for a couple of more decades at its original terms: $155,000 per year.  Powdr maintains that was a technicality, and after Talisker Land's efforts to renegotiate the terms of the annual lease broke down, Powdr filed suit in Utah District Court against Talisker (see http://www.firsttracksonline.com/2012/03/12/park-city-mountain-resort-canyons-lawsuit-lease/). The only reason that Talisker was able to enter into negotiations regarding the lease's terms was because Powdr failed to renew it timely. I'd hate to have been the Powdr employee who blew that deadline!

Meanwhile, as that lawsuit is still pending, Talisker Corp. reached an agreement in May to allow Vail Resorts to operate Canyons under a long-term lease (see http://www.firsttracksonline.com/2013/05/29/vail-resorts-to-operate-utahs-canyons/). One of the provisions of the lease between Talisker and Vail Resorts allows VR to include the lease between Talisker Land and Powdr as part of its own lease agreement with Talisker to operate Canyons, without any additional consideration. That would allow VR to take Talisker's place in the pending litigation. Clearly this was a big carrot to entice VR to enter into the lease agreement to operate Canyons; if Talisker (or by succession VR) prevails in the pending litigation with Powdr, they get to operate PCMR, too.

The current Notice to Quit (in essence, an eviction notice) is Talisker (and by inference VR) lobbing its latest shell at Powdr over PCMR. I expect that to lead to a separate lawsuit to attempt to evict Powdr from PCMR.

Did anyone actually follow all of that?


----------



## drjeff (Sep 4, 2013)

First Tracks said:


> Almost, Nick. Powdr Corp does indeed own Park City Mountain Resort (PCMR), but nobody owns Vail other than Vail Resorts. Nevertheless, the whole tale is far more convoluted, so I can't fault anyone for getting some of the details wrong.
> 
> Talisker Land Resolution is a division of Toronto-based Talisker Corp. Talisker Corp. owns a number of commercial real estate holdings, including Canyons Resort in Utah and a number of residential subdivisions in the Park City area. United Park City Mines owns the land upon which most of PCMR operates. That land is leased to Powdr via an agreement first executed in the 1960s with PCMR's former owner, and which was up for renewal in 2011. Powdr acquired the lease when it bought PCMR in 1994. In 2007, Talisker Land purchased United Park City Mines, and thus also acquired that lease with Powdr for PCMR's land.
> 
> ...



Let's see, The Canyons is still The Canyons, unless it becomes Vail at The Canyons or maybe Vailyons if the folks that sell the Epic Pass want it to be that way  And PCMR will still be PCMR unless it becomes Park City Vail Resort which then could become The Canyons at Park City Vail Resort or maybe just Vail, UT and then who knows who will really run the joint all because someone a few years ago forgot to drop a letter in the mail saying "I don't want to leave!" 

Sent from my DROID RAZR using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## Edd (Sep 4, 2013)

*Park City handed Eviction Notice*



First Tracks said:


> The only reason that Talisker was able to enter into negotiations regarding the lease's terms was because Powdr failed to renew it timely. I'd hate to have been the Powdr employee who blew that deadline!



Yeah, we will no longer be needing your services. If this is the first straw then it's automatically the last. 

[/QUOTE]The current Notice to Quit (in essence, an eviction notice) is Talisker (and by inference VR) lobbing its latest shell at Powdr over PCMR. I expect that to lead to a separate lawsuit to attempt to evict Powdr from PCMR.[/QUOTE]

That is hard to imagine. Drama, indeed. I'm assuming PCMR is one of the more profitable mountains in N. America but I could be dead wrong.


----------



## jaytrem (Sep 4, 2013)

Also of note is that PCMR would still own all the lifts and other improvements.  Assuming they do get kicked out, they could either remove everything and sell on the open market or sell it all to Vail.  If they choose the removal option I suspect they would intentionally destroy all the lift foundations in the process.


----------



## bigbog (Sep 4, 2013)

First Tracks said:


> .........I'd hate to have been the Powdr employee who blew that deadline!.........



One would rationally think _ex-Powdr employee_ Marc....but with how the daily lives of the rich operate, who knows...  Almost approaching a _Who's On First_ level..:lol:


----------



## steamboat1 (Sep 4, 2013)

PCMR will park the cars, charge for lift service, & blow snow. Vail Resorts will pay the rent.


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 4, 2013)

Nick said:


> Anyone read this news? Some dramarama
> 
> 
> http://www.firsttracksonline.com/2013/09/03/park-city-mountain-resort-owners-handed-eviction-notice/[/URL]
> ...



We've been talking about this for a while in the other thread.  Marc got it all there with the details as to who's who.  It is crazy.  There are now three companies essentially fighting it out.  Talisker has tried to bow out by giving the lawsuit to Vail to pursue, and they are.  

What I find interesting is that *none of the Killington haters have been jumping on this one because POWDR owns PCMR*.  If it is true that POWDR not only failed to renew the lease, but also tried to file a postdated letter, then I would imagine that the POWDR haters will be howling again.

The thing is that if Vail/Talisker win, then they are still screwed because POWDR owns the base facilities.


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 4, 2013)

jaytrem said:


> Also of note is that PCMR would still own all the lifts and other improvements.  Assuming they do get kicked out, they could either remove everything and sell on the open market or sell it all to Vail.  If they choose the removal option I suspect they would intentionally destroy all the lift foundations in the process.



Not necessarily.  It depends on Utah law, which generally is pretty conservative.  

Generally speaking, the original rule was that if you leased real property and placed fixtures on it, you lose them when the lease ends.  But that of course is back in the day and now things may be different.....


----------



## First Tracks (Sep 4, 2013)

jaytrem said:


> Also of note is that PCMR would still own all the lifts and other improvements.



Not true. The lease agreement states that all fixed improvements on the property... lifts, etc. ... revert to landlord ownership. 

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note II using Tapatalk 2


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 4, 2013)

First Tracks said:


> Not true. The lease agreement states that all fixed improvements on the property... lifts, etc. ... revert to landlord ownership.
> 
> Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note II using Tapatalk 2



That was the default rule that I mentioned.  Boy that would suck for PCMR.

And again if it were true that POWDR completely blew the deadline then that would be a huge screw up and a huge "wow".


----------



## First Tracks (Sep 5, 2013)

thetrailboss said:


> That was the default rule that I mentioned.



Yeah, we were both writing our responses at the same time. :lol:

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note II using Tapatalk 2


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 5, 2013)

First Tracks said:


> Yeah, we were both writing our responses at the same time. :lol:
> 
> Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note II using Tapatalk 2



Yeah I hear you!  :lol:  The two SLC members of the board too!


----------



## jaytrem (Sep 5, 2013)

First Tracks said:


> Not true. The lease agreement states that all fixed improvements on the property... lifts, etc. ... revert to landlord ownership.



You sure about that? I read an article the other day that stated just the opposite. I'll see if I can dig it up. I also wonder if lifts would count as fixed improvements. As we've seen in Idaho, they can be repossessed.

Come to think of it, I'm 99% sure I read that stuff in the comments section after an article.  It was pretty detailed, but yeah, can be taken as a grain of salt.


----------



## First Tracks (Sep 5, 2013)

jaytrem said:


> You sure about that? I read an article the other day that stated just the opposite. I'll see if I can dig it up.



The Notice to Quit is very specific on that point, and particularly names the lifts. I read the notice myself when preparing our article. The relevant portion is quoted verbatim at:
http://www.firsttracksonline.com/2013/09/03/park-city-mountain-resort-owners-handed-eviction-notice/



jaytrem said:


> I also wonder if lifts would count as fixed improvements. As we've seen in Idaho, they can be repossessed.



Tamarack is a totally different situation. First off, that was a bankruptcy and the subject situation is not. Secondly, Tamarack leased those lifts from Bank of America so they were owned by BOA, not Tamarack. That situation was akin to a bank repossessing your car. 

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note II using Tapatalk 2


----------



## jaytrem (Sep 5, 2013)

First Tracks said:


> The Notice to Quit is very specific on that point, and particularly names the lifts. I read the notice myself when preparing our article. The relevant portion is quoted verbatim at:
> http://www.firsttracksonline.com/2013/09/03/park-city-mountain-resort-owners-handed-eviction-notice/
> 
> 
> ...



Got it, thanks.  So are any of the lifts on both of their properties?  I would think the lower mountain ones would cross property lines.  What becomes of those?

My Tamarack example was to illustrate that since ski lifts can be removed and moved some what easily, it could set a precedent that they could be considered non-fixed assets.  Bit of a stretch, but that's what lawyers do.  Of course since the lifts are specifically mentioned it sounds like PCMR is screwed.


----------



## jaytrem (Sep 5, 2013)

A few of the actual documents...

Notice of Quit...
http://www.scribd.com/doc/164018965...document-filed-with-Park-City-Mountain-Resort

Cover Letter...
http://www.scribd.com/doc/164019581...er-Land-Holdings-to-Park-City-Mountain-Resort

Letter to Judge...
http://www.scribd.com/doc/164017980...Park-City-Mountain-Resort-vs-Talisker-lawsuit


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 5, 2013)

I think that if it went to court what may happen is that Talisker/Vail would get possession of the lifts and improvements but would have to pay fair market value to PCMR for those fixtures.  It's kind of a split-the-baby approach I guess.  Either way though it is NOT good for PCMR and POWDR.  By the way I'm pretty sure that one of the Cummings owns "Ted's House" overlooking Snowbird.  I think it's funny that he skis at a resort that he does not own.  :lol:


----------



## jimmywilson69 (Sep 5, 2013)

Does losin PCMR submarine Powder's ability to operate other Ski Areas?  Or does it give them more latitude to do improvements or have to do improvements to make $$$.  

Or does this become an ASC thing where they syphon everything from their other resorts to keep PCMR?


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 5, 2013)

jimmywilson69 said:


> Does losin PCMR submarine Powder's ability to operate other Ski Areas? Or does it give them more latitude to do improvements or have to do improvements to make $$$.
> 
> Or does this become an ASC thing where they syphon everything from their other resorts to keep PCMR?




That is a good point. I have not seen anything that indicates which resorts are profitable and which are not for POWDR. Based on my observations and probably pure speculation, I'd say that PCMR is one of their big moneymakers because they have very low lease payments, have a real cache with the brand, and as anyone who's been to Park City knows they have a big draw.

Perhaps Marc has some solid information that supports this one way or the other.  I also think that PCMR was one of POWDR's first ventures.


----------



## First Tracks (Sep 5, 2013)

thetrailboss said:


> That is a good point. I have not seen anything that indicates which resorts are profitable and which are not for POWDR.



And you won't, as the company is privately held. 

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note II using Tapatalk 2


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 5, 2013)

First Tracks said:


> And you won't, as the company is privately held.
> 
> Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note II using Tapatalk 2



I could see them being pretty tight lipped.  Some privately-held companies do speak in broad terms about how things are going, but POWDR is probably not one of them.  I just went to the corporate website and it has not been updated in at least two years.


----------



## Nick (Sep 5, 2013)

Godda*(&t I keep forgetting about this post and creating new ones. Sorry TB!


----------



## Nick (Sep 5, 2013)

First Tracks said:


> Did anyone actually follow all of that?



I think I need a chart or an image hahaha. Thanks for the detail, that was very helpful!


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 5, 2013)

Nick said:


> I think I need a chart or an image hahaha. Thanks for the detail, that was very helpful!



Here you go...this kind of shows the relationships between the folks:

Park City Resort (POWDR)(Tenant) <---------> Talisker (Landlord)

                                                                             ^
                                                                             ^ 
                                                                             ^
                                                                     Vail Resorts (now leasing Canyons from Talisker)

As part of the lease of the Canyons, Talisker gave Vail the right to take over the lawsuit for the land that Park City sits on....so there would be a diagonal line from Vail up to PCMR to show that relationship.


----------



## First Tracks (Sep 7, 2013)

Here's the latest twist:
http://www.firsttracksonline.com/20...ils-in-park-city-mountain-land-lease-lawsuit/


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 7, 2013)

First Tracks said:


> Here's the latest twist:
> http://www.firsttracksonline.com/20...ils-in-park-city-mountain-land-lease-lawsuit/



A very good summary of what has happened.  Major screw up by POWDR to renew so late.


----------



## First Tracks (Sep 11, 2013)

Once again, here's the latest:
http://www.firsttracksonline.com/20...e-park-city-mountain-resort-emails-after-all/

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note II using Tapatalk 2


----------



## First Tracks (Sep 20, 2013)

PCMR scores a small, but potentially significant victory. Once again here's the latest:
http://www.firsttracksonline.com/20...-amend-complaint-against-talisker-over-lease/


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 20, 2013)

First Tracks said:


> PCMR scores a small, but potentially significant victory. Once again here's the latest:
> http://www.firsttracksonline.com/20...-amend-complaint-against-talisker-over-lease/



Well......

Very small at best.  The Judge is allowing them to amend their complaint to bring the right of first refusal claim.  They still have to prove it of course, but it does give them leverage.  It also is moot in some ways because Vail stepped into the scene long after the PCMR lease theoretically ended.


----------



## snowmonster (Sep 21, 2013)

Since I'm on a Red Sox high now: this sounds like the ski area version of the Red Sox mailing a contract late to Carlton Fisk which allowed Pudge to become a free agent and sign with the White Sox.

Carry on, boys.


----------



## drjeff (Sep 21, 2013)

thetrailboss said:


> Well......
> 
> Very small at best.  The Judge is allowing them to amend their complaint to bring the right of first refusal claim.  They still have to prove it of course, but it does give them leverage.  It also is moot in some ways because Vail stepped into the scene long after the PCMR lease theoretically ended.



Deferring to TB's legal expertise on this, but I would presume that the more significant ruling will be when it's decided if based on the e-mail's that POWDR had to turn over about the contacts they made with Talisker around when the lease originally expired and if POWDR actually by that deadline let Talisker know they intended to renew. If POWDR backdated that notification as it it alleged then it would seem that POWDR really doesn't have a leg to stand on and it was totally within Talisker's right to enter into the operations agreement with Vail Resorts.

If the notification between POWDR and Talisker did indeed happen on time, then I would think that POWDR's claim for the right of first refusal would have some merit. 

Ultimately it seems like the basic premise is can an owner (Talisker) choose who they want to enter into a business agreement with who they want to in a situation where an existing past contract may have expired and wasn't actually acted on before the expiration date

Sent from my DROID RAZR using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## First Tracks (Sep 21, 2013)

drjeff said:


> I would presume that the more significant ruling will be when it's decided if based on the e-mail's that POWDR had to turn over about the contacts they made with Talisker around when the lease originally expired.



The emails in question were internal, not addressed to Talisker, and they're no longer in play because Judge Harris has already ruled that Talisker isn't entitled to them. 



drjeff said:


> and if POWDR actually by that deadline let Talisker know they intended to renew.



That question is the key to this whole litigation. The issue is whether Powdr's other actions - e.g., notifying Talisker prior to the end of the lease that they were spending $7M in summer 2011 (after the expiration of the original lease) to improve the property (expenditures including installation of the Crescent lift), sell season passes for 2011-12, etc. - provide Talisker with sufficient indication that Powdr intended to renew the lease? If so, the court may well find that Talisker had a reasonable expectation that the lease was to be renewed even though the formal letter specifying that didn't arrive until May 2, 2011, 3 days past the April 30, 2011 deadline. Furthermore there's the argument that Talisker let them go ahead and do all of that throughout the rest of 2011, spending allof that money, and not telling Powdr that they considered the lease null and void until December 2011, such that Powdr had a reasonable expectation that the lease was in force. 

Frankly I don't believe from what I know that this is as clear cut as everyone seems to think that it is. 

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note II using Tapatalk 2


----------



## mbedle (Oct 14, 2013)

What could possibly happen if the court ultimately rules in Talisker's favor? It seems to me that since PCMR owns the properties at the base of the ski operations, the resort buildings, the parking lots and the water rights, what is Talisker/Vail going to do with the land if they take over. Just a thought, but seems to pretty much be a court battle to get PCMR to pay a fair leasing fee for the next 40 years.


----------



## thetrailboss (Oct 14, 2013)

mbedle said:


> Just a thought, but seems to pretty much be a court battle to get PCMR to pay a fair leasing fee for the next 40 years.



That is the conclusion I have come to as well when asked the question of, "what is the end game?"  I think that they are upset that they only get $150k per year from PCMR and have to pay out in excess of $1 million for their lease of a portion of the Canyons.  I think they are trying to get more money out of PCMR and using this as leverage.  Of course if they wear our PCMR, then they get the land back, already developed into ski terrain, and can connect it to Canyons.


----------



## mbedle (Oct 14, 2013)

Very true trailboss and I did think that if this does go in favor of Talisker, they could try to incorporate the upper parts of the Park City Resort into the Canyons.  But the lifts that terminate on PCMR property are worthless at that point. Rebuilding base lift station further up the mountain would also be difficult considering the steep elevations at the base of the mountain.  They also may acquire most, if not all, of the snowmaking equipment, but that turns worthless with out the water rights.


----------



## thetrailboss (Oct 14, 2013)

mbedle said:


> Very true trailboss and I did think that if this does go in favor of Talisker, they could try to incorporate the upper parts of the Park City Resort into the Canyons. But the lifts that terminate on PCMR property are worthless at that point. Rebuilding base lift station further up the mountain would also be difficult considering the steep elevations at the base of the mountain. They also may acquire most, if not all, of the snowmaking equipment, but that turns worthless with out the water rights.




What Talisker would do then is force PCMR to lease or sell them their facilities.  Hostile takeover complete.


----------



## mbedle (Oct 14, 2013)

Interesting - I would assume that would cost talisker a little more than 3 million a year....


----------



## drjeff (Oct 14, 2013)

thetrailboss said:


> What Talisker would do then is force PCMR to lease or sell them their facilities.  Hostile takeover complete.



Option B would be to just build a new base area a bit North of the current PCMR base area out behind the PC Golf Course. 

There's a bunch of land between the Canyons and PCMR, some of which Talisker might already have the rights too (I'm not quite sure how far East the land Talisker has at The Canyons and via the PCMR land lease goes??)

Sent from my DROID RAZR using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## bigbob (Oct 14, 2013)

I wonder how much $$$ it will cost Talisiker/Vail to clean up the mining waste over on the PCMR terrain? Maybe that's why Powdr never bought the land when it came up for sale a few years back...


----------



## thetrailboss (Oct 14, 2013)

bigbob said:


> I wonder how much $$$ it will cost Talisiker/Vail to clean up the mining waste over on the PCMR terrain? Maybe that's why Powdr never bought the land when it came up for sale a few years back...



I think that they have been cleaning up the waste over many years; I think that POWDR does not have the $$$ to buy the land. They could have in 2001 or so, but Talisker beat them to it.

FWIW I believe that POWDR has a similar lease arrangement for Killington.  POWDR does not own the resort; it operates it and SP Lands owns the real estate.


----------



## HowieT2 (Oct 14, 2013)

I find it hard to believe, pcmr would have neglected to notify, if they actually needed to.  Just because it's alleged, doesn't make it true.


----------



## thetrailboss (Oct 14, 2013)

HowieT2 said:


> I find it hard to believe, pcmr would have neglected to notify, if they actually needed to.  Just because it's alleged, doesn't make it true.



PCMR says that they made several inferences and informal indications of their intent; the case recently came to a head over some correspondence and Email between PCMR and its attorneys.  Talisker/Vail alleged that the lease renewal was due April 30, 2011 but was not sent until a few days after.  Talisker/Vail also alleges that PCMR actually postdated correspondence after realizing the error.  

I've got to say that watching this all in my backyard is interesting and that PCMR doesn't come off as the innocent party that they claim they are.  It looks like a pretty big mistake IMHO.  In some ways it is understandable because at that time of year resorts are winding down, folks go on vacation, staff are laid off, etc.  This, apparently, fell through the cracks.


----------



## jimmywilson69 (Oct 15, 2013)

thetrailboss said:


> This, apparently, fell through the cracks.



That is exactly how it appears and that is absolutely unbelieveable.  I also believe you used the term "hostile takeover" a few posts ago.  If I was taliskier and now Vail this is exactly what I would've done. I honestly think that is why they brought Vail on board to operate the Canyons.  They basically want someone with experience in managing/operating a mega resort.  Throw in Ski-Link and the face of SLC/Park City skiing could be changing before everyone's eyes.


----------



## First Tracks (Oct 15, 2013)

jimmywilson69 said:


> That is exactly how it appears and that is absolutely unbelieveable.  I also believe you used the term "hostile takeover" a few posts ago.  If I was taliskier and now Vail this is exactly what I would've done. I honestly think that is why they brought Vail on board to operate the Canyons.  They basically want someone with experience in managing/operating a mega resort.  Throw in Ski-Link and the face of SLC/Park City skiing could be changing before everyone's eyes.



Whoa there, Nelly! Rein in that horse.

"Hostile takeover," yes, in the sense in that VR is trying to get PCMR while Powdr ain't sellin'. I agree that phrase is absolutely accurate. The fact of the matter is that VR got involved because they want PCMR, not because they want Canyons.

However, you must understand that:

1. There's a huge tract of privately owned land separating Canyons from PCMR -- a deep valley between Iron Mountain and Pinecone Ridge. And as far as I know that landowner isn't interested in selling, although we all know that everyone has a price.

2. SkiLink is essentially dead, or at least on life support. Congressional support has withdrawn for the land exchange needed, Salt Lake County is vehemently opposed, and VR has said publicly that they're not interested in pursuing it at this time.

"The face of SLC/Park City skiing could be changing before everyone's eyes" is either hyperbole or overstatement.


----------



## thetrailboss (Oct 15, 2013)

Didn't know about the tract of land in between Canyons and PCMR.  That's interesting.

And as for SkiLink, I didn't know that the Utah Delegation withdrew the proposal.  I know that it was a PR and all around blunder for Talisker to do what they did and avoid local input.  FWIW Alta has (long term) ambitions to connect with Brighton/Solitude, so I'm sure that some "SkiLink II" will eventually appear.


----------



## First Tracks (Oct 15, 2013)

thetrailboss said:


> And as for SkiLink, I didn't know that the Utah Delegation withdrew the proposal.



"Withdrew" is perhaps the wrong word. Maybe "dropped" is more accurate.



thetrailboss said:


> FWIW Alta has (long term) ambitions to connect with Brighton/Solitude, so I'm sure that some "SkiLink II" will eventually appear.



If Alta's planned/proposed Flagstaff lift ever goes in, they'd be linked bi-directionally even though the ostensible reasoning behind Flagstaff involves avalanche mitigation in an era when Korean War-era 110mm shells are hard to come by and the DHS is none too keen about launching live ammo over populated places.

Right now Solitude and Alta can be skied in that direction. Hop off Solitude's Summit lift, hang a left, go through your first gate on the right and you're on the Highway to Heaven traverse that leads to Twin Lakes Pass, at the head of Grizzly Gulch. From there it's all downhill to Alta. The proposed Flagstaff lift would put you high enough across Davenport Hill to drop into Solitude in the other direction. It's a bit of a schlep but doable. A more efficient connection would be directly up Grizzly Gulch, and Alta Ski Lifts owns that land I believe. 

You can also head up Supreme and ski into Catherine's Area, drop down to Lake Catherine and just keep going into Brighton via the Dog Lake Chutes. At least once or so each season we'll do the whole four-resort loop thing: Start at Snowbird, ski into Alta, head to Brighton via the route described above and return via Solitude and the Highway to Heaven.


----------



## steamboat1 (Jan 26, 2014)

http://www.parkrecord.com/park_city...rp-executive-important-figure-lawsuit-departs


----------



## thetrailboss (Mar 26, 2014)

The plot thickens....Vail offers to buy PCMR base area.  In other news, I've got to use my three free days at PCMR soon!

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57730593-78/vail-park-resort-katz.html.csp


----------



## drjeff (Mar 26, 2014)

thetrailboss said:


> The plot thickens....Vail offers to buy PCMR base area.  In other news, I've got to use my three free days at PCMR soon!
> 
> http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57730593-78/vail-park-resort-katz.html.csp



Seems like its only a matter of time, one way or another that PCMR is available to those that have an Epic Pass. Also seems like Katz at Vail Resorts is both outplaying and calling the bluff of Cummings at Powdr.

I'm quite sure that they'll be a few Killington folks that would hope that if Cummings sells, that Killington be included in the sale


----------



## thetrailboss (Mar 26, 2014)

drjeff said:


> Seems like its only a matter of time, one way or another that PCMR is available to those that have an Epic Pass. Also seems like Katz at Vail Resorts is both outplaying and calling the bluff of Cummings at Powdr.
> 
> I'm quite sure that they'll be a few Killington folks that would hope that if Cummings sells, that Killington be included in the sale



Based on what I've seen, this has really made POWDR look like amateur hour.


----------



## Hawkshot99 (Mar 26, 2014)

I dont really see what leg PCMR has to stand on in this case at all.  They missed the date in which they needed to renew their lease.  If Taliskier/Vail wanted to ignore that they could just let them renew late, but dates are there for a reason.  They missed it, and are now trespassing on someone's property.


----------



## mbedle (Mar 26, 2014)

Katz is right in saying that the lost of the base area(s) would not impede the use of the upper portions of Park City. If they own the land between the two resort, lifts could be installed up to Pinecone Ridge (albeit, a lot of switchbacking to get intermediates and beginners done on the park city side). One thing I think is overlooked on Katz part is how important the city is to the PCMR's success. Having direct access to Park City downtown area from the ski resort brings in a lot of vacation people. And if it does come to that, I would bet that a lot more people are going to jump into this fight.


----------



## Highway Star (Mar 26, 2014)

thetrailboss said:


> Based on what I've seen, this has really made POWDR look like amateur hour.



What an incisive analysis!!!!


----------



## thetrailboss (Mar 26, 2014)

Highway Star said:


> What an incisive analysis!!!!



Not as good as yours, Kevin.


----------



## drjeff (Mar 26, 2014)

Hawkshot99 said:


> I dont really see what leg PCMR has to stand on in this case at all.  They missed the date in which they needed to renew their lease.  If Taliskier/Vail wanted to ignore that they could just let them renew late, but dates are there for a reason.  They missed it, and are now trespassing on someone's property.



Yup, and I thought that it was quite interesting reading through some of the comments in that link, when one of the folks commenting mentioned that after they missed the lease renewal date and PCMR was complaining about Talisker/Vail wanting to up the renewal rate to something resembling fair market value, that the commenter thought it seemed appropriate as the 150k that PCMR had been paying annually for the lease was less than multiple businesses on Main St. in Park City pay for in their annual leases


----------



## jimmywilson69 (Mar 26, 2014)

THis has to be rewarding for the Kzone folks and Killington hard core, long term passholders that made such a stink about Powder when they came.  It's clear they are clueless on how to run a business.  Seriously how do you forget to renew the cheaper than cheap lease for the land that your ski resort is located on...  

Vail has 4 Aces, Powder has 2-2s, a jack and an 8.  

Once Vail starts operating PCMR, they will get behind the Ski Utah, One Wasatch thing and then BOOM! It's excitying to think about what the future could hold out there!

If this drags on through the summer, could Vail/Talisker file an injuction to have Powder cease operations at PCMR next winter?  That would seemingly force Powder's hand in selling.


----------



## thetrailboss (Mar 26, 2014)

drjeff said:


> Yup, and I thought that it was quite interesting reading through some of the comments in that link, when one of the folks commenting mentioned that after they missed the lease renewal date and PCMR was complaining about Talisker/Vail wanting to up the renewal rate to something resembling fair market value, that the commenter thought it seemed appropriate as the 150k that PCMR had been paying annually for the lease was less than multiple businesses on Main St. in Park City pay for in their annual leases



The amount of the lease is an interesting subplot.  Talisker says that it planned on increasing the lease amount to something more reasonable.  PCMR does not feel that there should be an increase in their lease for obvious reasons.  

PCMR maintains then, and now, that they "implied" that they would be renewing their lease with Talisker because they let Talisker know that they were planning on replacing a lift and doing some other work to the resort.  PCMR maintains that this was constructive notice that they intended to renew the lease.  PCMR did not renew the lease on or before the deadline in writing; they submitted a letter of intent several days after the deadline that Talisker alleged was postdated.  

And technically Vail is now handling the lawsuit since Talisker decided to assign its interest to them last year.

I find it interesting that many locals hate Talisker, in part, because it is not "local".  Powdr is not local either....they seem to forget that.


----------



## RENO (Mar 26, 2014)

jimmywilson69 said:


> THis has to be rewarding for the Kzone folks and Killington hard core, long term passholders that made such a stink about Powder when they came.  It's clear they are clueless on how to run a business.  Seriously how do you forget to renew the cheaper than cheap lease for the land that your ski resort is located on...
> 
> Vail has 4 Aces, Powder has 2-2s, a jack and an 8.
> 
> ...


Doing this to the town and not having any skiing for the winter because of it would all but kill any chance of support for Vail. They would get shredded and then you're bringing in possible state/fed charges...

Also, if PCMR gets thrown off the land, what happens to the lifts? Aren't they owned by POWDR? If PCMR gets thrown off and Vail runs a lift to the mountain and PCMR doesn't want to sell them the lifts after getting evicted and just prevents them from using them, then what? They just can't take the lifts. Doesn't POWDR still get time to remove them or sell them? I just don't get how this whole mess is gonna play out!


----------



## Highway Star (Mar 26, 2014)

thetrailboss said:


> Not as good as yours, Highway Star.



That's Highway Star to you buddy!  Reported post to moderators!


----------



## RustyGroomer (Mar 26, 2014)

Highway Star said:


> That's Highway Star to you buddy!  Reported post to moderators!


  OMG.  You got reported Trailboss.  Hate to be you when the hammer comes slamming down.


----------



## thetrailboss (Mar 26, 2014)

RENO said:


> Doing this to the town and not having any skiing for the winter because of it would all but kill any chance of support for Vail. They would get shredded and then you're bringing in possible state/fed charges...



How does this bring in "possible state/fed charges?"  Most of PCMR is owned by Talisker.  They are merely a landlord that wants their property back since the tenant did not renew the lease as per the terms...or at least that is Talisker's POV.  No doubt it would hurt downtown PC if it is not resolved.  



> Also, if PCMR gets thrown off the land, what happens to the lifts? Aren't they owned by POWDR? If PCMR gets thrown off and Vail runs a lift to the mountain and PCMR doesn't want to sell them the lifts after getting evicted and just prevents them from using them, then what? They just can't take the lifts. Doesn't POWDR still get time to remove them or sell them? I just don't get how this whole mess is gonna play out!



That is another issue.  The lease and Utah law would spell out what would happen to Powdr's fixtures on the land.


----------



## First Tracks (Mar 26, 2014)

RENO said:


> Also, if PCMR gets thrown off the land, what happens to the lifts? Aren't they owned by POWDR? If PCMR gets thrown off and Vail runs a lift to the mountain and PCMR doesn't want to sell them the lifts after getting evicted and just prevents them from using them, then what? They just can't take the lifts. Doesn't POWDR still get time to remove them or sell them? I just don't get how this whole mess is gonna play out!



That's been discussed before. Per the terms of the lease agreement all improvements upon the land (including lifts, snowmaking, restaurants, etc.) revert to landlord ownership upon expiration of the lease. So should Talisker/Vail win the pending litigation, they belong to Talisker.

Here's our piece on the latest development:
http://www.firsttracksonline.com/2014/03/26/vail-resorts-offers-to-buy-park-city-mountain/

(It's so _good_ to be back publishing again! Even if we're still being besieged by hackers...)


----------



## thetrailboss (Mar 26, 2014)

First Tracks said:


> That's been discussed before. Per the terms of the lease agreement all improvements upon the land (including lifts, snowmaking, restaurants, etc.) revert to landlord ownership upon expiration of the lease. So should Talisker/Vail win the pending litigation, they belong to Talisker.
> 
> Here's our piece on the latest development:
> http://www.firsttracksonline.com/2014/03/26/vail-resorts-offers-to-buy-park-city-mountain/
> ...



I was waiting for you to weigh in.  Thanks!


----------



## steamboat1 (Mar 31, 2014)

Interesting take:

http://wakefieldlawoffice.com/blog/2013/10/4/doubling-down-on-a-bad-idea


----------



## steamboat1 (Apr 8, 2014)

http://www.parkrecord.com/park_city-news/ci_25521543/pcmr-intends-dismantle-remove-most-lifts-if-it


----------



## drjeff (Apr 8, 2014)

steamboat1 said:


> http://www.parkrecord.com/park_city-news/ci_25521543/pcmr-intends-dismantle-remove-most-lifts-if-it



Sounds like Powdr/Cummings is threatening to throw a giant temper tantrum now that they pretty much see the writing on the wall that this isn't going to end well for them in court


----------



## Highway Star (Apr 8, 2014)

Correction, it's going to be a world class hissy fit.


----------



## thetrailboss (Apr 9, 2014)

Hmmmm......


----------



## jaytrem (Apr 9, 2014)

thetrailboss said:


> Hmmmm......



So now PCMR wants to take their lifts and go home....

http://www.parkrecord.com/ci_25521543/pcmr-intends-dismantle-remove-most-lifts-if-it

Sure is interesting to watch.


----------



## mbedle (Apr 9, 2014)

I'm having a really hard time understanding what Vail thinks is going to happen with this issue. On one hand, the judge rules in Vail's favor and after PCMR's appeal, still rules in Vail's favor. Doesn't this leave Vail with half a resort, with no base facilities, water rights, master development plan and direct access to park city. At that point, I would think PCMR is in a really good position to lease these back to Vail at a pretty high cost.


----------



## mbedle (Apr 9, 2014)

Also, do you think if it gets to a point where nothing is operating at the resort, that the city would chime in? The financial damage to the city as well as the business owners would be huge.


----------



## thetrailboss (Apr 9, 2014)

mbedle said:


> I'm having a really hard time understanding what Vail thinks is going to happen with this issue. On one hand, the judge rules in Vail's favor and after PCMR's appeal, still rules in Vail's favor. Doesn't this leave Vail with half a resort, with no base facilities, water rights, master development plan and direct access to park city. At that point, I would think PCMR is in a really good position to lease these back to Vail at a pretty high cost.



That's part of the problem on Vail's side.  But then again the addition of the upper part of PCMR would still be an expansion.


----------



## mbedle (Apr 9, 2014)

Trailboss, yes it would, but at what cost to rebuild all the lower lifts (if they still stand) and limited lower mountain snow making? The marketing damage from not having access to downtown would be really hard to over come (not that they couldn't find a way or buy a way for access to the town).


----------



## thetrailboss (Apr 9, 2014)

mbedle said:


> Trailboss, yes it would, but at what cost to rebuild all the lower lifts (if they still stand) and limited lower mountain snow making? The marketing damage from not having access to downtown would be really hard to over come (not that they couldn't find a way or buy a way for access to the town).



Those are small details 

But exactly.  Major logistical hurdles indeed.  They may opt NOT to have a base area...as crazy as that sounds.  And remember that Vail sent notice that they would make a "reasonable offer" to buy the base area.


----------



## mbedle (Apr 9, 2014)

You are right, that if the price is right and the courts rule in favor of Vail, PCMR could sell the base areas and transfer everything else to Vail. But, that should happen/occur at a "reasonable offer", is a joke. In this case, PCMR has the upper hand, given this is far from a normal situation. PCMR has an opportunely to walk away with a big chunk of money and could go off and buy some other major resort. I hate to say this, and I really don't have anything bad to say about Vail, but I hope that ultimately, they lose this battle in some shape or form. It would bring a smile to my face to see PCMR continue to operate a great resort or worst, to see the place empty with Vail stuck with only the Canyons... and land that doesn't (financially) make it worth the effort to develop.


----------



## Hawkshot99 (Apr 9, 2014)

mbedle said:


> I'm having a really hard time understanding what Vail thinks is going to happen with this issue. On one hand, the judge rules in Vail's favor and after PCMR's appeal, still rules in Vail's favor. Doesn't this leave Vail with half a resort, with no base facilities, water rights, master development plan and direct access to park city. At that point, I would think PCMR is in a really good position to lease these back to Vail at a pretty high cost.



If Vail wins the case and PCMR is no longer in operation and operated by Vail/Canyons then they would go and install new lifts connecting the 2 resorts regardless of whether they had access to the base or not.  If that happens then their will be only 1 person to sell the land at the base to(truly only Vail/Canyons would buy that land currently). 

So PCMR could refuse to sell the base land, and Vail/Canyons will install the connecting lifts and operate the ski area.  Powder then will have this wasted land sitting there that nobody will buy, and Vail/Canyons can sweat them out.

I see no way that a judge would allow Powder to remove the lifts claiming they are not "affixed" to the resort.


----------



## jaytrem (Apr 9, 2014)

The current base area isn't the only place the base area can exist.  Perhaps another land owner(s) would be willing to cash-out.


----------



## mbedle (Apr 18, 2014)

It just keeps getting better.... Like two kids fighting over who gets to ride the bike...

http://extras.parkrecord.com/video/katzletter2.pdf

And the reply from PCMR:

http://extras.parkrecord.com/video/powdrstatement.pdf


----------



## thetrailboss (Apr 18, 2014)

mbedle said:


> It just keeps getting better.... Like two kids fighting over who gets to ride the bike...
> 
> http://extras.parkrecord.com/video/katzletter2.pdf
> 
> ...



I thought that POWDR made two big concessions: one, it is willing to BUY the land for MORE than it's worth.  Second, they are willing to enter into a new lease for MORE than fair market value.  That seems a little desperate.

And hurry and get your pass now!  http://www.parkcitymountain.com/site/tickets-and-rentals/passes/season-passes

With this caveat yet again:



> Park City Mountain Resort plans to operate business as usual for the 2014-15 season. In the unlikely event the Resort is forced to close for the 2014-15 season, the Resort will refund the full season pass price paid by holders of 2014-2015 season passes. If the Resort is forced to close for a portion of the 2014-2015 season, the Resort will prorate the refund based on the period the Resort is closed.


----------



## thetrailboss (Apr 18, 2014)

John Cumming making some comments after a recent hearing.  This could be a "tragedy" for his team he said and he speculates as to why Talisker is doing what it is doing:



Alan Sullivan, attorney for PCMR, admitting that this whole thing was because of an "honest mistake."


----------



## VTKilarney (Apr 18, 2014)

My spidey sense says that Vail is much more assured of winning than Powdr is.


----------



## drjeff (Apr 18, 2014)

I'm guessing that right about now if Cumming and Powdr really still want to run PCMR that the original lease offer that Talisker made (I believe it was for between 3.5-4 million a year) is looking mighty fine as it seems like they WAY overplayed their hand and are now even taking a "beating" in the court of public opinion far more than before as Katz and Vail Resorts have put forth a very sound media campaign that dispels much of the now seemingly hyperbole that Powdr put out there as it has been going down the last few years!

Powdr and Cumming are likely to end up as the subject of a case study in the Harvard Business Review someday over this and it won't be portraying them in a way that any businessman or company wants to be portrayed in that or any business journal!!


----------



## thetrailboss (Apr 18, 2014)

drjeff said:


> I'm guessing that right about now if Cumming and Powdr really still want to run PCMR that the original lease offer that Talisker made (I believe it was for between 3.5-4 million a year) is looking mighty fine as it seems like they WAY overplayed their hand and are now even taking a "beating" in the court of public opinion far more than before as Katz and Vail Resorts have put forth a very sound media campaign that dispels much of the now seemingly hyperbole that Powdr put out there as it has been going down the last few years!
> 
> Powdr and Cumming are likely to end up as the subject of a case study in the Harvard Business Review someday over this and it won't be portraying them in a way that any businessman or company wants to be portrayed in that or any business journal!!



Why do you think that popular opinion is against POWDR?  Maybe from the long view, but in PC the locals DESPISE Talisker.  You'd think that it was owned by Satan or something.  

Honestly if you ran the hypo by someone here, dropped the names, dropped that they are ski areas, and just said, "they have a commercial lease, one party did not renew as the lease says, the landlord let them stay for a few months and now wants them out," most folks would probably agree with Talisker's position (I'm leaving out a lot of the details of course....).  

I am just surprised to hear PCMR now pretty much admitting that they screwed up, offering a buttload of money for the land and/or a new lease.  Mind you that PCMR wanted to continue their lease at $100k annually or something like that...not near the $3-4 mill that they are offering.  It seems like desperation....

It seems more and more like Vail is going to expand their terrain very soon.

And I agree that this is something that is downright embarrassing for POWDR.  No matter how they spin it they did not adequately protect themselves.  How the PCMR management held their jobs is beyond me.  

The other part that was kind of odd (and pathetic) was how Cummings waxed on about how they are the town hill and how glad they were that they could "help the kids" for so many years.  Jeesum Crow you'd think they were the YMCA or Cochran's fighting with Uncle Scrooge or something.  PCMR is a business...and one of the most recognizable and largest ski areas in Utah.  It is a FOR-PROFIT entity...not a charity.  That just reinforced the image that he was a rich guy who wanted to run a ski area for the hell of it instead of making it a sustainable business.  Maybe I'm being harsh, but it's just how I see it...with my (albeit) legally educated glasses on.


----------



## thetrailboss (Apr 18, 2014)

And with the (likely) appeals after a decision, this could drag on for another ski season or so.........


----------



## joshua segal (Apr 19, 2014)

Do any of you know if the cost of litigation is being skimmed off resources from Killington? I apologize if the answer was covered earlier in what has become a very long and unwieldy thread.


----------



## First Tracks (Apr 19, 2014)

joshua segal said:


> Do any of you know if the cost of litigation is being skimmed off resources from Killington?



That's a rather myopic view of the world, dontcha think?


----------



## Highway Star (Apr 19, 2014)

joshua segal said:


> Do any of you know if the cost of litigation is being skimmed off resources from Killington? I apologize if the answer was covered earlier in what has become a very long and unwieldy thread.



Given that they are now well behind on their planned capital outlays, and the premature cutoff on snowmaking this year, I'd say it is definitely the case.  Killington has had a couple good profitable years lately.  I'd say they are holding as much cash as possible to fight the case, cover any lease or purchase possibility, or the camp woodward option.


----------



## jaytrem (Apr 19, 2014)

Powdr is replacing a chair out in Vegas this summer.  We'll see about Bachelor.  New trails are already cut and all the permits are in place.  So if the new chair doesn't happen this summer it MIGHT be an indicator that they're saving money for the big lawsuit.  Another thought is they could holding off on building new chairs just in case they some how have to and are allowed to remove the Park City lifts.  I imagine they would be worth more to themselves than they would on the open market.  I'd be shocked if it ever came to that.


----------



## skiNEwhere (Apr 19, 2014)

First Tracks said:


> That's a rather myopic view of the world, dontcha think?



*flips open dictionary*

myopic[ mahy-op-ik, -oh-pik ]
adjective
1. pertaining to or having myopia; nearsighted.
2. unable or unwilling to act prudently; shortsighted.
3. lacking tolerance or understanding; narrow-minded.


----------



## Edd (Apr 19, 2014)

skiNEwhere said:


> *flips open dictionary*
> 
> myopic[ mahy-op-ik, -oh-pik ]
> adjective
> ...



:smile:


I didn't get that either.  I was going to ask but thought "screw it".


----------



## jaytrem (Apr 19, 2014)

skiNEwhere said:


> *flips open dictionary*
> 
> myopic[ mahy-op-ik, -oh-pik ]
> adjective
> ...



Yeah, that's probably why Joshua has been hanging around Snowjournal for the last 15 years rather than AZ.  People are less likely to insult you for asking a perfectly legitimate question.


----------



## thetrailboss (Apr 19, 2014)

No doubt it is coming from POWDR and from funds that would be doing other things.

I skied there today for the first time. Much bigger and better than expected. Had character and tons of terrain.


----------



## drjeff (Apr 19, 2014)

thetrailboss said:


> No doubt it is coming from POWDR and from funds that would be doing other things.
> 
> I skied there today for the first time. Much bigger and better than expected. Had character and tons of terrain.



One of my GOOD Mount Snow friends is out in PC right now, I know he skied PCMR today, and his "tour guide" was PCMR's director of marketing (he held that job at Mount Snow the previous 2 seasons and a bunch of us Mount Snow regulars became good friends with him)

I'll be curious to hear his take on things when he comes back East and I play golf with him in the next few weeks!


----------



## thetrailboss (Apr 20, 2014)

drjeff said:


> One of my GOOD Mount Snow friends is out in PC right now, I know he skied PCMR today, and his "tour guide" was PCMR's director of marketing (he held that job at Mount Snow the previous 2 seasons and a bunch of us Mount Snow regulars became good friends with him)
> 
> I'll be curious to hear his take on things when he comes back East and I play golf with him in the next few weeks!



So I can write more about my visit now.  PCMR is DEFINITELY the "town hill".  Everyone I ran into yesterday were locals.  But that is largely a function of the fact that it was the last weekend of the season.  The negatives were, in hindsight, similar to what folks complained of with Killington....stingy management, "nickle and diming" things (passholders have to PAY for prime parking, pay for other things such as early skiing, etc), and not paying staff well.  One guy told me that he hoped that Vail took over because POWDR just did not run things well.  In terms of employees I met the wide majority were very, very nice.  The positives: POWDR understood that when it took over from Bandami how important the community was and certain aspects of the operation.  Particularly racing, the volunteer program (free pass in exchange for volunteers from town is important for lots of locals who can't afford expensive passes), and big events that may break even (ski races, park events, etc).  The parks were the best I have seen.  More than one local told me that they feared that the volunteer program would die under Vail or that Senior passes would not be available.  One couple told me that they like Canyons but have always hated the management.  That is understandable.  

So mixed reactions...nervousness for sure...but confidence that the skiing will continue under someone.  

Some aspects of PCMR were awesome (nice six packs, a nice base area village, good grooming, good snowmaking, interesting lift layout that worked pretty well, copious amounts of terrain, good historical preservation, good parking, nice mountain lodges).  But other things were really (obviously) lacking and on shoestring budget (lots of terrain that could be open closed, very old lifts in certain areas, shopworn facilities up on the mountain, etc).  I'd say it is better cared for than Canyons, not as nice facility-wise as Deer Valley, but better terrain variety and steeper terrain overall.


----------



## Nick (May 21, 2014)

*Utah Court hands Park City to Vail Resorts*

http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_25808742/utah-court-hands-park-city-mountain-resort-over



> A Utah District Court ruled Wednesday that Park City Mountain Resort managers failed to renew their historic lease for a majority of their ski terrain and the landowner is allowed to deliver the ski area to a new operator.That means Vail Resorts just won the right to operate Utah's most popular ski area. And it means that Park City Mountain Resort — or PCMR — owner Powdr Corp. will go down in history as captaining the ski industry's most costly clerical error ever: a days-late filing to renew their decades-old, sweetheart lease cost them their flagship ski area into which the resort operator had invested more than $100 million.
> 
> 
> Read more: Utah court hands Park City Mountain Resort over to Vail after 3-year fight - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/business/...-park-city-mountain-resort-over#ixzz32O3oxHFn
> ...



Let me know if this is a repost!


----------



## AdironRider (May 21, 2014)

Maybe TB can fill in, but does Vail really get to keep all the infastructure PCMR paid for? Do they assume the debt payments as a result (if any)? I can understand losing the lease, but the strong arm play for all the lifts and infastructure seems like legal stealing to me.


----------



## bigbob (May 21, 2014)

Park City Record article


----------



## thetrailboss (May 21, 2014)

Just heard. Appeal likely. Will fill in a bit later. 


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## drjeff (May 21, 2014)

I'm guessing the "how to completely screw up a honey of a business deal" article about Powdr comes out in the _Harvard Business Journal_ before any appeal is heard! And with this, John Cumming may very well have put some serious distance between himself and Les Otten in the "how not to run a major ski corporation" hall of fame!


----------



## jaytrem (May 21, 2014)

AdironRider said:


> Maybe TB can fill in, but does Vail really get to keep all the infastructure PCMR paid for? Do they assume the debt payments as a result (if any)? I can understand losing the lease, but the strong arm play for all the lifts and infastructure seems like legal stealing to me.



I don't think anybody know yet, the lawyers will fight it out.  We should start a poll.

1. Vail get everything basically free
2. Vail pays fair market value
3. PCMR removes lift that have value
4. PCMR wins appeal and keeps em
etc.

One thing quote that keeps annoying me is that PCMR is willing to pay "above market value" for the terrain.  That kinda contradicts itself.  What ever the high number Vail is willing to reject for it is the market value.


----------



## jaytrem (May 21, 2014)

This older article has a map so you can get an idea of where the boundry line is....

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-02-06/park-city-vail-resorts-powdr-fight-over-ski-mountains-future

Looks like the town lift is not on the main parcel, but they may own a that piece of land in town.  Another thing to consider is potential lawsuits from effected 3rd parties, like folks who purchased PCMR developed condos.


----------



## marcski (May 21, 2014)

Once the dust settles, I think the question becomes:  Is Copper, Mt. Bachelor or the mighty, beastly Killington Powdr's premier resort?


----------



## VTKilarney (May 21, 2014)

If I were Powdr Corp, I would be negotiating a walk-away payment with Vail.  Powdr still owns the base, parking, and water rights.  There is also going to be an argument over whether or not the ski lifts have to stay.  It's worth it to both sides to negotiate a Vail takeover now that we know the lease is void.  It would be VERY foolish for Powdr to count on winning on appeal.


----------



## thetrailboss (May 21, 2014)

bigbob said:


> Park City Record article



Here it is:

http://www.parkrecord.com/ci_25808763/judge-sides-talisker-critical-rulings

And Nick had originally entitled his thread as "Utah Judge Hands Over Park City to Vail."  I would disagree with that characterization a little bit: POWDR handed over Park City Mountain Resort to Vail.  This is the most epic fail in recent ski history IMHO.

Some technical things: Cummings says that they want and deserve a trial.  For the non-lawyer types the Judge here (who I have appeared before and who is a smart guy and has gotten high marks since taking the bench) was told by one side that there was no need to go to trial because there are no facts in dispute: POWDR failed to renew as stated in the contract.  So it was purely a legal issue.  The Judge agreed with Vail and essentially agreed that a jury could only conclude that POWDR screwed up.  

That said POWDR did try some other arguments and tried basically to say "hey it's unfair."  Utah, generally, is pretty conservative.  And most states with regards to contracts, especially commercial ones, are.  You have two very sophisticated companies with lawyers and smart people.  They should know what to do and be smart enough to look out for themselves.  We don't want courts just throwing out contracts left and right because then no business would happen.  They had a deal and POWDR blew it.  It's like two parties agreeing to the sale of a house and set the date for closing and the buyer says, a week before closing, "oh yes, we're moving forward.  We just bought a washer and dryer, and a lawnmower", and then the closing comes and buyer isn't there.  We'd have to presume that the deal was off.  POWDR did the same thing here--telling Talisker in 2010 or early 2011 that they were going to do some lift work and then not sending the letter saying that they were going ahead.  

As to lifts and infrastructure it would depend on the lease contract.  Then state law. 

POWDR was not the first tenant to run PCMR.  After the mining company wanted to get out of it, they found a guy named Edgar Stern.  Sound familiar?  He ran PCMR in the 1970's, deemed it not ideal, and went on to buy some land on the other side of town and build this somewhat successful area called Deer Valley.  Then came Nick Bandami.  Then PCMR.  Cumming readily admits that he had no idea about the ski business and learned from Bandami.  

And that leads me to my thoughts on POWDR: amateur hour.  Someone with a lot of money and time and no real street smarts.  I cringed with their Killington stuff, but this is just shear stupidity.  It really reflects badly on POWDR and how the industry perceives it.  Perhaps Talisker is deemed as evil, but everyone knows that it is a shrewd company.  

This article confirms it.  Cummings does not get that they could not resolve things and they went to court and lost.  There is no more settlement.  It is over.  He probably won't get it until the Summit County Sherriff shows up with the signed order booting them.  Talisker/Vail will just wait them out--this stuff about running a Woodward Base Camp with terrain skiing on the lower mountain is not a winning proposition.  They will eventually run out of money, go bankrupt, and then Talisker/Vail will be there at the auction.  

Snowbird, last week, really distanced themselves from POWDR by going as far as saying that POWDR will be a separate going entity.  But Daddy Cumming is old and they've made it clear that anyone with that surname is going to be involved.  So I am really worried about what kind of shit show is coming.  

Maybe I'm harsh, but I've watched from my perspective and it just became clearer and clearer that PCMR was in a bad situation.


----------



## steamboat1 (May 22, 2014)




----------



## deadheadskier (May 22, 2014)

So what do people think?  Does Cummings have the financial resources to survive this or will such a massive screw up implode Powdr all together and they have to divest Killington,  Mount Bachelor and their other resort holdings?

Could this also potentially change Cummings recent financial commitments with Snowbird?


----------



## VTKilarney (May 22, 2014)

I haven't been following this closely, so I may be missing something, but how can Vail run the resort with no parking, base lodge, water rights, etc.?


----------



## jimmywilson69 (May 22, 2014)

an easily installed connector lift(s) from the Canyons. 

Powdr is screwed.  They deserve it though, for getting to renew a lease so sweet...


----------



## drjeff (May 22, 2014)

deadheadskier said:


> So what do people think?  Does Cummings have the financial resources to survive this or will such a massive screw up implode Powdr all together and they have to divest Killington,  Mount Bachelor and their other resort holdings?
> 
> Could this also potentially change Cummings recent financial commitments with Snowbird?




Since depending on the closing stock prices on any given day and who's number's you believe, the Cumming's family has assets in the 10+ figure range, I think that they easily have the financial resources to weather this colossal screw up.  If the family chooses to devote a decent sized amount of their family wealth towards the overall situation is a completely different question and one that likely won't be known until the proverbial dust settles and they reassess their desire and commitment to have the ski industry be a part of their families business portfolio

Wouldn't surprise me in the least in their are more than a few empty bottles of the Cumming's favorite beverages around their homesteads this AM and the need for some serious quantities of advil for their likely hangovers after needing to have a few stuff drinks after that decision came down yesterday afternoon


----------



## thetrailboss (May 22, 2014)

jimmywilson69 said:


> an easily installed connector lift(s) from the Canyons.
> 
> Powdr is screwed.  They deserve it though, for getting to renew a lease so sweet...



Exactly.


----------



## thetrailboss (May 22, 2014)

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57972850-78/pcmr-talisker-vail-park.html.csp


----------



## wa-loaf (May 22, 2014)

Sounds like they could exact some pretty high rents from Vail/Talisker for access to the lower slopes and access to Park City. Seems like the only viable option for them going forward short of selling the land as well


----------



## 4aprice (May 22, 2014)

Messy, but what does this mean?  Does (what now is PCMR) become part of the Epic Pass family?  Will having 2 resorts on that pass change the landscape of Utah ski tickets?  I'm not a huge fan of the resorts in that valley (DV probably my fav) and prefer the front 4, but saving $ with a pass purchase and side trip to CO might make the 45 min trip from the condo worth it.  Long way to go I know but the mind is always scheming.

Alex

Lake Hopatcong, NJ


----------



## abc (May 22, 2014)

I was just reading through the entire thread to see the history and came upon this one posted back 2 years ago:



thetrailboss said:


> Yeah but Alta, Snowbird, and Brighton are not, and *will not be*, for sale.


Trailboss, you got that one quite wrong. Though I won't blame you without the 20/20 hindsight I now have. 

I realize I must be getting old. A lot of things I have been taking for granted can't be any more. Who would have thought of the eventuality of Dick Bass aging out of the picture and Snowbird sold to the very entity you hope NOT to?

I didn't count on both my doctor and dentist retiring before I do either


----------



## thetrailboss (May 22, 2014)

abc said:


> I was just reading through the entire thread to see the history and came upon this one posted back 2 years ago:
> 
> 
> Trailboss, you got that one quite wrong. Though I won't blame you without the 20/20 hindsight I now have.
> ...



Quite wrong?  No I would not say that.  There were no indications that Snowbird was for sale and, in fact, it wasn't really.  At that time folks at Snowbird did tell me that Dick was getting old and that the family did not want the resort.  Folks in the know told me that he had set up a trust to run the resort which made me scratch my head.  The word about Cumming is only in the last few weeks.  And it was Cumming, not POWDR, that bought the place.  POWDR has nothing to do with Snowbird.  Dick picked up the phone and called Cumming to step in because Cumming was an original investor in The Inn.   

As to observations regarding the other resorts over the last two years I'd say that Brighton and Alta are not rumored to be vulnerable.  Brighton is owned by Boyne but run by the Doyle Family who has done so for many years.  Alta is owned by the descendants of SJ Quinney and Laughlin.  They are quite involved.  

I don't pass judgment as to Solitude because it is locally owned and operated but has been the receiving end of the Ski Link.  I do wonder if Talisker has made offers to buy it.  This would not surprise me if it does flip.


----------



## abc (May 22, 2014)

thetrailboss said:


> The word about Cumming is only in the last few weeks.  And it was Cumming, not POWDR, that bought the place.  POWDR has nothing to do with Snowbird.  Dick picked up the phone and called Cumming to step in because Cumming was an original investor in The Inn.


It doesn't matter that Cumming isn't POWDR.

For what it's worth, it could be YOU who "step in" after Bass. Whoever that was could change their mind and yet another new entity could "step in". After a few such transfer, it could easily be wrangled into Vail Resort! And it wouldn't take terribly long if Dick Bass steps OFF of it. 

If I were Vail, I would go after ANY of the resort in that area whenever there's potential for them being available. Eventually, one or two of them might materialize. 

That is, if the Vail operating model continues to work out profitably.


----------



## thetrailboss (May 22, 2014)

abc said:


> It doesn't matter that Cumming isn't POWDR.



Snowbird seems to think it matters:  http://www.snowbird.com/partnership/


----------



## Nick (May 22, 2014)

So I realize I reposted this in it's own thread. I just felt the news deserved it's own thread. Thoughts? The original thread title wouldn't let someone reading the forum really have any clue with what happened sincethis all first went down, no?


----------



## Nick (May 22, 2014)

TB: Thanks for clarifying more for me. I haven't read about this daily and only know it from skimming articles. The title I pulled direct from the Denver Post article, I believe. Anyway, your insight is as always incredibly detailed, and helps me really get what is going on!


----------



## abc (May 22, 2014)

thetrailboss said:


> Snowbird seems to think it matters:  http://www.snowbird.com/partnership/


I don't see the same as you from reading that same article. 

It merely stating a fact that Cumming the person/family isn't the same as one of the company they own. That is legally correct. But I didn't read anything as to whether the distinction "matters" or not.


----------



## thetrailboss (May 22, 2014)

abc said:


> I don't see the same as you from reading that same article.
> 
> It merely stating a fact that Cumming the person/family isn't the same as one of the company they own. That is legally correct. But I didn't read anything as to whether the distinction "matters" or not.



It matters because Snowbird is distancing themselves from POWDR and the reason for it is because of the negative publicity.  I think it's pretty clear:



> The partnership is between the Bass and Cumming Families and does not involve Powdr Corp.



Nobody in the ski industry wants anything to do with POWDR; none of the resorts here want to talk about the dispute really.  At a recent Ski Utah press event they placed the managers from PCMR and Canyons as far apart on the press table as possible.  

POWDR involves Daddy Cumming's Money given to son FWIW.


----------



## thetrailboss (May 22, 2014)

Nick said:


> So I realize I reposted this in it's own thread. I just felt the news deserved it's own thread. Thoughts? The original thread title wouldn't let someone reading the forum really have any clue with what happened sincethis all first went down, no?



I can change the title


----------



## thetrailboss (May 22, 2014)

4aprice said:


> Messy, but what does this mean?  Does (what now is PCMR) become part of the Epic Pass family?  Will having 2 resorts on that pass change the landscape of Utah ski tickets?  I'm not a huge fan of the resorts in that valley (DV probably my fav) and prefer the front 4, but saving $ with a pass purchase and side trip to CO might make the 45 min trip from the condo worth it.  Long way to go I know but the mind is always scheming.
> 
> Alex
> 
> Lake Hopatcong, NJ



For the immediate future, nothing really.  They will appeal; the order will be stayed.  As to the other questions we can only wait and see.


----------



## Highway Star (May 27, 2014)

abc said:


> I don't see the same as you from reading that same article.
> 
> It merely stating a fact that Cumming the person/family isn't the same as one of the company they own. That is legally correct. But I didn't read anything as to whether the distinction "matters" or not.



You are correct, but thetrailboss knows everything so it is pointless to argue.  

Fact is, Snowbird is screwed.


----------



## ScottySkis (May 27, 2014)

Higj way Star can perdict the future. Should i put 1000$ dollars in Rangers winning tonight?


----------



## thetrailboss (May 27, 2014)

Highway Star said:


> You are correct, but thetrailboss knows everything so it is pointless to argue.
> 
> Fact is, Snowbird is screwed.



I see your mother let you back on the internet....

And you seem to know it all, as demonstrated by this statement.


----------



## steamboat1 (May 30, 2014)

http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoo...ls-Takeover-of-Park-City-Mean-for-Skiers.html


----------



## mbedle (May 30, 2014)

Any guess on how much Powdr will sell the base facility, lower lifts, water rights and copyrighted name for? A couple of years from now, I would say they will be in the driver seat on getting above market value for them. On the downside of everything is its guaranteed that Powdr will not be investing any money in the resort during the appeal process.


----------



## mister moose (May 30, 2014)

mbedle said:


> Any guess on how much Powdr will sell the base facility, lower lifts, water rights and copyrighted name for? A couple of years from now, I would say *they will be in the driver seat* on getting above market value for them. On the downside of everything is its guaranteed that Powdr will not be investing any money in the resort during the appeal process.



Why would they be in the driver's seat?  They have an asset that has highest and best use value to only one buyer.  One buyer is not the way to get above market value in most cases.  

I've been watching a similar situation where an owner owns a small lot right in the middle of a growing business.  Flanked on both sides.  The business would buy it for the value of the lot, but not more than other houses nearby. The business would love to have contiguous property.  The lot owner wants a much higher value based on what commercial activity could be built there, however his lot alone isn't big enough for much of a business. 
*
This has been going on for twenty years. 
* 
The lot owner is somewhat screwed because it is bordered by commercial activity, low on bucolic factor.  Will he ever sell at a lower price?  Will the business ever pay a higher price? Who knows.  When personalities and egos get involved, anything is possible if neither is getting squeezed.


----------



## steamboat1 (May 30, 2014)

Whatever they may get for the base area etc. if they do sell is chump change compared to the amount of revenue they would have received if they had just renewed their sweetheart lease.


----------



## mbedle (May 30, 2014)

The example you gave isn't the same as this situation. The surrounding commercial enterprises did not need the small lot to run their businesses.  Ignoring the fact that Vail says they can run PCMR without the base facilities (which they could - albeit very badly), Powdr has tangible real estate and water rights that Vail absolutely needs to run PCMR and provide visitors a connection to Park City. People are not going to vacation in Park City, travel out of town to the Canyons, board multiple lifts to gain access to most of PCMR terrain, than board more lifts to travel back to the Canyons base to head back down to Park City. If this was the only resort that Powdr owned, you would be right, they would have to sell or just go under. However, they own others and financially could weather a long time before selling/leasing to Vail. Fencing off the base, paying taxes and maintaining the infrastructure is a minimal cost without paying staff, expenses and utilities. I also think I've read that Vail (believe it or not) did already offer to pay above market value for the base facilities. Remember too that Vail overpaid for the Canyons resort/lease. I would guess and its also been said that they did that knowing that they would ultimately take over the PCMR.


----------



## jaytrem (May 30, 2014)

mbedle said:


> Fencing off the base, paying taxes and maintaining the infrastructure is a minimal cost without paying staff, expenses and utilities.



Are there a bunch of condos, townhouses, etc on the PCMR property?  If so, I doubt the owners would go for that.  It also looks like Vail would potentially be able to access the resort from the Town Lift (3rd property owner).


----------



## MEtoVTSkier (May 30, 2014)

jaytrem said:


> Are there a bunch of condos, townhouses, etc on the PCMR property?  If so, I doubt the owners would go for that.  It also looks like Vail would potentially be able to access the resort from the Town Lift (3rd property owner).



I would would have to guess NOT if that "Town Lift" goes over even an inch of PCMR base property...


----------



## jaytrem (May 30, 2014)

MEtoVTSkier said:


> I would would have to guess NOT if that "Town Lift" goes over even an inch of PCMR base property...



From the looks of the property map that was in one of the articles it doesn't look like it goes over PCMR property at all.  It's not very zoomed in, so can't tell for sure.  If I was the property owner at the base I be in bed with Vail in a second.  Gotta cash in while you can.


----------



## mbedle (May 30, 2014)

Good point jaytrem, guess I was just thinking of the ski resort operations buildings and lift terminals. Are you sure they do not own the town lift? I understand they don't own the plaza parcel, but ownership of the lift I'm pretty sure they do.  If any of the towers are on their property, the lift can't operate. Actual, if it just crosses over any of their property, it can't operate.


----------



## Highway Star (May 30, 2014)

PCMR could go into the business of being a premium access point for the canyons, I wonder how that would work out....?


----------



## jaytrem (May 30, 2014)

mbedle said:


> Good point jaytrem, guess I was just thinking of the ski resort operations buildings and lift terminals. Are you sure they do not own the town lift? I understand they don't own the plaza parcel, but ownership of the lift I'm pretty sure they do. If any of the towers are on their property, the lift can't operate. Actual, if it just crosses over any of their property, it can't operate.



I assume PCMR owns the actual lift, for now.  Of course the lawyers will battle it out over what is a fixed asset, since they're supposed to leave all fixed assets behind.  However, I think that was one of the lifts they basically said they wouldn't bother removing even if they could.  It might also be cemented in rather than bolted like the newer lifts.  That was part of their claim that the lifts aren't a fixed asset.  At any rate if that was one of Vail's few access points I'm sure they would upgrade it immediately.  Wouldn't be surprised if they threw a Gondola in there.  I think the current plans called for a short Cabriolet and then a HSQ to serve the upper (more lap-able) part.


----------



## drjeff (May 30, 2014)

Part of me wonders as this train wreck for Powdr drags on if at some point the good past relationship on a ski area/land developer perspective that Talisker has with Deer Valley comes into play?? Ad in the potential Canyon-link (or whatever they want to call it today) between the Canyons and Solitude and you potentially could see multiple access points, albeit not as convenient as the current PCMR base area, to the terrain that Powdr/PCMR lost out on it the ruling.

Heck, Gondola wise from a Park City downtown to Deer Valley standpoint, things are apparently quite close to making that happen. 

Add in the Powdr/PCMR base situation to the mix and potentially I could see some negotiations between Talisker/Vail and Deer Valley to remove the no snowboard policy at DV and create a new access route around the existing PCMR base, especially as DV apparently soon embarks on another expansion and real estate development project in the area roughly South and West of Mayflower Bowl and Jordanelle/Deercrest.

There's LOTS of potential $$ to be made and you've got a decent number of ski area and ski area real estate developers with decent sized pockets in the mix for some prime real estate, so who really knows how this will all play out and if anything is really off the table?


----------



## thetrailboss (May 30, 2014)

I'm pretty sure that DV owns their land. And all but certain that snowboarders won't be there anytime soon.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## jaytrem (May 30, 2014)

thetrailboss said:


> I'm pretty sure that DV owns their land. And all but certain that snowboarders won't be there anytime soon.



How sure are you about that?  I'm not positive, but I seem to recall reading many times that Talisker owns a lot of the Deer Valley land.  They do seem to be the ones developing a lot of the Empire and surrounding area....

http://talisker.com/index.html


----------



## drjeff (May 30, 2014)

jaytrem said:


> How sure are you about that?  I'm not positive, but I seem to recall reading many times that Talisker owns a lot of the Deer Valley land.  They do seem to be the ones developing a lot of the Empire and surrounding area....
> 
> http://talisker.com/index.html



My thoughts exactly! Talisker has been the primary developer from basically Snow Park North towards Empire Canyon. Empire Canyon is separated from parts of the McConkey area of PCMR by not much more than a rope and about a gallon of diesel fuel in a cat. If Powdr continues to be in denial of how much they screwed up, I don't think its that far fetched to see Talisker to work its relationship with DV to make things happen. Plus let's be honest, of the 3 non snowboarding resorts left in the US, DV has to be the most likely to allow snowboarding next, since there's a bunch of folks with BIG $$ who either board or who have kids/grandkids who board that would likely want to buy a 7 to 8 figure house at DV's new or existing residential developments than they can seriously turn a shoulder against for that much longer and still continue to expand to new developable areas!


----------



## thetrailboss (May 31, 2014)

jaytrem said:


> How sure are you about that?  I'm not positive, but I seem to recall reading many times that Talisker owns a lot of the Deer Valley land.  They do seem to be the ones developing a lot of the Empire and surrounding area....
> 
> http://talisker.com/index.html



You're assuming that DV does the real estate development.  They do some, but you're right that Talisker is also developing land at DV.  My point was that I believe that DV owns the ski terrain.


----------



## thetrailboss (May 31, 2014)

drjeff said:


> My thoughts exactly! Talisker has been the primary developer from basically Snow Park North towards Empire Canyon. Empire Canyon is separated from parts of the McConkey area of PCMR by not much more than a rope and about a gallon of diesel fuel in a cat. If Powdr continues to be in denial of how much they screwed up, I don't think its that far fetched to see Talisker to work its relationship with DV to make things happen. Plus let's be honest, of the 3 non snowboarding resorts left in the US, DV has to be the most likely to allow snowboarding next, since there's a bunch of folks with BIG $$ who either board or who have kids/grandkids who board that would likely want to buy a 7 to 8 figure house at DV's new or existing residential developments than they can seriously turn a shoulder against for that much longer and still continue to expand to new developable areas!



DV is nowhere close to allowing snowboarders.  The VAST majority of their clientele don't want snowboarders.  I don't know who you are referring to...except maybe the owner of Skullcandy...but there are relatively few snowboarders who are as you described.  Plus Edgar Stern, who owned a majority of the company, apparently institutionalized the ban such that if the other stakeholders want snowboards they will have to buy his family out.


----------



## Hawkshot99 (May 31, 2014)

thetrailboss said:


> You're assuming that DV does the real estate development.  They do some, but you're right that Talisker is also developing land at DV.  My point was that I believe that DV owns the ski terrain.



I have never read anything, that says anything other than that.


----------



## jaytrem (May 31, 2014)

After a bit of internet searching I can see at one point (around 2000) Deer Valley was leasing some land for skiing from United Park City Mines...

http://google.brand.edgar-online.co...D=255121-5035-26760&SessionID=pTCFFHHAD_c1Zn2

Not sure if that land went to Talisker when they sold.  I've been under the impression that Deer Valley owned the land the early part of the ski area was built on.  But when they expanded into Empire they leased.  Not sure who owns it now.  Gun to my head I'm not sure who I would guess.


----------



## Highway Star (Jun 2, 2014)

Vail and Talisker are the biggest, smartest operators in the business.  Clearly we can assume they have multiple angles on how they would get DV involved in a PC multi-resort destination in the next few years.  Its all part of the plan.  I'll bet you'll see all three resorts connected under one ticket within the next five years, with or without the current PCMR base area.....


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 2, 2014)

Highway Star said:


> Vail and Talisker are the biggest, smartest operators in the business.  Clearly we can assume they have multiple angles on how they would get DV involved in a PC multi-resort destination in the next few years.  Its all part of the plan.  I'll bet you'll see all three resorts connected under one ticket within the next five years, with or without the current PCMR base area.....



http://onewasatch.com/


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Jun 3, 2014)

Highway Star said:


> Vail and Talisker are the biggest, smartest operators in the business.  Clearly we can assume they have multiple angles on how they would get DV involved in a PC multi-resort destination in the next few years.  Its all part of the plan.  I'll bet you'll see all three resorts connected under one ticket within the next five years, with or without the current PCMR base area.....


Vail certainly fits that description.

Talisker?  Not so much.


----------



## mbedle (Jun 12, 2014)

http://www.parkrecord.com/City/ci_25914967/Powdr-CEO-talks-of-towns-lawsuititis

Interesting article. He seems to be more willing to accept how bad this is looking for PCMR. But holding strong to if they lose, PCMR will no longer operate.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 12, 2014)

I don't feel sorry for them...it comes across, yet again, as a sort of pity piece.  They are supposed to be sophisticated business people and they really blew it.  

And this was interesting:



> the Cumming family's recent purchase of a majority interest in Snowbird Ski and Summer Resort. The deal did not involve Powdr Corp. Cumming said the Snowbird deal is separated from the dispute with Talisker Land Holdings, LLC. He said his family has longtime ties to Snowbird. The deal involved the Cumming family and the family of Snowbird's co-founder, Dick Bass.
> A Wall Street analyst who covers the publicly traded Vail Resorts recently issued a report indicating the Snowbird deal is a hedge by the Cumming family based on the lawsuit against Talisker Land Holdings, LLC. Cumming disagreed with the analyst assessment.
> 
> "We would have bought Snowbird regardless of what is happening. We would have invested with the Bass family regardless of what's happening over here. It's unfortunate timing. Does it hedge us? I don't know. Have them call me and explain to me how we hedged, and we'll see if I agree," Cumming said.
> ...


----------



## mbedle (Jun 12, 2014)

I agree, don't feel sorry for them either. Unfortunately, you make a business mistake like that, you are going to have to pay the piper one why or another. Who I do feel sorry for is the town and its residences and business owners. They are the ones that might ultimately suffer from this screw up. I guess in response to people thinking that they won't closed the doors on the resort (its too big), its not as if PCMR will be walking away from a huge piece of prime mountain ski terrain and shutting down. They only own some prime real estate on very little land. 



thetrailboss said:


> I don't feel sorry for them...it comes across, yet again, as a sort of pity piece.  They are supposed to be sophisticated business people and they really blew it.
> 
> And this was interesting:


----------



## drjeff (Jun 12, 2014)

The Cumming family is just going through the 5 phases of loss and grief here....

#1 - denial (already through that one)

#2 - Anger (either already through that or just about through it)

#3 - Bargaining (got some of that going on)

#4 - Depression (forthcoming I'd presume)

#5 - Acceptance (makes an offer to Vail to complete the cycle at some point)


----------



## AdironRider (Jun 12, 2014)

So are you all saying they should just hand over their lifts and the keys and be done with it? 

They made a mistake, but if I were them, I'm not just handing over millions in capital equipment to Vail either. Vail can pay for it if they like, but otherwise, hardball gets hardball returned.


----------



## VTKilarney (Jun 12, 2014)

AdironRider said:


> Vail can pay for it if they like, but otherwise, hardball gets hardball returned.



Vail may have played hardball, but at the end of the day their position was proven to be correct.  One could more easily say that PCMR caused countless dollars to be wasted rather than accepting that their position was indefensible.


----------



## marcski (Jun 12, 2014)

The guy is just out of touch and seems to not be a great businessman.

"Cumming said it would have been difficult for Powdr Corp. to justify a  "major acquisition" like the Snowbird deal amid the uncertainty with  PCMR."

Why not?  When you're about to lose (or actually, already lost) one of your biggest assets and revenue generators, what better time would there be to invest in a new one?


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 12, 2014)

AdironRider said:


> So are you all saying they should just hand over their lifts and the keys and be done with it?
> 
> They made a mistake, but if I were them, I'm not just handing over millions in capital equipment to Vail either. Vail can pay for it if they like, but otherwise, hardball gets hardball returned.



FWIW Talisker started the suit and really is the party in interest.  Vail just stepped in and took over the suit.

And as what to do, I can't tell them.  I imagine that they are considering an appeal and/or working on an exit strategy.  This makes me think that they are just still in denial.


----------



## steamboat1 (Jun 13, 2014)

http://www.parkrecord.com/park_city...nd-clock-plans-dismantle-lifts-infrastructure


----------



## Edd (Jun 14, 2014)

steamboat1 said:


> http://www.parkrecord.com/park_city...nd-clock-plans-dismantle-lifts-infrastructure



So they'd take their lifts if they get evicted, which I kind of understand.  Why would they modify the routes of a few of them?  The article doesn't explain much.


----------



## bigbob (Jun 14, 2014)

Since some of the lift line goes above the property POWDR owns, they will shorten the lift so they can open the bottom section and open the lower terrain which they own.


----------



## Edd (Jun 14, 2014)

Ah, I didn't realize it would be a partial eviction.


----------



## drjeff (Jun 14, 2014)

drjeff said:


> The Cumming family is just going through the 5 phases of loss and grief here....
> 
> #1 - denial (already through that one)
> 
> ...



Definitely moving into phase 3 now with that last press release! 

A full buy out offer by the start of the ski season is my guess.....


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 14, 2014)

It's posturing to the judge who is considering an eviction order and to Talisker/Vail. They don't want to be evicted and instead want as much time to negotiate an exit strategy. It also shows how much they screwed themselves. Killington might be getting some six packs. 


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 14, 2014)

And it is a full eviction. Only part of PCMR is leased. Unfortunately for PCMR it's most of the goods. 


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## canobie#1 (Jun 14, 2014)

So does this mean no more park city?


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 15, 2014)

canobie#1 said:


> So does this mean no more park city?



Stay tuned.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## Hawkshot99 (Jun 15, 2014)

As far as removing the lifts because the are not permant....
The towers are bolted to massive concrete blocks. The bolts are concreted into that block. I would say the bolts are a very important part of the lift as without them the tower falls over.
Look at it this way. There is a building. It has a permant foundation so it stays. Can they go and remove any of the sliding windows that are not "permantly" fixed to the building?


----------



## Highway Star (Jun 16, 2014)

Tin Woodsman said:


> Vail certainly fits that description.
> 
> Talisker?  Not so much.



Talisker doesn't really operate much.  I mean as a real estate investor.


----------



## Highway Star (Jun 16, 2014)

It's all bluster.  They can't remove the lifts.  Period.  They are just trying to put themselves in a better negotiating position by convincing everyone they are completely insane, AKA, Vail is going to have to offer them (well) over market value or they will simply sit on the property. 

What's the endgame?  Cumming has already demonstrated at Killington that he has an extremely high tolerance for public outrage.  His father is generally regarded as ruthless.  He must know by now that he has very little local and regional public support.  Does he have any local or state government support?  Local business support?  How much pressure can be brought by these groups?  

I'm not clear on how long the appeals process can be dragged out, does anyone know?  POWDR will continue to profit from running PCMR as long as they do.  While they may be paying legal fees, they are not spending on capital improvements.  Have to figure they can go on for quite a while making a solid profit, which is being gradually eroded by negative publicity and facilities/infrastructure deterioration, similar to the last few years of ASC at Killington.

Here is Vail Resort's most recent 10-Q, and the sections on the Canyons and PCMR:



> 5. Acquisitions
> Canyons
> In May 2013, VR CPC and Talisker entered into the Transaction Agreement, the Lease and ancillary transaction documents, pursuant to which the Company assumed the resort operations of Canyons mountain resort in Park City, Utah, which includes the ski area, property management and related amenities. Canyons is a year round mountain resort providing a comprehensive offering of recreational activities, including both snow sports and summer activities. The Lease between VR CPC and Talisker has an initial term of 50 years with six 50-year renewal options . The Lease provides for $25 million in annual fixed payments, which increase each year by an inflation linked index of the consumer price index ("CPI") less 1%, with a floor of 2% per annum . In addition, the Lease includes participating contingent payments to Talisker of 42% of the amount by which EBITDA for the resort operations, as calculated under the Lease, exceeds approximately $35 million, with such threshold amount increased by an inflation linked index and a 10% adjustment for any capital improvements or investments made under the Lease by the Company (the "Contingent Consideration") . The Parent Company has guaranteed the payments under the Lease.
> The following summarizes the preliminary estimated fair values of the identifiable assets acquired and liabilities assumed at the date the transaction was effective (in thousands).
> ...





> In May 2013, we entered into a long-term lease with Talisker Corporation ("Talisker") pursuant to which we assumed resort operations of Canyons which includes the ski area and related amenities. In addition to the lease, we entered into ancillary transaction documents setting forth our rights related to, among other things, the litigation between the current operator of Park City Mountain Resort (“PCMR”) and Talisker concerning the validity of a lease of the Talisker-owned land under the ski terrain of PCMR. In May 2014, Talisker received a favorable ruling stating that the lease between the current operator of PCMR and Talisker has expired, which allows for the ski terrain of PCMR (excluding the base area not owned by Talisker) to become subject to our lease with Talisker and requires no additional consideration from us but the earnings derived from that ski terrain would accrue to our benefit. This ruling is subject to appeal, and we cannot predict the ultimate outcome of the appeal process. However, if Talisker does not ultimately prevail in the litigation, we will be entitled to receive from Talisker the rent payments that Talisker receives from the current operator until such time as the current resort operator’s lease has ended and the ski terrain under PCMR is then included in the lease. We cannot predict whether we will realize all of the synergies expected from our operation of Canyons nor can we predict all of the resources required to integrate its operations and the ultimate impact Canyons will have on our future results of operations. *Furthermore, if Talisker does not ultimately prevail in the litigation associated with the land under the ski terrain of PCMR, it could result in a material impairment charge attributable to goodwill, certain indefinite-lived intangibles assets and/or other assets recorded in conjunction with this transaction, negatively impacting our results of operations and stockholders’ equity.* Additionally, the estimated fair values of assets acquired and liabilities assumed in the Canyons transaction are preliminary and are based on the information that was available as of the transaction date to estimate the fair value of assets acquired and liabilities assumed. We believe that information provides a reasonable basis for estimating the fair values of assets acquired and liabilities assumed, but we are obtaining additional information necessary to finalize those fair values. Therefore, the preliminary measurements of fair value reflected within the Consolidated Condensed Balance Sheets as of April 30, 2014 are subject to change.





> PCMR Litigation
> On May 29, 2013, in connection with our lease for Canyons Resort, we also assumed control over Talisker's ongoing litigation with the current Park City Mountain Resort ("PCMR") operator related to the validity of one or more leases of the Talisker owned land under the majority of the ski terrain of PCMR (the "PCMR litigation"). If the PCMR litigation ultimately concludes with a finding that the leases are not valid, the land under the ski terrain of PCMR previously subject to those leases can become subject to our existing lease for Canyons Resort. If the PCMR litigation ultimately concludes with a finding that the leases are valid, we will be entitled to receive from the landlord the rent payments it receives from the current PCMR operator until such time as the current PCMR operator's lease has ended and the ski terrain under PCMR is then included in our lease.
> The PCMR litigation was instituted on March 9, 2012, in the Third Judicial District Court in Summit County, Utah by Greater Park City Company and Greater Properties, Inc. (collectively, "GPCC") against United Park City Mines Company and Talisker Land Holdings, LLC (collectively, "TLH"). GPCC filed the PCMR litigation seeking, among other things, a declaration from the court that they had properly extended the leases or that the leases have not expired based on theories of waiver or equitable estoppel. In the alternative, GPCC seeks damages caused by TLH's alleged failure to disclose to GPCC until December 2011 that the leases had expired.
> On September 18, 2013, the Court granted GPCC's motion to amend to add our subsidiary, VR CPC Holdings, Inc., as a defendant, and to add claims based upon provisions in the leases which prohibit the sale of portions of the land covered by the leases which are improved and grant PCMR a right of first refusal on sales by the landlord of portions of the land covered by the leases which are not improved. PCMR claimed that these provisions may have been triggered by our transaction with Talisker and/or by another transaction in which Talisker was involved with a party named Flera.
> ...



I find it interesting that they count $160M for the PCMR lands plus "goodwill" in the assets.  ASC sold the canyons for $100M in 2007.  Figure the real market value is around $120-140M.  This would indicate an operating profit around $15M - $20M per year.  They are paying Talisker $25M per year straight up - even more than it would cost them to own it outright and pay a mortgage.  So figure currently, Vail is losing money on the Canyons.  Wonder how they feel about that and how long they are willing to let it go on for.  Canyons does about 400k-500k skier visits vs. PCMR 800k-1M skier visits.  Canyons may not get that much business, but you have to figure they own a bunch of the lodging and restauraunt market for their guests, driving up their overall yields, probably around $125-150 per visit or more?   
If Cumming holds out and doesn't sell, total skier visits to Park City town take a huge nose dive overall:







Canyons has the ultra cheap epic pass, though I'm sure both Deer Valley and Canyons offer cheap locals/merchant passes.  Canyons will pick up a healthy (a majority?) chunk of PCMR's local/regional/homeowner business, the rest will go elsewhere.  Deer Valley and the Canyons will split the destination resort business, for people who still come because of the town.  People who don't care about the town will go elsewhere.  

Vail/Canyons probably has to pick up around 200k-300k visits, a 50% increase, to start breaking even on their $25M lease current deal.  Even with PCMR upper terrain added to the Canyons.  That's probably all they'll get if Cummings refuses to sell the PCMR base area and stops operating as a major resort.  

PCMR/Canyons combined current visits is 1.3M-1.4M, profits probably around $50-60M per year.  Vail clearly wants the PCMR base for this reason.

If PCMR effectively shuts down for a year or more, figure that 500k-800k skier visits take a hike, and don't come back quickly.  Vail is counting on those visits to make this venture profitable.  Skiers leave = no profits.

Vail has a good amount to gain by seeing this close out quickly.  If they are able to settle this in the next year, they will see $30M+ profits going forward.  If not, they continue to lose money or barely break even........if they eventually buy out the PCMR base after a shutdown, they will spend a decade rebuilding visits until it becomes profitable again.

What is the PCMR base worth?  I'm going to guess PCMR intact is worth somewhere around $300-350M because it's a cash cow to the tune of $35-50M per year.  Vail valued the upper mountain at ~$60M, so I'd be extremely curious what they are offering for the base area.  Are they willing to pay the equivalent value based on an intact ski area?  I doubt Vail is.  I'm sure Cumming will demand it, or more.  At the end of it all, Vail will be making a profit, but will have overpaid to get there.

It's also worth nothing that Ian Cumming's purchase of Snowbird is an excellent hedge.  Snowbird is the biggest name in Utah after Park City, they are best positioned to pick up a large number of destination resort visits from a closure of PCMR, given the upgrades and expansions they have done in the past few years. 

Sorry for the long post.  

http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_25430411/vail-resorts-offers-buy-park-city-mountain-resort



> Top-dollar Canyons lease reflects Vail's faith in Park City litigation
> By Jason Blevins
> The Denver Post
> Posted:   03/27/2014 06:53:10 AM MDT6 Comments | Updated:   3 months ago
> ...


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 16, 2014)

Interesting stuff there, HS.  Lots of food for thought.  Yes, Canyons struggles to get more than 400-500k in skier visits.  I did not realize that PCMR did that much in terms of skier days.  Considering all the events that they do and their name recognition it is not a surprise.  

As to appeals, it depends.  They have 30 days from the decision to file with the intermediate appellate court.  I think that depending on what is appealed that this appeal stage will take 6-12 months.  Then, assuming that they appeal to the Supreme Court, you're looking at probably the same again.  So maybe a year or two (?)  

I agree that they are posturing.   33 weeks to clear out?  

I hiked to the top of McConky's on Saturday.  As to their "fixture" argument, boy I don't know.  There is a lot of permanent structures on the land that they have built including a lot of lifts.  

The scariest part was I saw a transit bus on the side of the road that was advertising POWDR's "Woodward Camp" for Park City..."Coming in Summer 2015".  uke:


----------



## mbedle (Jun 17, 2014)

Does anybody else find it odd the PCMR master plan website under the "Plan" discusses only the construction of Camp Woodward. I like the statement "In the 12 years since our amended master plan was approved by the City Council, it has gone unchanged. During that time, the ski & snowboard industry has changed dramatically....." If they break ground on this during the summary, that would seem to cement their position that they are not going anywhere. It kind of fits in with the comments made that they plan on relocating the lower lifts, assumed to bring the top terminals within their property boundaries. What if they ultimately act as a feeder base for vail operated upper terrain and collect a small fee of the vail lift access, while retaining base operations and income from lodging, food and drink... Just a thought.


----------



## DoublePlanker (Jun 17, 2014)

It seems stupid to spend another nickel on capital improvements until this mess is sorted out.  Why would they spend $$$ only to have some big settlement with Vail where they could potentially hand over everything?


----------



## mbedle (Jun 17, 2014)

I agree, unless they ultimately want to change the face of PCMR.

http://woodwardparkcity.com/plan/letter.html

After reading this it almost seems like they feel the ski industry is changing enough to support only the lower mountain with parks. Like I said, if Vail wants to operate the upper mountain and PCMR wants to offer access to the upper mountain that deal works for everyone. 



DoublePlanker said:


> It seems stupid to spend another nickel on capital improvements until this mess is sorted out.  Why would they spend $$$ only to have some big settlement with Vail where they could potentially hand over everything?


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 17, 2014)

mbedle said:


> Does anybody else find it odd the PCMR master plan website under the "Plan" discusses only the construction of Camp Woodward. I like the statement "In the 12 years since our amended master plan was approved by the City Council, it has gone unchanged. During that time, the ski & snowboard industry has changed dramatically....." If they break ground on this during the summary, that would seem to cement their position that they are not going anywhere. It kind of fits in with the comments made that they plan on relocating the lower lifts, assumed to bring the top terminals within their property boundaries. What if they ultimately act as a feeder base for vail operated upper terrain and collect a small fee of the vail lift access, while retaining base operations and income from lodging, food and drink... Just a thought.



PCMR stands to lose a lot even with Woodward.  They will not net NEARLY the skier days with that operation.  Look at Whaleback which catered to the same crowd--it went under.  It does not make sense.  It again is I think posturing to try to convince Vail to cave.


----------



## mbedle (Jun 17, 2014)

True, they won't net as many skier days, but they also won't need as much income to stay afloat. Think less electric and fuel use, water consumption, liability insurance, maintenance costs, and employees to operate just the lower lifts, base area and Woodward. I'm guessing that Woodward's are profitable to Powdr, and can operate on relatively a small ski area (Truckee!) or no ski area (PA). the lost of PCMR ski area will be a big dent in overall Powdr profitability, but selling out would be a longterm loss to the company.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 17, 2014)

mbedle said:


> True, they won't net as many skier days, but they also won't need as much income to stay afloat. Think less electric and fuel use, water consumption, liability insurance, maintenance costs, and employees to operate just the lower lifts, base area and Woodward. I'm guessing that Woodward's are profitable to Powdr, and can operate on relatively a small ski area (Truckee!) or no ski area (PA). the lost of PCMR ski area will be a big dent in overall Powdr profitability, but selling out would be a longterm loss to the company.



Maybe, but the base area is currently set up to serve a much larger PCMR.  It has at least two plazas with lots of tenants and several hotels/condos.  Woodward will not satisfy that demand.


----------



## RENO (Jun 17, 2014)

mbedle said:


> True, they won't net as many skier days, but they also won't need as much income to stay afloat. Think less electric and fuel use, water consumption, liability insurance, maintenance costs, and employees to operate just the lower lifts, base area and Woodward. I'm guessing that Woodward's are profitable to Powdr, and can operate on relatively a small ski area (Truckee!) or no ski area (PA). the lost of PCMR ski area will be a big dent in overall Powdr profitability, but selling out would be a longterm loss to the company.


The only choice at the end of this mess is to have 1 owner completely running the entire resort down to the town. Most likely it will be Vail. Can't imagine POWDR coming out the winner in this mess. There is no lower mini woodwards or any of that. The town would kill POWDR if they tried doing this. Soooo many businesses would be impacted and ruined. Just not gonna happen. Also, what businesses in Utah would actually help POWDR build anything down there if that happened? POWDR will get millions for that property and the lifts and John Cumming will still be far richer than any of us could even imagine! :x


----------



## AdironRider (Jun 17, 2014)

thetrailboss said:


> PCMR stands to lose a lot even with Woodward.  They will not net NEARLY the skier days with that operation.  Look at Whaleback which catered to the same crowd--it went under.  It does not make sense.  It again is I think posturing to try to convince Vail to cave.



Considering park rats have been Park Citys bread and butter for two decades now, I dont think the comparison to Whaleback is fair. 

Whaleback had a fruit booter that made Johnny Mosely look extreme running the joint. Park City has Danny Kass and the rest of the Olympic half pipe team as their home base. 

I actually see PCMR doing ok with just parks and lower mtn stuff, obviosuly not what they were, but its not a Whaleback situation. 

And to HS, those lifts are coming out. Theres no way they stay.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 17, 2014)

AdironRider said:


> Considering park rats have been Park Citys bread and butter for two decades now, I dont think the comparison to Whaleback is fair.
> 
> Whaleback had a fruit booter that made Johnny Mosely look extreme running the joint. Park City has Danny Kass and the rest of the Olympic half pipe team as their home base.
> 
> ...



Yeah Whaleback may not be a good comparison in all aspects, but my point was that a freestyle only joint will not be a big draw.  Yes they do get a lot of traffic from freestylers, but not 800k worth of skier days.  A lot of folks I speak with on the lifts go there because it is a destination resort.  No upper mountain = no longer a destination. I'd think if they did 200k visits that they'd be doing awesome with this proposed set up and even then lots of freestylers aren't big spenders.


----------



## marcski (Jun 17, 2014)

AdironRider said:


> Considering park rats have been Park Citys bread and butter for two decades now, I dont think the comparison to Whaleback is fair.
> 
> Whaleback had a fruit booter that made Johnny Mosely look extreme running the joint. Park City has Danny Kass and the rest of the Olympic half pipe team as their home base.
> 
> ...





thetrailboss said:


> Yeah Whaleback may not be a good comparison in all aspects, but my point was that a freestyle only joint will not be a big draw.  Yes they do get a lot of traffic from freestylers, but not 800k worth of skier days.  A lot of folks I speak with on the lifts go there because it is a destination resort.  No upper mountain = no longer a destination. I'd think if they did 200k visits that they'd be doing awesome with this proposed set up and even then lots of freestylers aren't big spenders.



PCMR will be a whole big NOTHING even with the so-called lower mountain park resort.  Park City is all about destination resorts.  While, they might be able to lure some kids  for a day or so, the huge percentage of skier days at PCMR were destination resort vacationers.  They will lose all of those families and all of the big $$ that comes with them.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 17, 2014)

marcski said:


> PCMR will be a whole big NOTHING even with the so-called lower mountain park resort.  Park City is all about destination resorts.  While, they might be able to lure some kids  for a day or so, the huge percentage of skier days at PCMR were destination resort vacationers.  They will lose all of those families and all of the big $$ that comes with them.



Exactly.


----------



## AdironRider (Jun 17, 2014)

thetrailboss said:


> Exactly.



Where do you think all of them are going to go? 

Deer Valley? Either to expensive or not family friendly. 

Canyons? Canyons has been unsuccessful for everyone who's tried, but I dont see everyone automatically heading there either. 

PCMR is as much about the town as it is the mountain. Noone really goes there for the terrain awesomeness, those folks already go to Alta/Bird. 

As with most conversations on this board, everyone assumes skiing is the no 1 priority, when in fact, for a large majority of vacationers, its not the primary factor to the extent it would be for me or you, the addict who posts on a skiing message board during summer.


----------



## marcski (Jun 17, 2014)

E





AdironRider said:


> Where do you think all of them are going to go?
> 
> Deer Valley? Either to expensive or not family friendly.
> 
> ...



Yes. Totally correct. As I said above, the resort vacationer is PCMR's target customer. That constituency is not the park rat crowd...other than, as I said earlier, a few of their kids.  Their parents will shell out ticket window prices at a resort where they can take a run and then have a $25 burger lunch mid mountain in the sun. But, alas, PCMR will no longer be able to accommodate those folks, since they won't have any mid mountain terrain.  So, yes, the Town of Park City will continue to be a destination, but PCMR won't be able to profit from the town's largesse, as it has in the past.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 17, 2014)

AdironRider said:


> Where do you think all of them are going to go?
> 
> Deer Valley? Either to expensive or not family friendly.
> 
> ...



Colorado, Tahoe, etc. Some other "destination" resort area.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## drjeff (Jun 17, 2014)

AdironRider said:


> Where do you think all of them are going to go?
> 
> Deer Valley? Either to expensive or not family friendly.
> 
> ...



Don't forget the facility with lights, snowmaking, existing training programs with both high level Park City teams and the US Ski + Snowboarding team at the Utah Winter Sports Park in this potential equation. They have very good, bordering on elite level training facilities in place now. I'd think if pressed, they could accommodate the void that a loss of PCMR would provide, and I don't think the 4-5 miles between PCMR and the winter sports park in Kimball Junction near I-80 would be much of a hindrance to the athletes


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 17, 2014)

drjeff said:


> Don't forget the facility with lights, snowmaking, existing training programs with both high level Park City teams and the US Ski + Snowboarding team at the Utah Winter Sports Park in this potential equation. They have very good, bordering on elite level training facilities in place now. I'd think if pressed, they could accommodate the void that a loss of PCMR would provide, and I don't think the 4-5 miles between PCMR and the winter sports park in Kimball Junction near I-80 would be much of a hindrance to the athletes



Deer Valley also plays host to freestyle events.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 17, 2014)

AdironRider said:


> Where do you think all of them are going to go?
> 
> Deer Valley? Either to expensive or not family friendly.
> 
> ...



I don't think anyone is doubting that Park City would survive as a lower mountain park specific area given the town's attraction, but it's financial success would be EXTREMELY small in comparison to what it is today.  Essentially, it's probably not even worth the effort for a company like Powdr. 

An appropriate comparison for the east would be Mount Snow.  What if something similar happened to Peaks and they only owned Carinthia and lost Mount Snow proper? Carinthia would barely hang on despite it's reputation as being one of, if not the best park specific terrain in the east.  Families would head to Stratton (kind of the Deer Valley of the East) or Okemo (kind of the Canyons of the east).

It makes ZERO sense for Powdr to hold on to a lower mountain park specific area even with the presence of a classic ski town like Park City at it's base.  Their best bet is to sell what they got for 50 cents on the dollar and learn from this epic business failure.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 18, 2014)

The latest:  http://www.saminfo.com/news/pcmr-urges-judge-postpone-imminent-eviction-decision

And PCMR admits that the closure would not be good for the town:



> Impacts to the local economy could also be severe, PCMR says. If reduced to operating on its owned terrain, visits could shrink by more than 75 percent, and most businesses in Park City would see a drop in visitors—and income—as well. This would "have a catastrophic impact on the local economy," the filing predicts.


----------



## Highway Star (Jun 18, 2014)

AdironRider said:


> And to HS, those lifts are coming out. Theres no way they stay.



So, you and what army is going to remove them in violation of Utah state law and the lease terms?


----------



## wa-loaf (Jun 18, 2014)

thetrailboss said:


> The latest:  http://www.saminfo.com/news/pcmr-urges-judge-postpone-imminent-eviction-decision
> 
> And PCMR admits that the closure would not be good for the town:



Taking hostages now ...


----------



## mbedle (Jun 18, 2014)

I say Woodward Tahoe is coming to Park City. At least they will have a continued source of income. A buy out, in my opinion, would not be a good business decision. Take a step back and look at this from Powdr's business point of view and not just a skier's point of view. A one time buy out from Vail, is just that, one time (closed the books, walk away and take the loss). We (skiers) all want this to end on one side or the other with everything remaining the same (a complete ski resort from the city to the peaks, no matter who owns it). From a sheer business point of view, that may not even be an options. I'm guessing there are a lot of other parties involved that have a financial stake in the resort, included bonding companies, mortgage companies, long term lease agreements with hotel services, real estate ownership issues, HOAs, etc.  

Woodward Park City would at least offer a steady stream of income to Powdr. Remember that Powdr is not just in the ski resort business, they own a TV station, network show and four other Woodward facilities across the US. The Woodward Tahoe is located on a ski area with only a 500 foot vertical. At lease with the smaller PCMR, they be around 1,200 foot vertical. And given the significant reduction in PCMR operating costs, it may not be that bad for their bottom line. The option to work jointly with Vail for access, snowmaking, and utility services is also very viable and would provide additional income and keep local businesses happy (I assure you that PCMR says is top priority, but behind closed doors is pretty close to the bottom of their concerns). Plus, as trailboss said, it would keep the PCMR hotels, base lodges, condos and retail leases occupied.


----------



## mbedle (Jun 18, 2014)

By the way HS - I freaking love Fruit Cake.....


----------



## DoublePlanker (Jun 18, 2014)

This is all just posturing.  If pcmr tries to operate a 1200 ft vertical at the base with no tie in to the upper mountain, I doubt they get much skiing business at all.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 18, 2014)

mbedle said:


> I say Woodward Tahoe is coming to Park City. At least they will have a continued source of income. A buy out, in my opinion, would not be a good business decision. Take a step back and look at this from Powdr's business point of view and not just a skier's point of view. A one time buy out from Vail, is just that, one time (closed the books, walk away and take the loss). We (skiers) all want this to end on one side or the other with everything remaining the same (a complete ski resort from the city to the peaks, no matter who owns it). From a sheer business point of view, that may not even be an options. I'm guessing there are a lot of other parties involved that have a financial stake in the resort, included bonding companies, mortgage companies, long term lease agreements with hotel services, real estate ownership issues, HOAs, etc.
> 
> Woodward Park City would at least offer a steady stream of income to Powdr. Remember that Powdr is not just in the ski resort business, they own a TV station, network show and four other Woodward facilities across the US. The Woodward Tahoe is located on a ski area with only a 500 foot vertical. At lease with the smaller PCMR, they be around 1,200 foot vertical. And given the significant reduction in PCMR operating costs, it may not be that bad for their bottom line. The option to work jointly with Vail for access, snowmaking, and utility services is also very viable and would provide additional income and keep local businesses happy (I assure you that PCMR says is top priority, but behind closed doors is pretty close to the bottom of their concerns). Plus, as trailboss said, it would keep the PCMR hotels, base lodges, condos and retail leases occupied.



I think that a lot of the stakeholders would NOT want a Woodward.  And a lot of those tenants and retailers at the base of the area would not either....especially if 800-1 mill skier days evaporates down to 250k or less.

And I don't think that Vail would do any sort of deal regarding access.  They are, of course, pushing PCMR off.


----------



## mbedle (Jun 18, 2014)

They don't need as much ski business, they just need to turn a profit and that profit is a combination of all activities at the resort, not just skiing. That is why I'm trying to say that looking at it from a skier's point of view is not how Powdr is looking at it. If they only pull in 300K ski visits, that might be enough!


----------



## mbedle (Jun 18, 2014)

But Vail does have to do a deal with PCMR, one way or an other. We are assuming that Vail has any pull over making PCMR sell off it assets at the base. The don't and we are also assuming that the best financial decision for PCMR is to sell it off. What I am trying to point out, is PCMR does not give high priority to the financial status of Park City, its residence nor retail businesses. Their top priority is about making money for the owners (just like every other ski resort). And no one on this forum, including myself, can honestly know what is the best financial choice for PCMR/Powdr.



thetrailboss said:


> I think that a lot of the stakeholders would NOT want a Woodward.  And a lot of those tenants and retailers at the base of the area would not either....especially if 800-1 mill skier days evaporates down to 250k or less.
> 
> And I don't think that Vail would do any sort of deal regarding access.  They are, of course, pushing PCMR off.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 18, 2014)

mbedle said:


> But Vail does have to do a deal with PCMR, one way or an other. We are assuming that Vail has any pull over making PCMR sell off it assets at the base. The don't and we are also assuming that the best financial decision for PCMR is to sell it off. What I am trying to point out, is PCMR does not give high priority to the financial status of Park City, its residence nor retail businesses. Their top priority is about making money for the owners (just like every other ski resort). And no one on this forum, including myself, can honestly know what is the best financial choice for PCMR/Powdr.



I get what you're saying, but PCMR has been playing a different tune with regards to their feelings towards the community.


----------



## AdironRider (Jun 18, 2014)

Highway Star said:


> So, you and what army is going to remove them in violation of Utah state law and the lease terms?
> 
> View attachment 12837



Quit being a dumbass. The three older lifts will stay, but all the new stuff is just bolted down. Thats leaving and you will be getting some nice newer lifts at Killington. You should be psyched.


----------



## AdironRider (Jun 18, 2014)

There is nowhere on the East Coast that compares to the park scene at PCMR. Maybe Breck competes and thats it. 

No doubt its not going to be the same, and certainly not 1 millions skier visits, but they should do fine. 

Park City is a great town. Great towns can support businesses. Look at Jackson, Telluride, Aspen. All of these places would still exist and their clientel would still go there even if the skiing was second rate. These are just facts. 

Jackson gained 60,000 skier visits total even with Utahs shitty snow year. 60k total. Colorado saw similar increases with Utah clientel.

Thats not much compared to the amount that will still go to the Utah resorts, no matter what happens.


----------



## canobie#1 (Jun 18, 2014)

As long as canyons is around, I'm fine.  That was my favorite out of the three.  Maybe they could snag the jupiter bowl and thaymes areas..


----------



## Edd (Jun 18, 2014)

AdironRider said:


> Park City is a great town. Great towns can support businesses. Look at Jackson, Telluride, Aspen. All of these places would still exist and their clientel would still go there even if the skiing was second rate. These are just facts.



On a recent trip to Aspen, the locals mentioned over and over that we have to come back during the summer and we wouldn't regret it.


----------



## AdironRider (Jun 18, 2014)

Edd said:


> On a recent trip to Aspen, the locals mentioned over and over that we have to come back during the summer and we wouldn't regret it.



Most ski towns are you move there for the winter, and stay for the summers. 

Best part, no bugs!


----------



## mister moose (Jun 18, 2014)

AdironRider said:


> Look at Jackson, Telluride, Aspen. All of these places would still exist and their clientel would still go there even if the skiing was second rate. These are just facts.




Disagree.  Skiing made these towns great.  What's the difference between Alma, CO and Breckenridge, CO?  (Answer: A ski hill.  Alma is frozen in time and is just over Hoosier pass, Breck is home to 1M$ condos.  Or Leadville, or Fairplay, or Hartsel, or a hundred other old mining towns)  Because these ski towns are great, they survive well on the odd bad year, but if the skiing decreased by 70% permanently, these towns would see constant, and then rapid decline.  Antler arches in the town square and silver dollars on the bar at Jackson is not going to carry the town.  Trendy bars, restaurants, and vacation destinations all ebb and flow.  Cut off the life blood, in this case, skiing, and the ebb gets very strong.  Yes, there is an impressive client list at Aspen, yes, there is lots of wealthy residents, yes there is lots to do in the summer. Who in the 'in crowd' is going to want to be seen at the baby hill once it contracts?  They will go where the action is, and take all their entourage, restaurant $$, clothes shopping, hangers on and vacation home $$ with them.


----------



## HowieT2 (Jun 18, 2014)

AdironRider said:


> There is nowhere on the East Coast that compares to the park scene at PCMR. Maybe Breck competes and thats it.
> 
> No doubt its not going to be the same, and certainly not 1 millions skier visits, but they should do fine.
> 
> ...



Having a bad snow year is hardly the same as removing the lifts and closing the majority of the mtn.  People booking vacations come winter take the weather risk but who's going to plan a ski vacation to resort that just removed it's lifts.

this is all very interesting as a spectator.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 18, 2014)

mister moose said:


> Disagree.  Skiing made these towns great.  What's the difference between Alma, CO and Breckenridge, CO?  (Answer: A ski hill.  Alma is frozen in time and is just over Hoosier pass, Breck is home to 1M$ condos.  Or Leadville, or Fairplay, or Hartsel, or a hundred other old mining towns)  Because these ski towns are great, they survive well on the odd bad year, but if the skiing decreased by 70% permanently, these towns would see constant, and then rapid decline.  Antler arches in the town square and silver dollars on the bar at Jackson is not going to carry the town.  Trendy bars, restaurants, and vacation destinations all ebb and flow.  Cut off the life blood, in this case, skiing, and the ebb gets very strong.  Yes, there is an impressive client list at Aspen, yes, there is lots of wealthy residents, yes there is lots to do in the summer. Who in the 'in crowd' is going to want to be seen at the baby hill once it contracts?  They will go where the action is, and take all their entourage, restaurant $$, clothes shopping, hangers on and vacation home $$ with them.



Agree that PC will be in trouble if Woodward moves in and PCMR dies.  

And tomorrow is the BIG day--the hearing when Judge Harris determines if Talisker/Vail can evict PCMR:

Printed: 06/18/14 03:37:40          Page 1

                       3RD DISTRICT CT- SILVER SUMMIT
RYAN HARRIS                                                      June 19, 2014
COURTROOM 1                                                           Thursday
09:00 AM      UNLAWFUL DETAINER COUNTER             120500157 Miscellaneous
         GREATER PARK CITY COMPANY                ATTY: ZIMMERMAN, MICHAEL D
                                                        BOOHER, TROY L
                                                        METTLER, AMBER M
                                                        STOUT, CHRISTOPHER L
                                                        QUINN, JAMES W
                                                        SULLIVAN, ALAN L
                                                        MEYER, BRUCE S
         GREATER PROPERTIES INC
     VS. 
         UNITED PARK CITY MINES COMPANY           ATTY: LUND, JOHN R
                                                        PETTIT, KARA L
                                                        PAIKIN, JONATHAN E
         TALISKER LAND HOLDINGS LLC                     SHAPIRO, HOWARD M
         TALISKER LAND RESOLUTION LLC
         VR CPC HOLDINGS LLC                            BERGSIEKER, RYAN T
                                                        DIBBLE, JONATHAN A
                                                        BLUME, ROBERT C
         FLERA LLC                                      STORINO, DANIEL K
                                                        GILL, MICHAEL J
                                                        JAMES, MARK F
         TALISKER CANYONS LEASECO LLC
         TALISKER CANYONS FINANCECO LLC                 RUSSELL, PHILLIP J


----------



## Highway Star (Jun 19, 2014)

AdironRider said:


> Quit being a dumbass. The three older lifts will stay, but all the new stuff is just bolted down. Thats leaving and you will be getting some nice newer lifts at Killington. You should be psyched.



Precident in Utah (and many other states) says that "chairlifts" are a fixed assets.  The court will have to decide, but it's HIGHLY unlikely.


----------



## VTKilarney (Jun 19, 2014)

Woodward is not a long term solution.  It was created to give Vail the impression that PCMR is not desperate to sell.  They may drag their bluff out and run Woodward for a year or two, but it's still a bluff.  The real test will be to see how much money they pump into it.  If they don't pump anything substantial into it, that ought to tell you something.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 19, 2014)

VTKilarney said:


> Woodward is not a long term solution.  It was created to give Vail the impression that PCMR is not desperate to sell.  They may drag their bluff out and run Woodward for a year or two, but it's still a bluff.  The real test will be to see how much money they pump into it.  If they don't pump anything substantial into it, that ought to tell you something.



True...with all the focus on that, I forgot that PCMR is indeed posturing with other aspects of the case.  I agree that they are doing the same here.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 19, 2014)

Highway Star said:


> Precident in Utah (and many other states) says that "chairlifts" are a fixed assets.  The court will have to decide, but it's HIGHLY unlikely.



I'm afraid that I agree with HS on this one.  People generally don't pack up their chairlifts and go home.....


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 19, 2014)

Breaking News from Utah:

http://fox13now.com/2014/06/19/judge-grants-eviction-of-park-city-mountain-resort/

Game over for POWDR.


----------



## drjeff (Jun 19, 2014)

thetrailboss said:


> Breaking News from Utah:
> 
> http://fox13now.com/2014/06/19/judge-grants-eviction-of-park-city-mountain-resort/
> 
> Game over for POWDR.



Getting the popcorn ready for what I'm sure will be the biggest Cumming hissy fit yet!


----------



## Edd (Jun 19, 2014)

thetrailboss said:


> Breaking News from Utah:
> 
> http://fox13now.com/2014/06/19/judge-grants-eviction-of-park-city-mountain-resort/
> 
> Game over for POWDR.



Wow.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 19, 2014)

drjeff said:


> Getting the popcorn ready for what I'm sure will be the biggest Cumming hissy fit yet!



For a guy whose Dad (apparently) was a ruthless business man, he is a bit of a weenie.


----------



## AdironRider (Jun 19, 2014)

thetrailboss said:


> For a guy whose Dad (apparently) was a ruthless business man, he is a bit of a weenie.



When are kids who just inherit businesses ever not total tools? 

Though TB, Id love to know why you think its game over from your legal perspective. 

Mediation seems like far from it, no ruling on lifts this go round, etc.

Word on the street at Jackson is that this still leaves more questions than answers. 

Vail isnt going to be able to turn the screws on an above market lease if the mediator has anything to do with it right?


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 19, 2014)

AdironRider said:


> When are kids who just inherit businesses ever not total tools?



:lol:



> Though TB, Id love to know why you think its game over from your legal perspective.



Well, if this is not settled, Talisker will have the legal right to call the Sherriff in and haul PCMR's asses out.  So that is significant.  I saw in one recent news article that PCMR thinks they will operate as usual this winter.  Granted PCMR will try to stay that eviction pending the appeal....assuming that they do.  



> Mediation seems like far from it, no ruling on lifts this go round, etc.
> 
> Word on the street at Jackson is that this still leaves more questions than answers.



They, theoretically, should have at least attempted a mediation but maybe they didn't.  Now that I look at it, I'd say Judge Harris' eviction ruling is clearly to force PCMR to settle and to give up.  That is interesting.  And yes it just leaves more unanswered questions, but what is clear is that on August 27th Cummings will be hauled out of there.  Better start packing or get ready to deal.  



> Vail isnt going to be able to turn the screws on an above market lease if the mediator has anything to do with it right?



Well Vail has some pretty damn good leverage.  They got a ruling that the lease is over.  They got an order of eviction.  They also have the court recognizing that PCMR owes them a buttload of money for squatting on the land without a lease.  But PCMR has the base area, water, a ton of equipment on the land that they can't really get off too soon, and the ability to make Vail's life miserable with appeals, etc.  

It would be an interesting mediation.  Certainly it would turn into some kind of real estate deal I would think.


----------



## AdironRider (Jun 19, 2014)

Mediation is always fun, yet to hear of one that wasnt like watching a train wreck in slow motion.

I ultimately see PWDR leasing the base facilities et al to Vail, most likely the lifts as well. When a renter gets evicted you dont keep the garden gnomes. I see that as PWDR's leverage. Having spent plenty of time down there, those water rights are pretty key as well. A lot of that terrain isnt really going to work without it. 

According the park record the judge is apparently still going to weigh back in on the 27th, the stay could be extended. Leaves a door open for PWDR leverage wise at least there as well.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 19, 2014)

AdironRider said:


> Mediation is always fun, yet to hear of one that wasnt like watching a train wreck in slow motion.
> 
> I ultimately see PWDR leasing the base facilities et al to Vail, most likely the lifts as well. When a renter gets evicted you dont keep the garden gnomes. I see that as PWDR's leverage. Having spent plenty of time down there, those water rights are pretty key as well. A lot of that terrain isnt really going to work without it.
> 
> According the park record the judge is apparently still going to weigh back in on the 27th, the stay could be extended. Leaves a door open for PWDR leverage wise at least there as well.



I've seen mediations be successful and end conflict.  

I'm not sure that POWDR wants to lease the base area or if Vail wants to lease it.  We'll see.

And I've seen POWDR show a lot of emotions on this one.  Perhaps because it was Cumming's first resort and where Nick Badami mentored him.  If you go onto PCMR's site you can watch a video of Cumming waxing on about his time working with Badami.  No doubt Badami is rolling in his grave on this one...and that Cumming is probably getting hammered right now after this decision.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 19, 2014)

Now with video.....

http://fox13now.com/2014/06/19/judge-grants-eviction-of-park-city-mountain-resort/

For those that were upset about what POWDR did with Killington, I think that the bad karma has been served here.


----------



## xlr8r (Jun 19, 2014)

That Vail/Talisker guy in the video looks a little too smug.  Both Vail, and Powdr are going to have to make compromises if there is going to be skiing at Park City next year.  IMO This is either going to wrap up quick  with a deal for Vail to operate Park City, or say good bye to next ski season.  Vail, now that they have the power hand, need to be careful.  If they don't come to some kind of agreement, and do evict Powdr, I can see this destroying business for the whole Park City area next year.  I mean really who is stupid enough to plan a trip there right now.  This will kill business at Canyons as well as Deer Valley, but might boost business at Snowbird.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 19, 2014)

xlr8r said:


> That Vail/Talisker guy in the video looks a little too smug.  Both Vail, and Powdr are going to have to make compromises if there is going to be skiing at Park City next year.  IMO This is either going to wrap up quick  with a deal for Vail to operate Park City, or say good bye to next ski season.  Vail, now that they have the power hand, need to be careful.  If they don't come to some kind of agreement, and do evict Powdr, I can see this destroying business for the whole Park City area next year.  I mean really who is stupid enough to plan a trip there right now.  This will kill business at Canyons as well as Deer Valley, but might boost business at Snowbird.



That's Talisker's lawyer. 



Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 23, 2014)

Some more food for thought:

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/58094241-78/pcmr-ski-park-resort.html.csp


----------



## steamboat1 (Jun 23, 2014)

I'm with Cummings on this one. Screw Tallisker & Vail. Screw the  residents & businesses of Park City too that support this. If Vail  wants to pay big $$$ to Tallisker for 2/3 of a ski area without a base,  parking or access that's there problem. For the residents &  businesses supporting this it's there problem too. The judge can't force  Powdr off the land they own or give Vail/Tallisker access to the  infrastructure & rights associated with that land. Cummings can do  whatever he damn well pleases with his land. If anyone should be looking  to make a deal it's the idiots that signed onto this deal to begin  with. Powdr has much less to lose than the town or Vail at this point.  Tallisker is laughing all the way to the bank at Vail & Park City's  expense while everyone seems to be blaming Powdr/Cummings. It's Tallisker that started this crap. Powdr has already lost 2/3 of the ski area. They've got nothing  left to lose. Vail & the town of Park City however have a lot more  to lose.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 23, 2014)

steamboat1 said:


> I'm with Cummings on this one. Screw Tallisker & Vail. Screw the  residents & businesses of Park City too that support this. If Vail  wants to pay big $$$ to Tallisker for 2/3 of a ski area without a base,  parking or access that's there problem. For the residents &  businesses supporting this it's there problem too. The judge can't force  Powdr off the land they own or give Vail/Tallisker access to the  infrastructure & rights associated with that land. Cummings can do  whatever he damn well pleases with his land. If anyone should be looking  to make a deal it's the idiots that signed onto this deal to begin  with. Powdr has much less to lose than the town or Vail at this point.  Tallisker is laughing all the way to the bank at Vail & Park City's  expense while everyone seems to be blaming Powdr/Cummings. It's Tallisker that started this crap. Powdr has already lost 2/3 of the ski area. They've got nothing  left to lose. Vail & the town of Park City however have a lot more  to lose.



Well POWDR started the crap by not renewing the lease.


----------



## jaytrem (Jun 23, 2014)

I wonder if Deer Valley would be interested in renting McConkey's and Pioneer for a year or two.  Maybe a little "One Wasatch" testing.  Other things to consider IF this drags out...

1.  Around 2000 United Park City Mines still owned some water rights.  Primarily for mine maintenance.  Could that possibly also be used for snow making?

2.  Replace the Town lift with a gondola, and you solved a good chunk of the access for people actually staying over night in the area.  From the only map I've seen it appears they could circumvent the PCMR land (may or may not need an angle station).

3.  People arriving by car would have to park at the Canyons.  That would suck for PCMR access.  If they could jam in some parking near the base of Iron Mountain or Tombstone/Timberline, that would be a good access point with a lift upgrade.  Or even further down the road (closer to the existing base).  Most people driving for the day are coming from that direction anyway.

4. Are there any easements through the PCMR property that Vail could use to their advantage?

5. I'd still be shocked if it came to any of that.  But ya never know.


----------



## steamboat1 (Jun 24, 2014)

http://www.parkrecord.com/ci_26025355/pcmr-v-talisker-resort-center-property-owners-livid


----------



## mbedle (Jun 26, 2014)

Recent letter from the city.
http://www.parkrecord.com/park_city...-v-talisker-park-city-mayor-urging-resolution


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 2, 2014)

The latest....eviction order signed:

http://fox13now.com/2014/07/02/judge-signs-eviction-order-for-park-city-mountain-resort/


----------



## Highway Star (Jul 2, 2014)

thetrailboss said:


> The latest....eviction order signed:
> 
> http://fox13now.com/2014/07/02/judge-signs-eviction-order-for-park-city-mountain-resort/


----------



## mbedle (Jul 2, 2014)

thetrailboss said:


> The latest....eviction order signed:
> 
> http://fox13now.com/2014/07/02/judge-signs-eviction-order-for-park-city-mountain-resort/



Does this really change anything from the last time they were in court. I already thought that the Judge stated he was going to sign the eviction notice for August 27th and left the option open to extend the actual eviction, if both parties were working towards a resolution. The August court date will be when we hear if the end is near or sooner if either side decides to stand down.


----------



## ss20 (Jul 2, 2014)

Oh good, looks like we're done with setbacks and can start the inevitable.  :sarcasm:


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 2, 2014)

mbedle said:


> Does this really change anything from the last time they were in court. I already thought that the Judge stated he was going to sign the eviction notice for August 27th and left the option open to extend the actual eviction, if both parties were working towards a resolution. The August court date will be when we hear if the end is near or sooner if either side decides to stand down.



Yes and no.  This was the order that the Judge probably asked Talisker's attorneys to draft as a result of the hearing.  It just puts more pressure on POWDR.


----------



## AdironRider (Jul 3, 2014)

More pressure? This is really nothing new, outside of some wet ink they knew was happening already.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 4, 2014)

AdironRider said:


> More pressure? This is really nothing new, outside of some wet ink they knew was happening already.



Just brings home the reality that they are SOL . 


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 8, 2014)

Well at least POWDR still owns and operates Gorgoza....

http://www.gorgoza.com/gorgoza/home.html


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 10, 2014)

Things are moving ahead with PCMR's departure it appears....

http://www.saminfo.com/news/pcmr-v-talisker-path-ahead


----------



## marcski (Jul 10, 2014)

thetrailboss said:


> Things are moving ahead with PCMR's departure it appears....
> 
> http://www.saminfo.com/news/pcmr-v-talisker-path-ahead



PCMR is still in a freaking dreamworld!


----------



## steamboat1 (Jul 11, 2014)

http://www.parkrecord.com/park_city-news/ci_26125965/pcmr-takes-first-step-toward-an-appeal-utah


----------



## steamboat1 (Jul 11, 2014)

marcski said:


> PCMR is still in a freaking dreamworld!



I don't believe that's the case at all. Access (parking) is an issue but I don't believe it's the big issue. PCMR owns the water rights. Without those water rights both PCMR & the Canyons can't operate. The lower mountain slopes at both resorts are often bare for not only the Thanksgiving holiday but the Christmas & New Years holidays as well. It's hard to run the upper slopes when you don't have a lower slope. It's also hard to run a world class golf course if you don't have water to keep the greens green. I believe because of this PCMR has the better hand.


----------



## DoublePlanker (Jul 11, 2014)

steamboat1 said:


> I don't believe that's the case at all. Access (parking) is an issue but I don't believe it's the big issue. PCMR owns the water rights. Without those water rights both PCMR & the Canyons can't operate. The lower mountain slopes at both resorts are often bare for not only the Thanksgiving holiday but the Christmas & New Years holidays as well. It's hard to run the upper slopes when you don't have a lower slope. It's also hard to run a world class golf course if you don't have water to keep the greens green. I believe because of this PCMR has the better hand.



PCMR is drawing dead in this situation.  They have a court order eviction.


----------



## steamboat1 (Jul 11, 2014)

DoublePlanker said:


> PCMR is drawing dead in this situation.  They have a court order eviction.



The eviction is from Talisker land (yes it's most of the ski area). PCMR owns the parking lot's, base facilities & most importantly the water rights. No judge can evict them from the land & rights they own.


----------



## DoublePlanker (Jul 11, 2014)

steamboat1 said:


> The eviction is from Talisker land (yes it's most of the ski area). PCMR owns the parking lot's, base facilities & most importantly the water rights. No judge can evict them from the land & rights they own.



That's true.  But practically nobody is going to use those facilities without being able to ski the upper mountain.  Without the ski area, those things are not very valuable.  

This is just going to be settled.  In fact, the judge ordered arbitration.  That process will likely ultimately have a sum of money transfer from Vail to PCMR to take over the entire ski area.  Everything else going on is just negotiating.  The supreme court thing is just to keep their rights alive.  They won't win an appeal there.  They likely won't even file as the arbitration will likely result in a business deal.


----------



## steamboat1 (Jul 11, 2014)

DoublePlanker said:


> Without the ski area, those things are not very valuable.



This is where I disagree. Without the things that PCMR owns the ski area is not very valuable.


----------



## DoublePlanker (Jul 11, 2014)

steamboat1 said:


> This is where I disagree. Without the things that PCMR owns the ski area is not very valuable.



That is also true.  But the relative impact on each business is much different and this favors Vail.  MTN stock is very strong right now.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 11, 2014)

I might be wrong here, but the PC golf course is really not at stake because it is not on the disputed land.  

PCMR's only real leverage is the fact that it owns the base area, parking lots, water rights for the entire resort, and the disputed lifts and other fixtures on the disputed land.  While Talisker can kill PCMR it can't do so without inflicting serious injury to itself.  Hence why this is such a sticky and difficult situation.


----------



## steamboat1 (Jul 11, 2014)

thetrailboss said:


> I might be wrong here, but the PC golf course is really not at stake because it is not on the disputed land.
> 
> PCMR's only real leverage is the fact that it owns the base area, parking lots, water rights for the entire resort, and the disputed lifts and other fixtures on the disputed land.  While Talisker can kill PCMR it can't do so without inflicting serious injury to itself.  Hence why this is such a sticky and difficult situation.


Talisker has nothing to do with the suit anymore. Vail took over the suit when they signed the lease with Talisker. No matter what happens in the suit Talisker is sitting pretty with it's $25 million a year lease to Vail.The only thing Talisker has to lose at this point is money from the profit sharing agreement with Vail.

The golf course I'm referring to is the one being built at the Canyons. It's going to hard to keep it green without water.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 11, 2014)

steamboat1 said:


> Talisker has nothing to do with the suit anymore. Vail took over the suit when they signed the lease with Talisker. No matter what happens in the suit Talisker is sitting pretty with it's $25 million a year lease to Vail.The only thing Talisker has to lose at this point is money from the profit sharing agreement with Vail.
> 
> The golf course I'm referring to is the one being built at the Canyons. It's going to hard to keep it green without water.



True on the assignment to Vail.  

As to the new golf course, I would have to presume that Canyons already had water in place for that course before its construction.


----------



## VTKilarney (Jul 11, 2014)

PCMR's position gets weaker as time goes on.  Yes, they own things that Vail needs.  But... if they aren't making money from those things, their position gets weaker and weaker as they lose money.

Also, PCMR will burn every single bridge possible if they play their hand in a way that undermines the local economy.  Their name will be mud across the whole region.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 11, 2014)

VTKilarney said:


> PCMR's position gets weaker as time goes on.  Yes, they own things that Vail needs.  But... if they aren't making money from those things, their position gets weaker and weaker as they lose money.
> 
> Also, PCMR will burn every single bridge possible if they play their hand in a way that undermines the local economy.  Their name will be mud across the whole region.



True.  

For POWDR this is an emotional thing.  First, because PCMR was John's baby and first resort.  Local legend is that PCMR is what made him get into the biz.  The story involves a conversation one night between John and his Dad, Ian, as they were driving up to PCMR for a night race.  Apparently, Ian said to John something to the effect of, "you've got to figure out what to do with your life" just as they were getting near PCMR.  Shortly thereafter John began an "internship" with Nick Badami who owned and operated PCMR at the time (well, leased the land from United Park City Mines) and Nick apparently mentored him until John formed POWDR (presumably with some of Daddy's money) and took over PCMR.  

It's also emotional because not renewing the lease was such a big "WTF?" moment for them and a real embarrassment.  

As to the last point, they are already pissing a lot of folks off because of the dragging of feet.  Businesses, hotels, and second homeowners at the base are all :roll: about the prospect of "Woodward Park City" that just launched *this website.*  It essentially is the base area of PCMR that POWDR owns.

The funniest part of the site, at least for me, was that the comments page anti-spam image was:



No joke!  :lol:


----------



## AdironRider (Jul 11, 2014)

VTKilarney said:


> PCMR's position gets weaker as time goes on.  Yes, they own things that Vail needs.  But... if they aren't making money from those things, their position gets weaker and weaker as they lose money.
> 
> Also, PCMR will burn every single bridge possible if they play their hand in a way that undermines the local economy.  Their name will be mud across the whole region.



Its easy for East Coast folks to think this way, but those water rights are huge out west. PCMR (or Vail with the takeover) cannot operate that terrain most years without it. With each passing year those water rights increase in value immensely. 

In Cali, water is going for mid 2k an acre foot on a lease. Guys are making millions every year just leasing it out. Utah is not far behind. 

The added terrain is worth nothing without water to make snow on it, this is not LCC or BCC, and the snow is just not there like most assume. 

Whiskeys for drinking, waters for fighting.


----------



## VTKilarney (Jul 11, 2014)

I know the water rights are worth a lot.  But is there a market for them other than VAIL?  In other words, are can the be sold to anyone or are the rights specific to the mountain?  

Assuming the rights are specific to the mountain, Is PCMR really going to want to be seen as the reason the ski area languishes - when they lost in court but refused to sell the water rights for a fair offer?  If VAIL really does make a fair offer, PCMR has no way to win here.  All they have is a scorched earth strategy at that point.


----------



## VTKilarney (Jul 11, 2014)

Frankly, I think it's a good thing for VAIL that PCMR has come out with their Woodward Park City plan.  Absolutely nobody is going to think that PCMR has a better offering than VAIL at this point.  If the town was smart, there would be a vocal boycott movement so that PCMR rips the bandaid off.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 11, 2014)

VTKilarney said:


> Frankly, I think it's a good thing for VAIL that PCMR has come out with their Woodward Park City plan.  Absolutely nobody is going to think that PCMR has a better offering than VAIL at this point.  If the town was smart, there would be a vocal boycott movement so that PCMR rips the bandaid off.



Trust me...many in town are really pissed with POWDR right now.  Just click on the Park Record and read some of the editorials/letters.


----------



## steamboat1 (Jul 12, 2014)

VTKilarney said:


> PCMR's position gets weaker as time goes on.  Yes, they own things that Vail needs.  But... if they aren't making money from those things, their position gets weaker and weaker as they lose money.
> 
> Also, PCMR will burn every single bridge possible if they play their hand in a way that undermines the local economy.  Their name will be mud across the whole region.


Vails position gets weaker & weaker as they get no income from PCMR. $25 million a year for a lease for the Canyons ain't going to cut it. In fact even if Vail gets PCMR it ain't going to cut it. Vail way overpaid. Considering that signing the lease increased their debt by 35% isn't anything to sneeze at. 

Powdr on the other hand isn't paying anything except local taxes, they own the property, have for years.

If anyone is ruining the local economy it's Vail/Talisker. They started this crap, not Powdr.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 12, 2014)

steamboat1 said:


> Vails position gets weaker & weaker as they get no income from PCMR. $25 million a year for a lease for the Canyons ain't going to cut it. In fact even if Vail gets PCMR it ain't going to cut it. Vail way overpaid. Considering that signing the lease increased their debt by 35% isn't anything to sneeze at.
> 
> Powdr on the other hand isn't paying anything except local taxes, they own the property, have for years.
> 
> If anyone is ruining the local economy it's Vail/Talisker. They started this crap, not Powdr.



POWDR sued Talisker (later Vail). 


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## VTKilarney (Jul 12, 2014)

I've been wondering if Vail's $25 million per year has some contingencies.   My guess is that it does.


----------



## DoublePlanker (Jul 12, 2014)

Vail is doing fine.  The MTN stock is rising during this time.   Apparently Wall Street thinks this situation is at least neutral for vail.

Vail is NOT getting hurt by this.


----------



## AdironRider (Jul 12, 2014)

DoublePlanker said:


> Vail is doing fine.  The MTN stock is rising during this time.   Apparently Wall Street thinks this situation is at least neutral for vail.
> 
> Vail is NOT getting hurt by this.




There is nothing new currently to affect the stock price regarding this specific situation. There will be in about a month if Vail doesnt get access to the base, then the stock tanks. 

Could be a nice short play.


----------



## mbedle (Jul 22, 2014)

Interesting and I assume good news.

http://www.parkrecord.com/park_city...pones-woodward-park-city-talks-details-evolve

This is also interesting, wasn't aware they were looking to cash in on a town lift.

http://ski.curbed.com/archives/2014/03/utah-just-keeps-making-waves.php


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 29, 2014)

Looks like Vail will allow PCMR to operate this season assuming that POWDR puts up a security bond....

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/58233221-78/park-ski-talisker-pcmr.html.csp


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 30, 2014)

Another article on the situation right now:

http://www.saminfo.com/news/uncertainty-over-coming-season-worries-park-city-community


----------



## marcski (Jul 30, 2014)

Has it ever been made public how much more PCMR has been paying Talisker since the lease expired a few years ago?  I assume they've been paying more than their sweet 150k/year deal that was in the lease.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 30, 2014)

marcski said:


> Has it ever been made public how much more PCMR has been paying Talisker since the lease expired a few years ago?  I assume they've been paying more than their sweet 150k/year deal that was in the lease.



I think they stopped paying the $150k when the suit was initiated.  I might be wrong.


----------



## marcski (Jul 30, 2014)

thetrailboss said:


> I think they stopped paying the $150k when the suit was initiated.  I might be wrong.



Yes, hence my question...How much have they been spending the last few years since the lease expired?


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 30, 2014)

marcski said:


> Yes, hence my question...How much have they been spending the last few years since the lease expired?



I should have been clearer...I think they've paid $0.

And FWIW I ran into the jolly Mr. John Cumming at Snowbird with his GF/wife out for a stroll.  Made me sick.....


----------



## marcski (Jul 30, 2014)

thetrailboss said:


> I should have been clearer...I think they've paid $0.
> 
> And FWIW I ran into the jolly Mr. John Cumming at Snowbird with his GF/wife out for a stroll.  Made me sick.....



From the SAM article you posted a link:

"But Talisker/VR would seek a high price for their acquiescence: they  would ask the court to require PCMR to post a bond equal to the rent for  the past three seasons as well as for the coming season. That’s an  amount that could easily run to several million dollars."

So, then the Judge will have to come up with a figure himself as far as fair market value what they should have been paying after the lease expired in order to come up with the bond amount.  What is even more interesting is the fact that PCMR is going to owe a substantial amount of money for the past 3 seasons since this started.  In fact, given the depreciation of the lifts they claim they are entitled to take with them if forced to leave, I'm not sure the lifts will even cover the costs of the lease, especially given the costs involved with removing the lifts.  

Moreover, perhaps this is the reason why Vail is paying Talisker such an extraordinary amount of money to lease the Canyons.  They realized that the Judge was eventually going to need similar "comps" in order to come up with a fair market value for the lease that PCMR let expire as of 2011.  (I think the lease expired in 2011).


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 30, 2014)

marcski said:


> From the SAM article you posted a link:
> 
> "But Talisker/VR would seek a high price for their acquiescence: they  would ask the court to require PCMR to post a bond equal to the rent for  the past three seasons as well as for the coming season. That’s an  amount that could easily run to several million dollars."
> 
> ...



Right, the FMV for rent that they should have paid.


----------



## marcski (Jul 30, 2014)

thetrailboss said:


> Right, the FMV for rent that they should have paid.



Well, they can only go back to 2011, the date the lease expired.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 30, 2014)

marcski said:


> Well, they can only go back to 2011, the date the lease expired.



Right. I think that they've paid zero since the lease expired and owe FMV for that time period. I find it interesting that Vail wants a bond for that period AND the next two seasons. 


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## thetrailboss (Aug 13, 2014)

The latest.......

http://www.parkrecord.com/ci_263239...yment-talisker-save-ski-season?dom=fb&pub=ski


----------



## drjeff (Aug 14, 2014)

drjeff said:


> The Cumming family is just going through the 5 phases of loss and grief here....
> 
> #1 - denial (already through that one)
> 
> ...



100% into phase 3 now, which is probably also a bit of a sign of phase 4 starting now!

The big question is will phase 5 begin in this calender year or not??  The judges looming next deadline in about 2 weeks might have a big outcome on how slowly or quickly the Cumming family moves on to the inevitable buy-out by Vail....


----------



## thetrailboss (Aug 16, 2014)

Looks like they are still negotiating....they did not meet the deadline to have it resolved, but they have asked the Judge to give them more time to work a deal.  That's good.  

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/58300579-78/pcmr-resort-talisker-deadline.html.csp


----------



## thetrailboss (Aug 20, 2014)

Another article from the NYT:  

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/20/us/20ski.html?ref=business&_r=0

The author apparently does not realize that there is Deer Valley and Canyons in town......


----------



## skiNEwhere (Aug 20, 2014)

I want to know what happened to the person responsible for the dropping the ball on the lease. Is it safe to say they were fired?


----------



## steamboat1 (Aug 20, 2014)

skiNEwhere said:


> I want to know what happened to the person responsible for the dropping the ball on the lease. Is it safe to say they were fired?


He left POWDR about a year earlier & is laughing his ass off.


----------



## Hawkshot99 (Aug 21, 2014)

skiNEwhere said:


> I want to know what happened to the person responsible for the dropping the ball on the lease. Is it safe to say they were fired?



That person had already left the company. Not sure if by fireing or quiting, but they never put someone else in charge of it. The paperwork stayed sitting in their desk.


----------



## skiNEwhere (Aug 21, 2014)

Hawkshot99 said:


> That person had already left the company. Not sure if by fireing or quiting, but they never put someone else in charge of it. The paperwork stayed sitting in their desk.



So I guess they won't be asking POWDR for a reference with their new job lol


----------



## Domeskier (Aug 21, 2014)

Hawkshot99 said:


> That person had already left the company. Not sure if by fireing or quiting, but they never put someone else in charge of it. The paperwork stayed sitting in their desk.



If I know anything about how corporate America works, the person who should have assumed responsibility for the paperwork is busy shifting the blame to someone else (almost certainly an underling).


----------



## mbedle (Aug 21, 2014)

keepparkcityopen.com just went live. Seems like a strong stance to not giving up the lower mountain.


----------



## thetrailboss (Aug 21, 2014)

mbedle said:


> keepparkcityopen.com just went live. Seems like a strong stance to not giving up the lower mountain.



That is yet another "fake" website that POWDR made to try to gather support.  Look who the person on the front page is....

I am :-? because it is yet another disingenuous PR campaign that POWDR has hatched to try to make up for their mistake.  I think it's misleading.


----------



## HowieT2 (Aug 21, 2014)

Hawkshot99 said:


> That person had already left the company. Not sure if by fireing or quiting, but they never put someone else in charge of it. The paperwork stayed sitting in their desk.



Ha!  would be funny if it was some corporate cost cutting move.  hey lets save a couple of bucks on payroll....oooooops.


----------



## mbedle (Aug 21, 2014)

thetrailboss said:


> That is yet another "fake" website that POWDR made to try to gather support.  Look who the person on the front page is....
> 
> I am :-? because it is yet another disingenuous PR campaign that POWDR has hatched to try to make up for their mistake.  I think it's misleading.



I'm not sure what you mean by "fake" other than you believe they what they state on the site is not true. As far as a disingenuous PR campaign, if I was the owner of POWDR, I'd be doing everything in my power to keep the resort in my name. Any other business owner would do the same thing. Everybody is taking the stance that they don't care who owns/runs it, just get it open so they can ski, which I can understand. However, POWDR has a right to do everything they can to fix what they screwed up.


----------



## thetrailboss (Aug 21, 2014)

mbedle said:


> I'm not sure what you mean by "fake" other than you believe they what they state on the site is not true. As far as a disingenuous PR campaign, if I was the owner of POWDR, I'd be doing everything in my power to keep the resort in my name. Any other business owner would do the same thing. Everybody is taking the stance that they don't care who owns/runs it, just get it open so they can ski, which I can understand. However, POWDR has a right to do everything they can to fix what they screwed up.



"Fake" in the sense that it is misleading because I take it as an attempt to give people the sense that this is a community group or some locals who are organizing to save PCMR.  They also created a "Friends of PCMR" site.  Both are controlled by POWDR and are PR vehicles as opposed to a group of locals banding together.  

Can they do it?  Sure.  Absolutely.  I understand that.  Is it misleading? I think so.  These are both self-serving sites that are masked to make it appear to be something else.


----------



## mbedle (Aug 21, 2014)

thetrailboss said:


> "Fake" in the sense that it is misleading because I take it as an attempt to give people the sense that this is a community group or some locals who are organizing to save PCMR.  They also created a "Friends of PCMR" site.  Both are controlled by POWDR and are PR vehicles as opposed to a group of locals banding together.
> 
> Can they do it?  Sure.  Absolutely.  I understand that.  Is it misleading? I think so.  These are both self-serving sites that are masked to make it appear to be something else.



I don't take that read, but respect that you do. I actually take this single page website as an attempt by PCMR to get public support. And yes, both sites are PR vehicles, but there is nothing wrong with using PR to garner support. I also get that if you hate POWDR or PCMR, than you are going to take a stance that they should just fold up and move on, living with their mistake. If you truly don't care who runs the resort, just care that it opens, I can also see taking the stance that POWDR should sell out and move on. But if you look at it strictly from a business point of view, with out prejudice, POWDR is doing just what they should be doing. Misleading or not, its all fair in the business world.


----------



## thetrailboss (Aug 21, 2014)

mbedle said:


> I don't take that read, but respect that you do. I actually take this single page website as an attempt by PCMR to get public support. And yes, both sites are PR vehicles, but there is nothing wrong with using PR to garner support. I also get that if you hate POWDR or PCMR, than you are going to take a stance that they should just fold up and move on, living with their mistake. If you truly don't care who runs the resort, just care that it opens, I can also see taking the stance that POWDR should sell out and move on. But if you look at it strictly from a business point of view, with out prejudice, POWDR is doing just what they should be doing. Misleading or not, its all fair in the business world.



I'm probably being over critical.  We are living with this here in Utah.  I've heard all the arguments, read the briefs, etc.  I think it just comes down to a clear screw up by POWDR and nothing more.  They are trying to spin it as something else that it's not.  I agree that it just needs to be resolved.


----------



## marcski (Aug 21, 2014)

mbedle said:


> I don't take that read, but respect that you do. I actually take this single page website as an attempt by PCMR to get public support. And yes, both sites are PR vehicles, but there is nothing wrong with using PR to garner support. I also get that if you hate POWDR or PCMR, than you are going to take a stance that they should just fold up and move on, living with their mistake. If you truly don't care who runs the resort, just care that it opens, I can also see taking the stance that POWDR should sell out and move on. But if you look at it strictly from a business point of view, with out prejudice, POWDR is doing just what they should be doing. Misleading or not, its all fair in the business world.



Not necessarily.  

First, unfortunately for Powdr and PCMR, public support really means nothing.  This is (was) a legal issue between businesses.  As far as the legal issue, it was pretty cut and dry, hence, the judge's decision on a summary judgment motion prior to trial.  

Second, looking at this from a strictly business perspective, it could be argued that it is in Powdr's best interest to make a deal now before there is any detriment to either Park City or the resort itself.


----------



## AdironRider (Aug 21, 2014)

thetrailboss said:


> I'm probably being over critical.  We are living with this here in Utah.  I've heard all the arguments, read the briefs, etc.  I think it just comes down to a clear screw up by POWDR and nothing more.  They are trying to spin it as something else that it's not.  I agree that it just needs to be resolved.



You really dont think Vail is trying to get a bit more than they deserve? They did try to strongarm their way into the base facilities and parking lots for free after all.

No argument that Powdr opened this door and for that they are at fault, but just because Vail overpaid their lease isn't Powdrs fault and they shouldnt have to make up the difference.


----------



## Quietman (Aug 21, 2014)

marcski said:


> Second, looking at this from a strictly business perspective, it could be argued that it is in Powdr's best interest to make a deal now before there is any detriment to either Park City or the resort itself.



Unless they're following the Market Basket owner's current business plan!  Continue to fight while the business dies.  

I wonder why no one is walking the picket lines in Park City calling for a boycott unless Powdr is allowed to stay!


----------



## thetrailboss (Aug 21, 2014)

AdironRider said:


> You really dont think Vail is trying to get a bit more than they deserve? They did try to strongarm their way into the base facilities and parking lots for free after all.
> 
> No argument that Powdr opened this door and for that they are at fault, but just because Vail overpaid their lease isn't Powdrs fault and they shouldnt have to make up the difference.



I think that Vail is taking advantage of POWDR's plight.  As you know the ski industry can be a cut-throat business at times.  Hell, even Alta and Snowbird can't always get along.

That said, a lot of locals are just pissed with POWDR and want them to just concede and end it now.


----------



## AdironRider (Aug 21, 2014)

Well yeah everyone looks out for their own best interest. 

No surprise Park City people dont care who runs the place, they just want to ski, but Powdr isnt in the wrong to not just roll over and play dead.


----------



## thetrailboss (Aug 21, 2014)

AdironRider said:


> Well yeah everyone looks out for their own best interest.
> 
> No surprise Park City people dont care who runs the place, they just want to ski, but Powdr isnt in the wrong to not just roll over and play dead.



True, but they have no legal status to remain on Talisker's land, so it is in their best interest to have negotiated the sale of their infrastructure instead of leaving it up for the court to determine.


----------



## skiNEwhere (Aug 21, 2014)

Pardon my ignorance as I have not kept up to date on this thread, but why is talisker not willing to work with them on renewing the lease late? Did they have a bad working relationship, or is it a matter of getting more money from another tenant? I imagine the legal fees are astronomical


----------



## AdironRider (Aug 21, 2014)

The latter. Vail is committed to paying like 35 mil (after the revenue share as part of the lease) a year for 350 years or something ridiculous. (at least 50 years, with 6x 50 year renewals at a minimum of 2% rent increase per year)


----------



## Highway Star (Aug 21, 2014)

AdironRider said:


> The latter. Vail is committed to paying like 35 mil (after the revenue share as part of the lease) a year for 350 years or something ridiculous. (at least 50 years, with 6x 50 year renewals at a minimum of 2% rent increase per year)



$25m plus % of profits above a certain level, or something like that.  Its in the SEC docs somewhere.  $25m is pretty much the current annual profit for the Canyons.


----------



## Hawkshot99 (Aug 21, 2014)

skiNEwhere said:


> Pardon my ignorance as I have not kept up to date on this thread, but why is talisker not willing to work with them on renewing the lease late? Did they have a bad working relationship, or is it a matter of getting more money from another tenant? I imagine the legal fees are astronomical



They would like to operate it themselves, or recieve the money they should be paid. $150, 000 a year is way cheap


----------



## mbedle (Aug 22, 2014)

They did try to work with PCMR, but PCMR didn't apparently like Talisker's offer and turned around and sued them.



skiNEwhere said:


> Pardon my ignorance as I have not kept up to date on this thread, but why is talisker not willing to work with them on renewing the lease late? Did they have a bad working relationship, or is it a matter of getting more money from another tenant? I imagine the legal fees are astronomical


----------



## AdironRider (Aug 22, 2014)

Do you know what their offer was? Allegedly was hand over your assets free of charge cause you fucked up, on top of the legitimate claims for back rent and transfer of the lease holding.


----------



## mbedle (Aug 22, 2014)

I don't know what the original offer was. But it was clearly to negotiate a new lease, with obviously a higher rent payment. It states that in the original complaint file by PCMR. 



AdironRider said:


> Do you know what their offer was? Allegedly was hand over your assets free of charge cause you fucked up, on top of the legitimate claims for back rent and transfer of the lease holding.


----------



## Highway Star (Aug 22, 2014)

mbedle said:


> I don't know what the original offer was. But it was clearly to negotiate a new lease, with obviously a higher rent payment. It states that in the original complaint file by PCMR.



Talisker asked for a greatly increased rent, and POWDR told them to pound sand.  Before Vail came in the picture.  In hindsight, probably a reasonable deal.


----------



## Highway Star (Aug 25, 2014)

*Vail asking for $200M - $300M bond for PCMR land use....*

Can the lawyers please comment on this one???

PG. 1 - http://www.scribd.com/doc/236934829/Talisker-filing-on-bond-for-Park-City-Mountain-Resort#download



> Substantial damages have accrued and will continue to accrue from GPCC/GPI’s use of Talisker’s property since April 30, 2011. Even though the Court ruled that GPCC/GPI have been unlawfully detaining Talisker’s property and ordered the property restored to Talisker’s possession, GPCC/GPI seek to stay that order, remain on the property and continue to generate revenue and profits from its use. For that to be allowed, while the litigation continues in this Court and in the appellate courts, the required bond must be enough to assure payment to Talisker of its expected damages. As will be fully explained below and in light of the damages from GPCC/GPI’s use of the property in the past and while the litigation is completed, if GPCC/GPI want to remain in possession of Talisker’s property, they must provide adequate assurance of full payment when this Court’s judgments are affirmed on appeal, which is a bond of no less than $----- million, as summarized in the chart below.
> 
> -Damages incurred for past use and occupation
> -Damages during trial & appeal
> ...



ERRRR......so if my guestimates of PCMR's annual profits are accurate at $35m-$50m per year, and if my math is right......

*.........Vail is asking for a $200M - $300M bond. *


----------



## Highway Star (Aug 25, 2014)

Can the lawyers please comment on this one???

PG. 1 - http://www.scribd.com/doc/236934829/Talisker-filing-on-bond-for-Park-City-Mountain-Resort#download



> Substantial damages have accrued and will continue to accrue from GPCC/GPI’s use of Talisker’s property since April 30, 2011. Even though the Court ruled that GPCC/GPI have been unlawfully detaining Talisker’s property and ordered the property restored to Talisker’s possession, GPCC/GPI seek to stay that order, remain on the property and continue to generate revenue and profits from its use. For that to be allowed, while the litigation continues in this Court and in the appellate courts, the required bond must be enough to assure payment to Talisker of its expected damages. As will be fully explained below and in light of the damages from GPCC/GPI’s use of the property in the past and while the litigation is completed, if GPCC/GPI want to remain in possession of Talisker’s property, they must provide adequate assurance of full payment when this Court’s judgments are affirmed on appeal, which is a bond of no less than $----- million, as summarized in the chart below.
> 
> -Damages incurred for past use and occupation
> -Damages during trial & appeal
> ...



ERRRR......so if my guestimates of PCMR's annual profits are accurate at $35m-$50m per year, and if my math is right......

*.........Vail is asking for a $200M - $300M bond. *


----------



## mbedle (Aug 25, 2014)

While I understand why Talisker would come in like a bull in a china shop with their estimated bond amount, I find their methodologies for calculating it flawed. Using other ski area's leasing arangements as comps, seems to ignore that the land in questions is unusable, in of its self. For example, the Canyon's lease includes the entire ski resort. Northstar's lease, I'm not 100% sure off, but it appears to cover the building and structures under a triple net lease. Sure, Vail could connect the land to the Canyons resort, but it definitely would not increase the profits at Canyon as nearly as much as a stand alone resort. In simple terms, say that the Canyons generate 25M a year. Added the PCMR Talisker terrain to that resort is not going to result in Canyons generating 50M per year. It seems like Talisker is trying to evaluate the land as if they owned everything and ignoring the fact that they don't. Its going to be interesting what ultimately comes out of this. Since mitigation is still ongoing, I can only guess that PCMR and Vail are trying to reach a joint operations agreement.


----------



## Highway Star (Aug 25, 2014)

mbedle said:


> While I understand why Talisker would come in like a bull in a china shop with their estimated bond amount, I find their methodologies for calculating it flawed. Using other ski area's leasing arangements as comps, seems to ignore that the land in questions is unusable, in of its self. For example, the Canyon's lease includes the entire ski resort. Northstar's lease, I'm not 100% sure off, but it appears to cover the building and structures under a triple net lease. Sure, Vail could connect the land to the Canyons resort, but it definitely would not increase the profits at Canyon as nearly as much as a stand alone resort. In simple terms, say that the Canyons generate 25M a year. Added the PCMR Talisker terrain to that resort is not going to result in Canyons generating 50M per year. It seems like Talisker is trying to evaluate the land as if they owned everything and ignoring the fact that they don't. Its going to be interesting what ultimately comes out of this. Since mitigation is still ongoing, I can only guess that PCMR and Vail are trying to reach a joint operations agreement.




PCMR keeps making the arguement that the land is useless without their access to it.  Well, then perhaps Talisker should seek an easement to allow an access road.....?  

Seriously, the arguement is complete BS.  Talisker owns the land and the lifts, and PCMR is bringing in somewhere around $70M-100M in just ticket/pass revenues every year on those land and lifts.  Without it they don't make squat.  For Vail to ask for a rent of $8000 per acre, I'd say that's a pretty good spot for negotiation.  The Judge gets to see the actual numbers, he's not going to be fooled by Cumming's claims of poverty, LOL.

BTW, if you look at the Vail SEC filings, you'll see they value the PCMR land at $160M because it produces yearly revenue of a bit over $20M.  Seem legit to me.


----------



## mbedle (Aug 25, 2014)

The land is pretty much useless without access to it. There are hundred of mountains in Utah with just as good, if not better fall lines and steeps than PCMR terrain. The problem is access, without it, you can't have a resort. You are correct that PCMR made money off of the land they leased. But Talisker isn't going to make crap off the land with out the base area and other items/rights that PCMR owns. Its a simple fact that they both need each other to function as a business and make money. Look at it this way, if Talisker is so sure that they don't need the base area, they would have let the eviction go forward, screwed mediation and just let Vail pay them rent for the land. I can only guess that Vail has an agreement with Talisker that states specifically we are not leasing that land without the base area and rights.


----------



## Highway Star (Aug 25, 2014)

mbedle said:


> The land is pretty much useless without access to it. There are hundred of mountains in Utah with just as good, if not better fall lines and steeps than PCMR terrain. The problem is access, without it, you can't have a resort. You are correct that PCMR made money off of the land they leased. But Talisker isn't going to make crap off the land with out the base area and other items/rights that PCMR owns. Its a simple fact that they both need each other to function as a business and make money. Look at it this way, if Talisker is so sure that they don't need the base area, they would have let the eviction go forward, screwed mediation and just let Vail pay them rent for the land. I can only guess that Vail has an agreement with Talisker that states specifically we are not leasing that land without the base area and rights.



I'm not a lawyer, but I was able to read this filing and largely understand it.  Are you a lawyer?  It seemed like they made some pretty solid and well referenced arguements about valuation.  Page 18:



> _First_, the *damages are restitution for GPCC/GPI’s wrongful use of the property *and
> therefore must focus on the value that GPCC/GPI derived from the property.





> _Second_, the value that GPCC/GPI received stems from the use that they made from Talisker’s property and* not what other uses might be made of that property* by someone else in a different circumstance. Determining the value GPCC/GPI derived from the use of the property is not a hypothetical exercise. Talisker’s property was used as a vital asset in an integrated resort, and the value GPCC/GPI received from that property is reflected in GPCC’s audited financial statements.





> _Third _, “the assets of a company are of value chiefly because of their earning capacity.”



Fact is, this is NOT some random mountain, and that's why it's valued as such.


----------



## Highway Star (Aug 25, 2014)

I think they'll have this settled by September 3th.  But it isn't going to be pretty.


----------



## thetrailboss (Aug 25, 2014)

So I selfishly hope that POWDR lasts one more season because I'd like to use my three Wasatch Benefit days there on my Alta/Snowbird Pass.  But other than that, everything I've seen just shows that POWDR really blew it and blew it big time.  That doesn't justify Vail looking to kick a man while he's down, but as Talisker's new tenant and assignee of the lawsuit, they are entitled to get what they are legally entitled to have and that's the leased land that POWDR failed to renew.


----------



## marcski (Aug 25, 2014)

Robert Katz and Vail are quite business saavy. Why do you think they came in with such a high lease for the canyons?  IMHO, it was with this entire scenario as it is playing out in mind.


----------



## AdironRider (Aug 25, 2014)

HS, you keep talking in absolutes that do not currently exist.


----------



## steamboat1 (Aug 25, 2014)

Take a look at any lift in North America. The lifts & towers are not affixed to the land. Nuts & bolts.


----------



## marcski (Aug 26, 2014)

I would think that the lifts will be taken into consideration by the  Judge in his/her decision regarding the FMV of the leasehold.  The added value of the lifts, after depreciation, would most likely be deducted from the FMV of the leasehold since it expired in 2011.  After all said and done, the long term value of the leasehold interest on that land is worth more than the lifts especially after depreciation.  (How new are PCMR's lifts anyway?  I haven't skied there in about 15 years.).


----------



## Highway Star (Aug 26, 2014)

marcski said:


> I would think that the lifts will be taken into consideration by the  Judge in his/her decision regarding the FMV of the leasehold.  The added value of the lifts, after depreciation, would most likely be deducted from the FMV of the leasehold since it expired in 2011.  After all said and done, the long term value of the leasehold interest on that land is worth more than the lifts especially after depreciation.  (How new are PCMR's lifts anyway?  I haven't skied there in about 15 years.).



The lifts are owned by Talisker, period.


----------



## jaytrem (Aug 26, 2014)

marcski said:


> How new are PCMR's lifts anyway? I haven't skied there in about 15 years.



The 4 6-packs were installed between 1996 and 1998.  The Crescent HSQ a couple years ago.  Those would be the most valuable lift on the disputed land.  The rest of them are a lot older.  I don't think the beginner HSQ makes it onto Talisker land.


----------



## marcski (Aug 26, 2014)

Highway Star said:


> The lifts are owned by Talisker, period.


Regardless, of what the self appointed god says, Powdr will get some credit for those lifts in the valuation of the land. Period.


----------



## Highway Star (Aug 26, 2014)

marcski said:


> Regardless, of what the self appointed god says, Powdr will get some credit for those lifts in the valuation of the land. Period.



Have you read the terms of the original lease?  From what understand, any permanent structures (aka Ski Lifts) are property of the landowner.  It's pure fanasty on POWDR's part to think they will be able to pick them up and take them.


----------



## drjeff (Aug 26, 2014)

marcski said:


> Regardless, of what the self appointed god says, Powdr will get *some* credit for those lifts in the valuation of the land. Period.



SOME being the key word.  Based on standard business accounting depreciation schedules, the "value" of a lift that is 15 to 20 years old, isn't nearly what the current day replacement costs would be.  It's often the same case with "goodwill" valuation determination - just because the current owner thinks that something, that realistically is intangible (such as annual skier visits, or annual rental income, etc), doesn't mean anything going forward

Then there's that whole issue of the eviction order with essentially a "everything that's on the land in question STAYS on that land" part of the judge's ruling that may very well make any valuation issues a moot point


----------



## skiNEwhere (Aug 26, 2014)

I wouldn't be surprised if the removal of some of the older lifts costs more than the cost of the lift itself.

Those lifting helicopters ain't cheap


----------



## jaytrem (Aug 26, 2014)

skiNEwhere said:


> I wouldn't be surprised if the removal of some of the older lifts costs more than the cost of the lift itself.
> 
> Those lifting helicopters ain't cheap



Yeah, they would be doing Vail a favor if they removed some of those lifts.  Please, feel free take Pioneer and the Town lift.


----------



## thetrailboss (Aug 26, 2014)

skiNEwhere said:


> I wouldn't be surprised if the removal of some of the older lifts costs more than the cost of the lift itself.
> 
> Those lifting helicopters ain't cheap



Some of the older lifts are Yans with towers set into poured-in concrete so they ain't coming out.


----------



## Domeskier (Aug 26, 2014)

drjeff said:


> SOME being the key word.  Based on standard business accounting depreciation schedules, the "value" of a lift that is 15 to 20 years old, isn't nearly what the current day replacement costs would be.  It's often the same case with "goodwill" valuation determination - just because the current owner thinks that something, that realistically is intangible (such as annual skier visits, or annual rental income, etc), doesn't mean anything going forward
> 
> Then there's that whole issue of the eviction order with essentially a "everything that's on the land in question STAYS on that land" part of the judge's ruling that may very well make any valuation issues a moot point



I wouldn't think that the depreciation value of the equipment could reasonably be used as a proxy for its market value, especially since Talisker would presumably be entitled to a stepped-up basis equal to whatever value is ultimately attributed to the lifts.  I also wouldn't think that the fact that everything stays with the land means that Talisker would not be required to reimburse Powdr for the value of the improvements.  That would seem to be a classic example of unjust enrichment.  If the result were otherwise, I can't imagine why any tenant would voluntarily improve a lessor's land.  Unless the theory is that they recovered the cost in depreciation deductions (which might or might not be the case depending on when the lease ends).  I guess maybe these issues are (or should be) addressed in the lease, but a default rule that says the lessor gets the full value of all leasehold improvements without just compensation seems a bit draconian.


----------



## Highway Star (Aug 26, 2014)

Domeskier said:


> I wouldn't think that the depreciation value of the equipment could reasonably be used as a proxy for its market value, especially since Talisker would presumably be entitled to a stepped-up basis equal to whatever value is ultimately attributed to the lifts.  I also wouldn't think that the fact that everything stays with the land means that Talisker would not be required to reimburse Powdr for the value of the improvements.  That would seem to be a classic example of unjust enrichment.  If the result were otherwise, I can't imagine why any tenant would voluntarily improve a lessor's land.  Unless the theory is that they recovered the cost in depreciation deductions (which might or might not be the case depending on when the lease ends).  I guess maybe these issues are (or should be) addressed in the lease, but a default rule that says the lessor gets the full value of all leasehold improvements without just compensation seems a bit draconian.



For example, Killington lease with the state, declares all improvements to be owned by the state, but they would be compensated for them, the depreciation is 2% per year from the date of install.  Thus a $3m lift installed 20 years ago would be worth $2m today.


----------



## VTKilarney (Aug 26, 2014)

Highway Star said:


> Thus a $3m lift installed 20 years ago would be worth $2m today.


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


----------



## Highway Star (Aug 26, 2014)

VTKilarney said:


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



The rams head and needles eye quads are both from 1996, and are in fine shape.


----------



## skiNEwhere (Aug 26, 2014)

The key is to prevent or at least slow down rust. If the towers are never repainted, this seems to happen a lot quicker. Also, the concrete footings seem to start breaking down after a few decades, this is irrelevant though if the lift is being sold.


----------



## VTKilarney (Aug 26, 2014)

I have never doubted that 20 year old lifts are still good lifts.  I'm just surprised that the value of a 20 year old lift would only be 1/3 less than a brand new lift.


----------



## Highway Star (Aug 26, 2014)

VTKilarney said:


> I have never doubted that 20 year old lifts are still good lifts.  I'm just surprised that the value of a 20 year old lift would only be 1/3 less than a brand new lift.



I agree.  But if I recall correctly that's that the lease says.  I don't think the dollar value is adjusted for inflation though.  It would cost over $5m to replace those lifts with new today.


----------



## skiNEwhere (Aug 26, 2014)

Highway Star said:


> I agree.  But if I recall correctly that's that the lease says.  I don't think the dollar value is adjusted for inflation though.  It would cost over $5m to replace those lifts with new today.



I think you're way under guessing. How much was the mittersill lift again?


----------



## Highway Star (Aug 26, 2014)

skiNEwhere said:


> I think you're way under guessing. How much was the mittersill lift again?



Mitersill was an exceptional case.  I'm not guessing.  Lift prices have gone up a bunch in 20 years too.


----------



## VTKilarney (Aug 26, 2014)

According to New England Ski History the Mittersill chair cost $3 million.


----------



## thetrailboss (Aug 26, 2014)

VTKilarney said:


> According to New England Ski History the Mittersill chair cost $3 million.



Well....that was a rush job and also covered some other work (removal of the old lift, etc)


----------



## Highway Star (Aug 26, 2014)

VTKilarney said:


> According to New England Ski History the Mittersill chair cost $3 million.



And 20 years ago, in a easier to access location in a non-abondoned ski area, it would have been well under $1m.  What's your point....?


----------



## VTKilarney (Aug 26, 2014)

My point is that you stated you were not "guessing" as to the cost of the Mittersill lift.  Is there a reason you take offense to my statement of fact?  It's not as if I offered an opinion.  Or are facts just a natural irritant to you?


----------



## Highway Star (Aug 26, 2014)

VTKilarney said:


> My point is that you stated you were not "guessing" as to the cost of the Mittersill lift.  Is there a reason you take offense to my statement of fact?  It's not as if I offered an opinion.  Or are facts just a natural irritant to you?



What the hell are you talking about??

Mitersill is possibly the most expensive double chair ever installed, it is NOT a good example of anything. 

A typical HSQ is $5-6M+ today.

A typical HSQ was $3-4M in the 90's - mainly because energy costs were much lower.  

You're bringing up facts that have nothing to do with the discussion at hand, which is infact annoying behaviour.


----------



## VTKilarney (Aug 26, 2014)

Take a deep breath and go back and read the thread.  I was not the one who brought up the Mittersill chair.  I certainly never suggested that Mittersill was a proper point of reference.  If you want to argue with somebody, at least know what the argument involves and know who said what.  

If you had taken the time to actually process what has been said in this thread, you will see that the ONLY thing I have said about Mittersill is this: "According to New England Ski History the Mittersill chair cost $3 million."  (Go ahead, look for more... I'll wait... Done?... Good.)

If that single comment is something you feel the need to get in a snit about, it's time to tweak your meds.

A normal, mature response would have been: "Sorry.  I didn't realize that this was all you had said."  But you didn't choose that path, did you?  That's because you can't admit you goofed.  Why are you so fragile?  I've been wrong plenty of times.  I've just been able to admit that fact and move on.


----------



## VTKilarney (Aug 26, 2014)

Highway Star said:


> You're bringing up facts that have nothing to do with the discussion at hand, which is infact annoying behaviour.


I see.  You are free to make the point that the cost of the Mittersill chair is not a valid price-point comparison, but the _actual cost_ of the Mittersill chair must remain forever secret from the members of this forum.  I can definitely see how you became annoyed if this was indeed your belief.


----------



## Highway Star (Aug 26, 2014)

VTKilarney said:


> Take a deep breath and go back and read the thread.  I was not the one who brought up the Mittersill chair.  I certainly never suggested that Mittersill was a proper point of reference.  If you want to argue with somebody, at least know what the argument involves and know who said what.
> 
> If you had taken the time to actually process what has been said in this thread, you will see that the ONLY thing I have said about Mittersill is this: "According to New England Ski History the Mittersill chair cost $3 million."  (Go ahead, look for more... I'll wait... Done?... Good.)
> 
> ...



You're an idiot.


----------



## Highway Star (Aug 26, 2014)

VTKilarney said:


> My point is that you stated you were not "guessing" as to the cost of the Mittersill lift.  Is there a reason you take offense to my statement of fact?  It's not as if I offered an opinion.  Or are facts just a natural irritant to you?



I'm "not guessing" about the typical cost of chairlifts, in general.

And you're still an idiot.


----------



## VTKilarney (Aug 26, 2014)

Highway Star said:


> You're an idiot.


I provide a well reasoned argument and this is the best you could come up with?  Ladies and gentlemen... I rest my case.


----------



## Highway Star (Aug 26, 2014)

VTKilarney said:


> I provide a well reasoned argument and this is the best you could come up with?  Ladies and gentlemen... I rest my case.



What arguement?  About what?  You're wasting everybody's time.  Split, kook.


----------



## VTKilarney (Aug 26, 2014)

Highway Star said:


> I'm "not guessing" about the typical cost of chairlifts, in general.



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*: "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.


----------



## thetrailboss (Aug 26, 2014)

VTKilarney has run into the Highway Star buzz-saw.....


----------



## jaytrem (Aug 26, 2014)

Highway Star said:


> A typical HSQ is $5-6M+ today.
> 
> A typical HSQ was $3-4M in the 90's - mainly because energy costs were much lower.



$4M in 1996 dollars is $6M in 2014 dollars.  So they're not really more expensive, it's a perception thing.  

Inflation calculator....

http://www.coinnews.net/tools/cpi-inflation-calculator/


----------



## skiNEwhere (Aug 26, 2014)

thetrailboss said:


> VTKilarney has run into the Highway Star buzz-saw.....



Lol

He'll eventually figure out his "my way or the highway" approach to "debating"


----------



## Highway Star (Aug 26, 2014)

jaytrem said:


> $4M in 1996 dollars is $6M in 2014 dollars.  So they're not really more expensive, it's a perception thing.
> 
> Inflation calculator....
> 
> http://www.coinnews.net/tools/cpi-inflation-calculator/



Completely agree.  But also note energy costs are a driver of CPI, obviously.


----------



## Highway Star (Aug 26, 2014)

VTKilarney said:


> 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.*"
> ...



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 (Aug 26, 2014)

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 (Aug 26, 2014)

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 (Aug 26, 2014)

VTKilarney said:


> 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 (Aug 26, 2014)

AdironRider said:


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



Just kicking them when they are down.


----------



## Domeskier (Aug 26, 2014)

VTKilarney said:


> 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 (Aug 26, 2014)

Domeskier said:


> 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 (Aug 26, 2014)

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


----------



## thetrailboss (Aug 26, 2014)

Highway Star said:


> 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 (Aug 26, 2014)

thetrailboss said:


> 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 (Aug 26, 2014)

Highway Star said:


> 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 (Aug 26, 2014)

Highway Star said:


> 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 said:


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


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


----------



## Highway Star (Aug 26, 2014)

thetrailboss said:


> 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 (Aug 27, 2014)

steamboat1 said:


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



No that's funny! :lol: 

Bravo Steamboat1!


----------



## Highway Star (Aug 27, 2014)

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 (Aug 27, 2014)

Highway Star said:


> 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 (Aug 27, 2014)

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 (Aug 27, 2014)

VTKilarney said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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


----------



## StevePluvia (Aug 27, 2014)

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 (Aug 27, 2014)

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


----------



## StevePluvia (Aug 27, 2014)

One other point... My read of the PCMR legal filings tells me their legal representation is pathetic.  Their arguments are never properly supported and generally, to put it kindly, pretty retarded.  E.G their proposed valuation in the bond filings.  Eeeesh.  Harris is a very good judge.  He generally knows the supporting case law better than the arguing attorneys.  I see PCMR getting spanked again today....  Its one thing to be a dipshit and forget to renew a lease, quite another to come to court and argue fantasy.  PCMR has lost all credibility with Judge Harris IMO, that aint good...

If I were PCMR I'd be worried about Talisker putting PCMR into involuntary bankruptcy, then taking the lower mtn property using their damages.


----------



## Highway Star (Aug 27, 2014)

StevePluvia said:


> One other point... My read of the PCMR legal filings tells me their legal representation is pathetic.  Their arguments are never properly supported and generally, to put it kindly, pretty retarded.  E.G their proposed valuation in the bond filings.  Eeeesh.  Harris is a very good judge.  He generally knows the supporting case law better than the arguing attorneys.  I see PCMR getting spanked again today....  Its one thing to be a dipshit and forget to renew a lease, quite another to come to court and argue fantasy.  PCMR has lost all credibility with Judge Harris IMO, that aint good...
> 
> If I were PCMR I'd be worried about Talisker putting PCMR into involuntary bankruptcy, then taking the lower mtn property using their damages.



Great insights!


----------



## mbedle (Aug 27, 2014)

If I were PCMR I'd be worried about Talisker putting PCMR into involuntary bankruptcy, then taking the lower mtn property using their damages.[/QUOTE]

It was interesting to note that a couple hundred acres of land in the base area is not owned by Talisker or PCMR, but Cummings himself, under the company call Park Properties, Inc. Even if Talisker puts PCMR into bankruptcy, they still have a gap of land they need between the base area and Talisker's land. Just something to throw in the mix....


----------



## Highway Star (Aug 27, 2014)

Park record live coverage on twitter!

https://twitter.com/Parkrecord


----------



## mbedle (Aug 27, 2014)

Its like watching a train wreak in slow motion!


----------



## Highway Star (Aug 27, 2014)

mbedle said:


> Its like watching a train wreak in slow motion!



EXACTLY LIKE IT!!!!


----------



## thetrailboss (Aug 27, 2014)

Looks like HS was not far off....Talisker wanted a $123.9 million bond according to Park Record's Twitter feed.  

https://twitter.com/Parkrecord

Rent for 2014 was apparently worth $14.8 million according to Talisker.


----------



## VTKilarney (Aug 27, 2014)

I thought he predicted $200-$300 million.  I may be confused, though, since I'm not sure if there is a functional difference between Vail and Talisker for this purpose.  

It's still no doubt better than I would have guessed.  My dartboard isn't nearly as accurate.


----------



## thetrailboss (Aug 27, 2014)

VTKilarney said:


> I thought he predicted $200-$300 million.  I may be confused, though, since I'm not sure if there is a functional difference between Vail and Talisker for this purpose.
> 
> It's still no doubt better than I would have guessed.  My dartboard isn't nearly as accurate.



My initial post was what PCMR claimed that Talisker wanted...which was $201 million.  So he was, admittedly, not far off.


----------



## Highway Star (Aug 27, 2014)

VTKilarney said:


> I thought he predicted $200-$300 million.  I may be confused, though, since I'm not sure if there is a functional difference between Vail and Talisker for this purpose.
> 
> It's still no doubt better than I would have guessed.  My dartboard isn't nearly as accurate.



PCMR thought they were being asked for $200m.

https://twitter.com/Parkrecord/status/504688499769880576

I'm basicly right. Deal with it.


----------



## VTKilarney (Aug 27, 2014)

If by right you mean 47% to 83% off the mark, then yes you were indeed right.  I am dealing with it.


----------



## Highway Star (Aug 27, 2014)

VTKilarney said:


> Talisker said PCMR was wrong and that Talisker was seeking a $123.9 million bond if the tweets are to be believed.



The high side figure from the bond arguement is probably over $200m.


----------



## VTKilarney (Aug 27, 2014)

Highway Star said:


> The high side figure from the bond arguement is probably over $200m.


Is Talisker asking for a $123.9 million bond or a $200 million bond?  You now have me confused.


----------



## VTKilarney (Aug 27, 2014)

Judge will make a ruling on September 3rd.  He's clearly giving the parties time to settle.


----------



## jaytrem (Aug 27, 2014)

StevePluvia said:


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



I'm pretty sure I posted a link to an article that had a property many many pages ago.  It was kinda small though, so not that great.  If you've got a general idea of the area already you can go on zillow.com and look at their maps, when you zoom in close enough they show property lines.  So it's a bit of a pain.


----------



## mbedle (Aug 27, 2014)

If you go to the summit County tax assessor records webpage, you can look at who owns what parcels.

http://maps.summitcounty.org/flexviewers/countymap/


----------



## mbedle (Aug 27, 2014)

VTKilarney said:


> Is Talisker asking for a $123.9 million bond or a $200 million bond?  You now have me confused.



The tweet from the newspaper states that Talisker corrected PCMR statement about asking for 200M and stated it was only asking for 123M.


----------



## VTKilarney (Aug 27, 2014)

Okay, that's what I thought.


----------



## Highway Star (Aug 27, 2014)

VTKilarney said:


> If by right you mean 47% to 83% off the mark, then yes you were indeed right.  I am dealing with it.



You're an idiot.


----------



## VTKilarney (Aug 27, 2014)

Highway Star said:


> You're an idiot.


How am I incorrect?  Did you not predict $200 to $300 million?  Was the actual amount requested not $123.9 million?  If you could actually provide some content to your post rather than an ape-like guttural response, it would be appreciated.


----------



## Highway Star (Aug 27, 2014)

VTKilarney said:


> How am I incorrect?  Did you not predict $200 to $300 million?  Was the actual amount requested not $123.9 million?  If you could actually provide some content to your post rather than an ape-like guttural response, it would be appreciated.



You should really go back and read my posts before calling me out.  Your reading comprehension is horrific.  I'm not going to sit here and argue with you, because you are beneath me and a complete waste of time.  Go away please, and don't come back until you graduate middle school.

For anybody else who cares:



Highway Star said:


> Can the lawyers please comment on this one???
> 
> PG. 1 - http://www.scribd.com/doc/236934829/Talisker-filing-on-bond-for-Park-City-Mountain-Resort#download
> 
> ...



^ Above is where I'm guessing, based on what I read in the arguement. * PCMR, who had the unredacted version of the document, thought Vail was asking for $201M.*  They changed their mind at some point.



> They are basicly asking for half their profits, times 12x.  That's what the document says.  That is a HUGE number.  POWDR would have to put up this cash within about a week.  Granted, the judge may not set such a high bond, but they do make extremely convincing arguements in that document and calculate it all out.  The actual bond could easily be well north of $100M.  PCMR has to come up with this cash in about a week, or find financing and put up collateral.  If they can't come up with the bond, they can't appeal, and a large judgement could potentally drive them (PCMR) into bankruptcy.  Putting the resort up as collateral leaves them exposed to losing the whole thing when they lose the appeal.  These guys are hosed.
> 
> I found this helpful:
> 
> http://www.jonesday.com/files/Publi...-64d80a235d12/Spring_2008_The_Appeal_Bond.pdf




Besides me, and the forbes article, nobody else was talking about the bond being over $100M.  Everyone else thinks maybe $10m or something. 

I made the observation that the requested bond would be extremely high, and am *basically* correct, and far more correct than everyone else.


----------



## VTKilarney (Aug 27, 2014)

So your long winded diatribe boils down to this:  Yes, I was correct in stating that you predicted that the request would be for $200 to $300 million when in actuality it was for $123.9 million. 

Just making sure.  You really need to stop inferring that I am asking/saying anything more than I am.  You are comically defensive about things.


----------



## Highway Star (Aug 27, 2014)

VTKilarney said:


> So your long winded diatribe essentially boiled down to this:  Yes, I was correct that you predicted that the request would be for $200 to $300 million when in actuality it was for $123.9 million.
> 
> Just making sure.  You really need to stop inferring that I am asking/saying anything more than I am.  You are comically defensive about things.



No, it's just that your reading comprehension is that of a 3rd grader.  *G**o back and try harder.

The fact that today PCMR thought that Vail was asking for $201M, means that at the time, my guess was correct - 100% correct.   My guess was that Vail, WAS asking for $200-300M in an arguement submitted a couple weeks ago.

Vail CHANGED what they were asking for, today.  

*Oh sorry I forgot, you're still an idiot.  Sorry bro.  Just keep on insisting 2+2=5.  Don't you have a conspiracy theory, republican budget proposal, or sheep to get back to?


----------



## VTKilarney (Aug 27, 2014)

I see... so your argument hinges on PCMR being right rather than Talisker.  Interesting...

The only thing we know is that Talisker has requested $123.9 million.  Talisker did not say that this is a change from a prior request.  Rather, they "refuted" PCMR's assertion that Talisker's request was for $201 million.  If you want to believe that PCMR was not engaging in gamesmanship, so be it.  I'll take the more conservative approach and rely upon Talisker's representations.


----------



## VTKilarney (Aug 27, 2014)

Reading through the twitter feeds of people that were live-tweeting the hearing, nobody is suggesting that Talisker indicated that it was changing its bond request.  For example, one person tweeted: "Talisker says bond amount they're seeking is NOT $201 million, it's only $123.9 million."  This is consistent with the other tweet that said that Talisker "refuted" PCMR's assertion.

It appears that PCMR was indeed either stupid or engaging in gamesmanship.


----------



## VTKilarney (Aug 27, 2014)

In other Utah court news, a federal judge just struck down a portion of Utah's statute outlawing polygamy.  
View attachment 13472


----------



## Highway Star (Aug 27, 2014)

VTKilarney said:


> Reading through the twitter feeds of people that were live-tweeting the hearing, nobody is suggesting that Talisker indicated that it was changing its bond request.  For example, one person tweeted: "Talisker says bond amount they're seeking is NOT $201 million, it's only $123.9 million."  This is consistent with the other tweet that said that Talisker "refuted" PCMR's assertion.
> 
> It appears that PCMR was indeed either stupid or engaging in gamesmanship.



This is like arguing with wet tissue paper.


----------



## VTKilarney (Aug 27, 2014)

Do you have any proof that Vail changed their request as you indicated?


----------



## Smellytele (Aug 27, 2014)

You guys are both just argumentative and have filled up pages saying the same thing over and over again. useless babble about useless babble between lawyers.


----------



## VTKilarney (Aug 27, 2014)

I'm happy to extend an olive branch if Highway Star is willing to accept.


----------



## skiNEwhere (Aug 27, 2014)

Highway star is running TrollBot v9.32, good luck with that. His default response if a parameter isn't met will be "You're an idiot"


----------



## thetrailboss (Aug 27, 2014)

:roll:

Here's what you need to know:

* Talisker wants a $123.9 million bond for the 2014-2015 season.  That is based on legal fees, rental value, etc.;
* PCMR thinks the bond should be MUCH less....like $6.9-10 million.  They argued that Talisker is screwed because the land is an "isolated island" and that Vail's rental figures are WAY too high because they are paying more than FMV;
*  The Judge said he will rule on September 3rd.


----------



## Edd (Aug 27, 2014)

HS makes me laugh, though. I'm a fan. I've paid for worse entertainment than this thread.


----------



## jaytrem (Aug 27, 2014)

thetrailboss said:


> They argued that Talisker is screwed because the land is an "isolated island" and that Vail's rental figures are WAY too high because they are paying more than FMV;



Yeah, it's an island that happens to be connected to a 3rd ski area that might be interested in adding some terrain if things don't totally work out for Vail.


----------



## AdironRider (Aug 27, 2014)

But it isn't connected. 

Prediction time! 

Bond splits the difference and comes in around 50-60 million, Powdr walks. Vail is forced into the reverse position and gets to pay another 10-15 mill a year to lease the base facilities and water rights. 

MTN stock tanks. 

Cummings looks like an idiot, but like Donald Sterling, will ultimately get paid a nice ransom.


----------



## jaytrem (Aug 27, 2014)

AdironRider said:


> But it isn't connected.



It's connected the same way NJ is connected to NY, thus NJ is not an island. It shares a boundary.

My prediction, PCMR eventually sells and Vail also picks up Killington and the Vegas area. More fun to go with a wild prediction.


----------



## VTKilarney (Aug 27, 2014)

My prediction: The parties settle prior to the September 4th ruling on the bond.  According to Twitter, the attorneys met with the judge in chambers.  After that meeting the judge did an about-face and decided against making a ruling today on the amount of the bond.

My second prediction: Highway Star will say "You're an idiot" in the near future.


----------



## skiNEwhere (Aug 27, 2014)

My prediction: The winner of the suit will be determined by ski-off


----------



## StevePluvia (Aug 27, 2014)

mbedle said:


> If you go to the summit County tax assessor records webpage, you can look at who owns what parcels.
> 
> http://maps.summitcounty.org/flexviewers/countymap/



Thanks -- very helpful to determine how much leverage PCMR has, or alternatively what Talisker will try to foreclose on to satisfy a judgement.   I suspect both side will see the bond as a tell re damages.  

If that lower property is worth less than a Talisker judgment, talisker ends up getting all of PCMR's goodies for freeeeeee.....

Cummings is an idiot if he doesn't settle this quick, he's got no real leverage and no end game.


----------



## StevePluvia (Aug 27, 2014)

"Above is where I'm guessing, based on what I read in the arguement. PCMR, who had the unredacted version of the document, thought Vail was asking for $201M. They changed their mind at some point."

As someone else mentioned, (if you read the bond memo from talisker its pretty clear), both parties used various methods to argue why the bond should be xyz.  with different methods you get different totals.  One of Taliskers methods came to 120ish another 200ish.


----------



## VTKilarney (Aug 27, 2014)

So they never asked for $201 million.  They merely indicated that they _could_ have if they opted for that method.  Thanks for clarifying that.


----------



## StevePluvia (Aug 27, 2014)

As you know, the Talisker memo was redacted.  I suspect its safe to assume one of the Talisker valuations was the 200ish figure but instead they asked for a mere 123m (trying to show their reasonableness (cough)) .  

In typical attorney dickwadishness PCMR use the hi number (200ish) in open court attempting to outrage the peanut gallery and out Talisker's gluttony.  Ohhhh the draaama... (ummm not)   I've seen PCMR's firm use these same limp tactics in other cases, they always backfire.  amateur hour litigation at its best.

Cummings hired this crack litigation team thinking he'd scored Johnny Cochran.  He's now at the point he knows he brought a carrot to a gun fight.


----------



## VTKilarney (Aug 27, 2014)

Yeah, I had the same reaction.  Only a fool would have fallen for the idea that Talisker would ask for $200 million.  If so, why on earth would they have included the lower valuation method?  Duh...


----------



## thetrailboss (Aug 27, 2014)

VTKilarney said:


> My prediction: The parties settle prior to the September 4th ruling on the bond.  According to Twitter, the attorneys met with the judge in chambers.  After that meeting the judge did an about-face and decided against making a ruling today on the amount of the bond.
> 
> My second prediction: Highway Star will say "You're an idiot" in the near future.



I don't think it's fair to say about face.  He set today as the deadline but probably gave them more time because he feels that they are trying to resolve this in good faith.  Give them a few more days and then weigh in.  He's already ruled for Talisker.  It's only a matter of how badly POWDR is going to lose.


----------



## VTKilarney (Aug 28, 2014)

The about-face referred to the fact that earlier in the hearing he told the attorneys there would be a decision that day.  I wasn't criticizing the judge.  I think he did the right thing.


----------



## StevePluvia (Aug 28, 2014)

VTKilarney said:


> The about-face referred to the fact that earlier in the hearing he told the attorneys there would be a decision that day.  I wasn't criticizing the judge.  I think he did the right thing.



Harris was right not to rule today, if he had, without fully considering the new information presented in court, it could have been grounds for appeal.  This is his standard MO.  I'm confident Harris will make the right ruling, one that has little or no grounds for appeal.  He's very, very good (unlike the assclowns PCMR hired)


----------



## StevePluvia (Aug 28, 2014)

My prediction:  Bond will be set at $50-65 Million; If PCMR refuses to settle by selling their property to Talisker, Talisker will work toward a judgement that will reach Park Properties (the lower mtn titled owner).  

Cummings has no leverage, no end game and assclowns for legal representation.


----------



## VTKilarney (Aug 28, 2014)

I have to agree that it appears (to this outsider looking in) that PCMR's counsel is holding PCMR's hand while PCMR walks off of a cliff.  It is certainly possible, though, that PCMR is making terrible decisions after being fully advised of the consequences and their attorneys have no choice but to do their best in light of this.  

One way or the other, Vail is making PCMR look like fools.  Or perhaps Vail is just showing everyone what was behind the curtain to begin with.

I remember seeing a study done on companies that passed control on to heirs.  The study showed that companies that did this were much worse off in the long run compared to companies that brought in outside management.  Something to think about...  I guess Market Basket would be the exception.  For all of their in-fighting, they were a very profitable company.


----------



## Highway Star (Aug 28, 2014)

StevePluvia said:


> "Above is where I'm guessing, based on what I read in the arguement. PCMR, who had the unredacted version of the document, thought Vail was asking for $201M. They changed their mind at some point."
> 
> As someone else mentioned, (if you read the bond memo from talisker its pretty clear), both parties used various methods to argue why the bond should be xyz.  with different methods you get different totals.  One of Taliskers methods came to 120ish another 200ish.



This is correct.  Glad to see someone is paying attention here.


----------



## Highway Star (Aug 28, 2014)

thetrailboss said:


> I don't think it's fair to say about face.  He set today as the deadline but probably gave them more time because he feels that they are trying to resolve this in good faith.  Give them a few more days and then weigh in.  He's already ruled for Talisker.  It's only a matter of how badly POWDR is going to lose.



Don't expect any any critical thinking or analysis from that guy, it's tough enough for him to remember to breathe.


----------



## VTKilarney (Aug 28, 2014)

Come on Highway Star... you know you want to make my second prediction correct...


----------



## Highway Star (Aug 28, 2014)

skiNEwhere said:


> Highway star is running TrollBot v9.32, good luck with that. His default response if a parameter isn't met will be "You're an idiot"



Certain comments aren't worth a response beyond that.


----------



## Highway Star (Aug 28, 2014)

VTKilarney said:


> Come on Highway Star... you know you want to make my second prediction correct...



If I was paying attention to your posts, I would know what you're talking about.  But I'm not, because..................




















..........wait for it..................






























............little bit more.................






















............remember to keep breathing....................




















...............*you're an idiot.*


----------



## VTKilarney (Aug 28, 2014)

Nice!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  I'm batting .500 so far!


----------



## skiNEwhere (Aug 28, 2014)

VTKilarney said:


> Nice!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  I'm batting .500 so far!



Sorry, I've been called an idiot more, so I'm the clear cut winner


----------



## VTKilarney (Aug 28, 2014)

Damn!  I guess I am still in the minor leagues.


----------



## mbedle (Aug 28, 2014)

StevePluvia said:


> My prediction:  Bond will be set at $50-65 Million; If PCMR refuses to settle by selling their property to Talisker, Talisker will work toward a judgement that will reach Park Properties (the lower mtn titled owner).
> 
> Cummings has no leverage, no end game and assclowns for legal representation.



Help me out here, but I'm a little bit confused about what currently is in front of the judge. My understanding is the Judge only has in front of him the task of setting the bond amount that PCMR will have to post to remain on the property through the upcoming season and appeal process. The PCMR appeal is primarily to address the ruling by the Judge that PCMR no longer has a valid lease for the Talisker land. If PCMR refuses to post the bond, the judge will sign the eviction order and maybe rule on the timeframe for eviction and what can be removed from the land. 

At that point, to keep the resort open, that only leaves mediation to solve the problem. Outcomes could be PCMR selling their assets to Vail. That sale would most likely take into account money owed to both Talisker and Vail for past lease payments. Given the water rights, infrastructure and land, I'm not sure which side would receive any money from the sale.  It could also result in PCMR leasing their assets to Vail or a complete breakdown of negotiation and PCMR goes forward with the smaller resort and Woodward facility. At that point, Talisker/Vail would sue PCMR for damages and past lease payments. Again, if the judge rules in Talisker/Vail's favor (that would be a new trial or summary judgement) and PCMR couldn't pay the judgement, they could/would go into foreclosure. This could result in Talisker/Vail taking ownership of their assets. That is also going to require a whole other set of bankruptcy court hearings and rulings, which could take years. 

I'm unclear on how Talisker/Vail could have any claim against Park Properties, Inc. Just because the have the same owner, Park Properties, Inc. is a separate incorporation, and as such, are protected from claims. Just as John Cummings assets are not in jeopardy from any lawsuit by Talisker/Vail. That is one of the key benefits of having a company incorporated, it shields your own personal assets from lawsuits and claims.  

And finally, why do you feel that PCMR's lawyers are "assclowns"? I'm not a lawyer, but I just haven't read anything that would indicate that. You figure if they had made any big blunders in their fillings, it would have be called to attention.


----------



## mbedle (Aug 28, 2014)

Highway Star said:


> If I was paying attention to your posts, I would know what you're talking about.  But I'm not, because..................
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hate to waste the space, but this was classic....


----------



## Skimaine (Aug 28, 2014)

skiNEwhere said:


> I want to know what happened to the person responsible for the dropping the ball on the lease. Is it safe to say they were fired?



Rumor has it he was actual a Vail employee just waiting for a chance to F'up the lease deal.  Now retired with a place at Vail and is own private island in the Caribbean.


----------



## jimmywilson69 (Aug 28, 2014)

Skimaine said:


> Rumor has it he was actual a Vail employee just waiting for a chance to F'up the lease deal.  Now retired with a place at Vail and is own private island in the Caribbean.



no just plain incompetence that a simple outlook reminder could've solved.


----------



## mbedle (Aug 28, 2014)

Skimaine said:


> Rumor has it he was actual a Vail employee just waiting for a chance to F'up the lease deal.  Now retired with a place at Vail and is own private island in the Caribbean.



Come on!!! That would go down as one of the best corporate sabotages ever!!! Plus, if true, we would be dealing with this issue today. I read somewhere he was let go prior to the lease deadline.


----------



## trackbiker (Aug 28, 2014)

> Cummings has no leverage, no end game and assclowns for legal representation.[/QUOTE
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## mbedle (Aug 28, 2014)

"The judge questioned the value attached to the PCMR terrain in the deal, saying there is not easy access to the acreage from the other Talisker Land Holdings, LLC ground involved in the deal."

I find this statement in the Park City Record article to be interesting. If he ends up siding more with PCMR on their view of the land, that might substantially lower the bond.


----------



## StevePluvia (Aug 28, 2014)

mbedle said:


> I'm unclear on how Talisker/Vail could have any claim against Park Properties, Inc. Just because the have the same owner, Park Properties, Inc. is a separate incorporation, and as such, are protected from claims. Just as John Cummings assets are not in jeopardy from any lawsuit by Talisker/Vail. That is one of the key benefits of having a company incorporated, it shields your own personal assets from lawsuits and claims.



Bankruptcy law has very strong clawback provisions, particularly with respect to fraudulent transfers (all money that left the corp after the lease was not renewed).  That money certainly made its way to Cummings/the Park Property owner.  Once in bankruptcy the trustee is paid by the debtor's assets.  This is the ultimate fox in a the hen house situation.  The trustee knows he can get at shitloads of assets and get paid for a long time -- all on Cummings dime and Cummings can do nothing to stop it.

Long story short, with fraudulent transfer, every penny that left the corp would come back; Cummings would either pay directly or his assets would be foreclosed on -- those would include the Park Properties (aka the lower mtn).  And Cummings would have the pleasure of paying for the lawsuit (all the bankruptcy trustee legal fees, think millions) that rape him.  Put another way, Cummings would pay for the lawsuit that sued him, AND for his own legal defense and then lose the millions of settlement $.  Ahhh the haaaarrrahhh...


----------



## StevePluvia (Aug 28, 2014)

mbedle said:


> And finally, why do you feel that PCMR's lawyers are "assclowns"? I'm not a lawyer, but I just haven't read anything that would indicate that. You figure if they had made any big blunders in their fillings, it would have be called to attention.



I think the judge dismissing the majority of PCMR's claims pointed out a "few" (cough) blunders in their filings.  Then there's repeatedly misrepresenting fairly obvious facts killing any credible argument they might have.... Yep that's legal assclownery at its best.


----------



## StevePluvia (Aug 28, 2014)

I would not be surprised if Harris rules on the bond before Sept 3rd.


----------



## mbedle (Aug 28, 2014)

StevePluvia said:


> Bankruptcy law has very strong clawback provisions, particularly with respect to fraudulent transfers (all money that left the corp after the lease was not renewed).  That money certainly made its way to Cummings/the Park Property owner.  Once in bankruptcy the trustee is paid by the debtor's assets.  This is the ultimate fox in a the hen house situation.  The trustee knows he can get at shitloads of assets and get paid for a long time -- all on Cummings dime and Cummings can do nothing to stop it.
> 
> Long story short, with fraudulent transfer, every penny that left the corp would come back; Cummings would either pay directly or his assets would be foreclosed on -- those would include the Park Properties (aka the lower mtn).  And Cummings would have the pleasure of paying for the lawsuit (all the bankruptcy trustee legal fees, think millions) that rape him.  Put another way, Cummings would pay for the lawsuit that sued him, AND for his own legal defense and then lose the millions of settlement $.  Ahhh the haaaarrrahhh...



But you are assuming that the transfer took place after the lease expired or when they were notified by Talisker. Unless you have some insight into the financial world for PCMR and Powdr, I think thats a pretty bold statement to make. Also, lets not forget what his net worth is, and by no means is this going to through him or his family into the poor house.


----------



## mbedle (Aug 28, 2014)

StevePluvia said:


> I think the judge dismissing the majority of PCMR's claims pointed out a "few" (cough) blunders in their filings.  Then there's repeatedly misrepresenting fairly obvious facts killing any credible argument they might have.... Yep that's legal assclownery at its best.



So with that said, do you believe that another team of lawyers could have done it better in court, resulting in different rulings from the court? As far as misrepresenting fairly obvious facts, I'm not sure what facts you are talking about.


----------



## StevePluvia (Aug 28, 2014)

"But you are assuming that the transfer took place after the lease expired or when they were notified by Talisker. Unless you have some insight into the financial world for PCMR and Powdr, I think thats a pretty bold statement to make."

Ummm bold no, PCMR depositions referenced in the filings admit PCMR paid out all cash that went in PCMR to the various owners or their entities.  That's fraudulent transfer beginning on the date the lease expired.


----------



## StevePluvia (Aug 28, 2014)

mbedle said:


> So with that said, do you believe that another team of lawyers could have done it better in court



It would be hard to have done it worse.  They filed a lawsuit that was essentially bitch-slapped out of court.  Their beef?  THEY didn't renew a lease.  Seriously?  No credible attorney files that suit. Every good litigator I know would have negotiated a deal that never saw a day in court.  Instead Cummings is facing a judgement, legal fees, and eviction, no ski resort and the world knows he's an assclown.  

Ouch.

Legal 101, don't pick a fight you can't win.  Particularly when an entire ski resort community's livelihood lies in the balance.


----------



## VTKilarney (Aug 28, 2014)

They certainly weakened their negotiating position by engaging in obviously futile legal antics.  Talisker now has them by the balls and as the clock ticks the town itself is becoming their enemy.  They've got nowhere left to turn.  I find it hard to believe that whatever deal is negotiated will be as good a deal for PCMR as they could have obtained months ago.


----------



## mbedle (Aug 28, 2014)

StevePluvia said:


> "But you are assuming that the transfer took place after the lease expired or when they were notified by Talisker. Unless you have some insight into the financial world for PCMR and Powdr, I think thats a pretty bold statement to make."
> 
> Ummm bold no, PCMR depositions referenced in the filings admit PCMR paid out all cash that went in PCMR to the various owners or their entities.  That's fraudulent transfer beginning on the date the lease expired.



My problem isn't with cunnings transferring profits from his company to his own accounts or some other entity that he owns. In privately held companies, the routine transfer of profits to owners is common. The question has to deal with your statement that is was fraudulent, I don't believe that either of us have enough facts to make that statement.  It will also have to be proven that PCMR had any idea about how much talisker may have ultimately ask for. Talisker's initial offer was to lease the property to PCMR for 7.7 million. That amount could easy be made in a season of operating PCMR, so it wouldn't be necessary to leave 120+million sitting in PCMR's accounts.

Under the Fraudulent Transfer Act, it also needs to be proven that the transfer was done for the sole purpose of avoid pending debit or claims.


----------



## StevePluvia (Aug 28, 2014)

VTKilarney said:


> " as the clock ticks the town itself is becoming their enemy.  They've got nowhere left to turn.  I find it hard to believe that whatever deal is negotiated will be as good a deal for PCMR as they could have obtained months ago."



yep, 100%.  

And not to lose perspective, PCMR is a 1980's fuckingshithole. Its an eyesore.  Its been a dump for years while Park City proper, Deer Valley and the Canyons all improved.  That's the Cummings legacy.  Well, that and his assclown crown.


----------



## mbedle (Aug 28, 2014)

StevePluvia said:


> It would be hard to have done it worse.  They filed a lawsuit that was essentially bitch-slapped out of court.  Their beef?  THEY didn't renew a lease.  Seriously?  No credible attorney files that suit. Every good litigator I know would have negotiated a deal that never saw a day in court.  Instead Cummings is facing a judgement, legal fees, and eviction, no ski resort and the world knows he's an assclown.
> 
> Ouch.
> 
> Legal 101, don't pick a fight you can't win.  Particularly when an entire ski resort community's livelihood lies in the balance.



I'll let this go at this point. Your resentment of Cumming and all thing Powdr is obvious, which doesn't allow you to evaluate this from a unprejudiced position.


----------



## StevePluvia (Aug 28, 2014)

mbedle said:


> My problem isn't with cunnings transferring profits from his company to his own accounts or some other entity that he owns. In privately held companies, the routine transfer of profits to owners is common. The question has to deal with your statement that is was fraudulent, I don't believe that either of us have enough facts to make that statement.



You best stick to your day job.

" A transfer made by a debtor is fraudulent as to a creditor whose claim arose before the transfer was made if the transfer was made to an insider for an antecedent debt, the debtor was insolvent at the time, and the insider had reasonable cause to believe that the debtor was insolvent."

The facts prove Cummings and his related entities who received payouts are insiders; and, knew the lease expired (the court already ruled they faked up the renewal letter), therefore this is the date Talisker's claim "arose".  PCMR's depos admit PCMR is now an empty shell because they paid all of the income out.  Thus the transfers made them insolvent to the creditor Talisker.

Talisker has facts for summary judgement already.  Its a matter of time and process before they can clawback every dime of Judgment they are awarded.


----------



## StevePluvia (Aug 28, 2014)

mbedle said:


> Under the Fraudulent Transfer Act, it also needs to be proven that the transfer was done for the sole purpose of avoid pending debit or claims.




Uhh wrong.  Try reading the act it's available online.  Hint read both the BK code and State law, then case law surrounding both.


----------



## thetrailboss (Aug 28, 2014)

StevePluvia said:


> yep, 100%.
> 
> And not to lose perspective, PCMR is a 1980's fuckingshithole. Its an eyesore.  Its been a dump for years while Park City proper, Deer Valley and the Canyons all improved.  That's the Cummings legacy.  Well, that and his assclown crown.



Last season I skied PCMR for the first time.  I was very surprised as to how shopworn some of the facilities were.  Granted the six packs were nice, but the fixed grip lifts were very old....as in Nick Badami's tenure if not before.


----------



## StevePluvia (Aug 28, 2014)

mbedle said:


> I'll let this go at this point. Your resentment of Cumming and all thing Powdr is obvious, which doesn't allow you to evaluate this from a unprejudiced position.



I have nothing against PCMR Cummings or their pathetic legal team.  I just enjoy the play-by-play of this assclown drama.  Why is it you've taken up defending the assclowns when you know so little of the law or facts involved?


----------



## trackbiker (Aug 28, 2014)

StevePluvia said:


> It would be hard to have done it worse.  They filed a lawsuit that was essentially bitch-slapped out of court.  Their beef?  THEY didn't renew a lease.  Seriously?  No credible attorney files that suit. Every good litigator I know would have negotiated a deal that never saw a day in court.  Instead Cummings is facing a judgement, legal fees, and eviction, no ski resort and the world knows he's an assclown.
> 
> Ouch.
> 
> Legal 101, don't pick a fight you can't win.  Particularly when an entire ski resort community's livelihood lies in the balance.



We don't know that the lawyers didn't recommend that PCMR make a settlement. Maybe Cummings is such an egotist that he refused to settle and wanted them to fight to the death. I don't know the man. But in either case, the lawyers are making a lot more money this way and there will be more to come for some time forward. They do know Cummings has very deep pockets.


----------



## Domeskier (Aug 28, 2014)

trackbiker said:


> We don't know that the lawyers didn't recommend that PCMR make a settlement. Maybe Cummings is such an egotist that he refused to settle and wanted them to fight to the death. I don't know the man. But in either case, the lawyers are making a lot more money this way and there will be more to come for some time forward. They do know Cummings has very deep pockets.



Not sure Talisker would have had any incentive to settle for anything less than a market-rate lease.  They were probably waiting for a foot-fault for years to break that thing.  But you're right - it's not clear when PCMR didn't just bite the bullet and cave.


----------



## StevePluvia (Aug 28, 2014)

trackbiker said:


> We don't know that the lawyers didn't recommend that PCMR make a settlement. Maybe Cummings is such an egotist that he refused to settle and wanted them to fight to the death.



Very true.  However, hard as it is to conceive that an attorney would turn money away rather than start a fight they couldn't win, good litigators will do just that.  Not only did PCMR counsel take the money, then get their asses kicked out with the eviction, they continue to make laughable arguments -- like suggesting the upper Vail property should be valued as farmland or a US Forrest property lease.  

Even if the base property is never reunited, the upper property is developed for skiing, used by the US Ski & Snowboard Team and can be connected to two other world class resorts (Canyons, Deer Valley).  Water will not be a problem -- the state will take away Cummings unused water and re-issue to Vail.


----------



## AdironRider (Aug 28, 2014)

So do you work for Vail?

You also don't understand water rights.


----------



## StevePluvia (Aug 28, 2014)

AdironRider said:


> So do you work for Vail?
> 
> You also don't understand water rights.



No I don't work for Vail and I don't like the Canyons soft crap snow.  However I have litigated water rights in Utah.  Have you?


----------



## AdironRider (Aug 28, 2014)

Bullshit you have. 

If the state tried to take the water rights away this case will remain in limbo for the better part of a decade. No way no how that is the route this goes.


----------



## StevePluvia (Aug 28, 2014)

"Bullshit you have.  If the state tried to take the water rights away this case will remain in limbo for the better part of a decade. No way no how that is the route this goes. "

To be clear, I have litigated water rights in Utah and never lost a case.  That's right dipshit from way back east, I bat 1000 litigating Utah water rights.  

In Utah you cannot keep water rights you cannot prove beneficial use.  In the instant case, PMCR has water rights for snow-making on property they no longer own or control.  They cannot therefore show beneficial use and they will automatically lose that water pursuant to Utah law.  

http://www.waterrights.utah.gov/


----------



## thetrailboss (Aug 28, 2014)

Had a friend today that is so fed up with this that he hopes that the State will seize the PCMR land per eminent domain.


----------



## AdironRider (Aug 28, 2014)

thetrailboss said:


> Had a friend today that is so fed up with this that he hopes that the State will seize the PCMR land per eminent domain.



And give it to a foreign owned entity? Yeah that will go over well.


----------



## AdironRider (Aug 28, 2014)

StevePluvia said:


> No I don't work for Vail and I don't like the Canyons soft crap snow.  However I have litigated water rights in Utah.  Have you?



Since you just seem to be on repeat, you also presumably know that it takes 7 years of non use before a declaration to rescind can even be issued, but that also Powdr can apply for an application for non-use of water due to legal issues just like this. So at best, 8 years from now, its a slim possibility, with like 10 things that have to break just so. 

Please, quit posturing and saying stupid things. You give lawyers a bad name.


----------



## mbedle (Aug 28, 2014)

StevePluvia said:


> No I don't work for Vail and I don't like the Canyons soft crap snow.  However I have litigated water rights in Utah.  Have you?



Christ Steve, why didn't you just tell us you were a lawyer. I never would have questioned your insightfulness and non-resentment towards cumming's business practices or as you so graciously put it "Fu&^ing*%$#hole, pathetic and assclowns". My bad!


----------



## AdironRider (Aug 28, 2014)

StevePluvia said:


> "Bullshit you have.  If the state tried to take the water rights away this case will remain in limbo for the better part of a decade. No way no how that is the route this goes. "
> 
> To be clear, I have litigated water rights in Utah and never lost a case.  That's right dipshit from way back east, I bat 1000 litigating Utah water rights.
> 
> ...




You conveniently left out the necessary details I mentioned above. Very lawyer like, I'm sure Powdr would love you on their team. 

I don't live back East either.


----------



## StevePluvia (Aug 28, 2014)

AdironRider said:


> Since you just seem to be on repeat, you also presumably know that it takes 7 years of non use before a declaration to rescind can even be issued, but that also Powdr can apply for an application for non-use of water due to legal issues just like this. So at best, 8 years from now, its a slim possibility, with like 10 things that have to break just so.
> 
> Please, quit posturing and saying stupid things. You give lawyers a bad name.



Phhht -- please explain how PCMR could claim a legal action -- they've been evicted from land that is requisite for them to maintain their claim to the water and their related claims have been dismissed.  While not final in all respects, the judgement with respect to any claim by PMCR to the upper Vail property is pretty much final -- which bars any future claim.  Thus they can't claim operation of legal action.  

Here's the application language:

State Statute offers the following justifications that are considered reasonable for NONUSE of a water right:

C. operation of legal proceedings;

Res judicata or res iudicata , also known as claim preclusion, is the Latin term for "a matter [already] judged", and may refer to two concepts: in both civil law and common law legal systems, a case in which there has been a final judgment and is no longer subject to appeal; and the legal doctrine meant to bar (or preclude) continued litigation of a case on same issues between the same parties. In this latter usage, the term is synonymous with "preclusion".

In the case of res judicata, the matter cannot be raised again, either in the same court or in a different court. A court will use res judicata to deny reconsideration of a matter.



resjudicata


----------



## thetrailboss (Aug 28, 2014)

AdironRider said:


> And give it to a foreign owned entity? Yeah that will go over well.



No his point was that the state take it to shut both parties up. 


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## MEtoVTSkier (Aug 28, 2014)

"no longer subject to appeal"  Well, you know that is gonna happen if they lose.. and even if they do... they just pump water and make snow on the property they still own. It'll get used...


----------



## HowieT2 (Aug 28, 2014)

I don't have a horse in this game, but this seems to be a situation where everyone knows they have to make a deal yet neither party will do what it takes.  They don't want to flinch.  Big egos involved.  I'd be very worried if I were invested.


----------



## StevePluvia (Aug 29, 2014)

MEtoVTSkier said:


> "no longer subject to appeal"  Well, you know that is gonna happen if they lose.. and even if they do... they just pump water and make snow on the property they still own. It'll get used...



No, that's not the way it works.  You have to show beneficial use of all the water you have.  When you have shown for multiple years you needed x water for x acres to make snow, arguing you need the same water to service 1/10th the property won't fly.  The state will take away the water you can't show beneficial use.  

"All waters in Utah are public property. A “water right” is a right to divert (remove from its natural source) and beneficially use water. "

http://www.waterrights.utah.gov/wrinfo/

The question is -- how does Vail (if they become the operator) get water for snow-making while that legal process works out?   

There's <<<intense>>> political and business pressure to keep PC open so as not to kill the local economy.  I would not rule out anything -- including an act by state legislature to authorize water specific to the operators needs.  

I don't think lack of water will kill the PC season, just my opinion ....


----------



## Domeskier (Aug 29, 2014)

They rely on snowmaking in Utah?  Time to scratch those guys off the list!


----------



## StevePluvia (Aug 29, 2014)

MEtoVTSkier said:


> "no longer subject to appeal"  Well, you know that is gonna happen if they lose.. and even if they do... they just pump water and make snow on the property they still own. It'll get used...



You must appeal within 30 days.  PCMR didn't appeal in 30 days, thus they lost the right to appeal.  Later (after appeal time expired), PCMR appealed to the Utah Supreme Ct on the narrow issue of Jurisdiction -- a claim essentially that the decision was in the wrong court and that the Harris court had no authority to make the decision.

Interesting (cough) argument, considering the PCMR assclowns (1) filed the lawsuit;  and (2) select the court to file in... So now their argument is -- we filed the lawsuit (in the wrong court).  We lost, were evicted, our claims were dismissed, bitch slapped out of court and now, we want you to please overrule the court we filed in.... uh... and it's not because we didn't like their decision... its because we filed in the wrong court and didn't figure that out till after we got bitch slapped. yes your honor, I'm serious.  No, I'm not drunk...

Wow, that's retarded.  MOUNTAINS of legal precedent against this argument.

Add this to the list of reasons the PCMR legal team earned the assclown crown


----------



## Highway Star (Aug 29, 2014)

StevePluvia said:


> *To be clear, I have litigated water rights in Utah and never lost a case.  That's right dipshit from way back east, I bat 1000 litigating Utah water rights.  *



Quote of the month.


----------



## StevePluvia (Aug 29, 2014)

PCMR advertising 14/15 season tickets at last night's UofU football game...  ?

Does this mean a deal is certain, or did the PCMR assclowns who forgot to renew their lease, forgot to file an appeal just forget to pull their advertising?

I spect we'll know of a settlement by evening news tonight MST....


----------



## thetrailboss (Aug 29, 2014)

StevePluvia said:


> PCMR advertising 14/15 season tickets at last night's UofU football game...  ?
> 
> Does this mean a deal is certain, or did the PCMR assclowns who forgot to renew their lease, forgot to file an appeal just forget to pull their advertising?
> 
> I spect we'll know of a settlement by evening news tonight MST....



They've been advertising their season passes for several months now.....

Just go to their website.


----------



## trackbiker (Aug 29, 2014)

StevePluvia said:


> I spect we'll know of a settlement by evening news tonight MST....



I'll be very surprised if that happens. Each side will let the other sweat over the long weekend and the lawyers will ring up more billable hours. If I was a betting man I would guess that we will not hear anything until Tuesday at the earliest.


----------



## StevePluvia (Aug 29, 2014)

thetrailboss said:


> They've been advertising their season passes for several months now.....
> 
> Just go to their website.



Good catch!


----------



## VTKilarney (Aug 29, 2014)

If the judge is going to rule on September 3rd, I would not expect news of a settlement until the 2nd or the 3rd.


----------



## StevePluvia (Aug 29, 2014)

trackbiker said:


> I'll be very surprised if that happens. Each side will let the other sweat over the long weekend and the lawyers will ring up more billable hours. If I was a betting man I would guess that we will not hear anything until Tuesday at the earliest.



yea, that makes more sense.  Its not really the 11th hour until 5 mins before the Sept 3 hearing.


----------



## thetrailboss (Aug 29, 2014)

StevePluvia said:


> Good catch!



I'd agree with you though that they might be stepping it up now considering, well, that I bet sales are down.....


----------



## StevePluvia (Aug 29, 2014)

Mediation extended till Sunday 10 am... meh...


----------



## skiNEwhere (Aug 30, 2014)

StevePluvia said:


> PCMR advertising 14/15 season tickets at last night's UofU football game...  ?



Knowing POWDR, I'd look through that season pass contract _very _closely for something along the lines of "All sales are final and non-refundable"


----------



## Edd (Aug 30, 2014)

I can't imagine buying a pass there under the circumstances. With all of the choices in that region, why mess with it?


----------



## thetrailboss (Aug 30, 2014)

skiNEwhere said:


> Knowing POWDR, I'd look through that season pass contract _very _closely for something along the lines of "All sales are final and non-refundable"



Actually they say that they will give a refund...prorated if it is in the middle of the season. 


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## StevePluvia (Aug 31, 2014)

Edd said:


> I can't imagine buying a pass there under the circumstances. With all of the choices in that region, why mess with it?



I can't imagine buying a pass there under ANY circumstance.  Ok, I'll admit, they have excellent race courses, set up with shiny, blue Vermont powder, but you have to be on an authorized team to get on em.  And their park rocks... But if you're not racing on their course or compressing your spine discs in their park, meh.  I never use the free passes I get there....


----------



## StevePluvia (Aug 31, 2014)

Its 10:11 somewhere in Park City... That must means it time for another extension... Although nothing reported yet...


----------



## Highway Star (Sep 2, 2014)

Rumor on TGR is that there is an announcement coming.


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 2, 2014)

Highway Star said:


> Rumor on TGR is that there is an announcement coming.



I think there have been multiple announcements. Anything more specific?


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## Highway Star (Sep 2, 2014)

thetrailboss said:


> I think there have been multiple announcements. Anything more specific?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone



http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/...-happen-to-Park-City-MR?p=4301330#post4301330


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 2, 2014)

Highway Star said:


> http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/...-happen-to-Park-City-MR?p=4301330#post4301330



Well that original poster is speculating.  I would imagine that by tomorrow's hearing we will have some idea as to what is going to happen.  

Hiked up Empire to McConkey's yesterday.  Pretty quiet at PCMR except for a lift maintenance guy who drove up to the top to do some work on the lift.  He was in a PCMR truck...not a Canyons truck


----------



## Highway Star (Sep 2, 2014)

thetrailboss said:


> Well that original poster is speculating.  I would imagine that by tomorrow's hearing we will have some idea as to what is going to happen.



I think we'll hear something today or tomorrow, we'll hear a resolution from the moderating.


----------



## Domeskier (Sep 2, 2014)

I am _so_ not getting any work done today!!


----------



## trackbiker (Sep 3, 2014)

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/58365870-78/park-pcmr-bond-harris.html.csp 

Ruling delayed until Friday.


----------



## VTKilarney (Sep 3, 2014)

They are obviously close to an agreement if they aren't writing one up already.


----------



## drjeff (Sep 3, 2014)

VTKilarney said:


> They are obviously close to an agreement if they aren't writing one up already.



Not quite holding my breath yet that there will be one.  Far too many deals that seem like are going to happen end up falling through at the last moment over what one side ends up feeling is just too much to give (when in the big picture it probably isn't)

I'll believe there is a deal when I read that both parties and the judge have signed off on it! ;-) 

Until then it's just sit back and wait!


----------



## VTKilarney (Sep 3, 2014)

Agreed.  I did not mean to imply that there will be a deal.  I merely meant to imply that the parties think that they can get it done.  But lots of things fall apart when the devil is in the details.


----------



## jimmywilson69 (Sep 3, 2014)

Vail get's Killington in exchange for PCMR.  

Powder would love to rid themselves of those pesky Killington diehards!!!


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 3, 2014)

jimmywilson69 said:


> Vail get's Killington in exchange for PCMR.
> 
> Powder would love to rid themselves of those pesky Killington diehards!!!



There you go!  :lol:


----------



## steamboat1 (Sep 3, 2014)

jimmywilson69 said:


> Vail get's Killington in exchange for PCMR.
> 
> Powder would love to rid themselves of those pesky Killington diehards!!!


Those pesky diehards all buy season passes.


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 3, 2014)

Kicking the can down the road some more.....I bet that PCMR is dragging their feet to try to force another ski season.


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 3, 2014)

And don't worry about that fine print when buying your PCMR pass...I mean really it is a small detail.  So small it is buried at the bottom of the page.....



> Park City Mountain Resort plans to operate business as usual for the 2014-15 season. In the unlikely event the Resort is forced to close for the 2014-15 season, the Resort will refund the full season pass price paid by holders of 2014-2015 season passes. If the Resort is forced to close for a portion of the 2014-2015 season, the Resort will prorate the refund based on the period the Resort is closed.


----------



## jimmywilson69 (Sep 3, 2014)

steamboat1 said:


> Those pesky diehards all buy season passes.



it was sarcasm...


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 3, 2014)

The latest: mum's the word

http://www.parkrecord.com/park_city-news/ci_26454037/resorts-mum-mediation


----------



## skiNEwhere (Sep 3, 2014)

jimmywilson69 said:


> Vail get's Killington in exchange for PCMR.
> 
> Powder would love to rid themselves of those pesky Killington diehards!!!





If that happened, VR would have the resort open from November 15th-April 10th


----------



## Domeskier (Sep 3, 2014)

skiNEwhere said:


> If that happened, VR would have the resort open from November 15th-April 10th



and move the BMMC to Superstar!


----------



## AdironRider (Sep 3, 2014)

skiNEwhere said:


> If that happened, VR would have the resort open from November 15th-April 10th



I know its a different setup and more of a partnership, but the Epic Pass runs at ABasin till July and VR hasn't pulled the plug.


----------



## skiNEwhere (Sep 3, 2014)

AdironRider said:


> I know its a different setup and more of a partnership, but the Epic Pass runs at ABasin till July and VR hasn't pulled the plug.



It is a partnership. I don't know all the specifics, but a-basin does have their own operations and makes their decisions on when to make snow, how long to run the season, etc, independent of Vail Resorts corporate office.


----------



## skiadikt (Sep 4, 2014)

skiNEwhere said:


> If that happened, VR would have the resort open from November 15th-April 10th



thought of that as well. like woodsrider says the situation w/ a-basin is different but keystone is opening october 31 so perhaps there is some wiggle room under the vail corporate umbrella. hoping they'd be smart enough let k have some autonomy and let mike continue to run the place. imagine the win if the epic pass included killington. $729 season pass _and_ you get all those western areas. no brainer. bet k gets back into a million skier day territory in a hurry. of course we're getting way ahead of ourselves here ...


----------



## mbedle (Sep 4, 2014)

Does anyone know if A-basin has electronic lift tickets? Just wondering how that works with the epic pass. Also, A-Basin was owned by Vail but they had to sell it, due to monopoly conditions in Summit County.


----------



## skiNEwhere (Sep 4, 2014)

They don't use RFID and have to be hand scanned


----------



## ss20 (Sep 4, 2014)

skiadikt said:


> thought of that as well. like woodsrider says the situation w/ a-basin is different but keystone is opening october 31 so perhaps there is some wiggle room under the vail corporate umbrella. hoping they'd be smart enough let k have some autonomy and let mike continue to run the place. imagine the win if the epic pass included killington. $729 season pass _and_ you get all those western areas. no brainer. bet k gets back into a million skier day territory in a hurry. of course we're getting way ahead of ourselves here ...



Are we?  Vail executives would be doing cartwheels if they could enter the Northeast market.  As you said, people would come in droves to whatever mountain was now "Epic", not just for the cheap pass, but the ability to go out west with free tickets.  Or in Vail Resort terms, having a monopoly in the Northeast with tens of thousands of new Epic pass holders paying $700 each, with some dropping another $1,500 on Vail-owned restaurants, shops, and hotels out west.

They already own some smaller resorts in the midwest as "feeder hills" to Colorado.  Why wouldn't they try to own a bigger hill over here with the much larger market of NYC and Boston?


----------



## VTKilarney (Sep 4, 2014)

Agreed.  Vail would exchange Park City for Killington in a nanosecond.


----------



## Highway Star (Sep 4, 2014)

VTKilarney said:


> Agreed.  Vail would exchange Park City for Killington in a nanosecond.



You're an idiot.  Still.  Haven't you been reading any of this thread....?


----------



## skiNEwhere (Sep 4, 2014)

Highway Star said:


> You're an idiot.  Still.  Haven't you been reading any of this thread....?



You need to add to your insults repertoire


----------



## VTKilarney (Sep 4, 2014)

Highway Star said:


> You're an idiot.  Still.  Haven't you been reading any of this thread....?


I am well aware of what the lawsuit is about - and that it is not about Killington.  I trusted that you were intelligent enough to understand that the discussion had gone beyond the scope of the pending lawsuit.  My apologies for not clarifying that for you.  I also understand that you've been seeking an excuse to be belligerent and didn't have the patience to wait for a good opportunity.


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 4, 2014)

Vail also really badly wanted an in with the Utah market.  Hence, Canyons/PCMR.  They are this close ----> <---- to getting it all.....


----------



## Highway Star (Sep 4, 2014)

VTKilarney said:


> I am well aware of what the lawsuit is about - and that it is not about Killington.  I trusted that you were intelligent enough to understand that the discussion had gone beyond the scope of the pending lawsuit.  My apologies for not clarifying that for you.  I also understand that you've been seeking an excuse to be belligerent and didn't have the patience to wait for a good opportunity.



You make an extremely strong claim, regarding Vail's interest in Killington.......based on....nothing?

Why don't you go off and read one of Vail's annual reports, before making wild claims...?  Here's the link!

http://files.shareholder.com/downlo...95C900/2013_Proxy_Statement_and_10-K_Wrap.pdf

So, lets cut to the important parts:



> Mountain Segment
> 
> Our portfolio of world-class ski resorts and urban ski areas currently includes:
> 
> ...





> Ski Industry/Market
> 
> There are approximately 760 ski areas in North America and approximately 478 in the United States, ranging from small ski
> area operations that service day skiers to large resorts that attract both day skiers and destination resort guests looking for a
> ...





> Lodging Segment
> 
> Our Lodging segment includes the following operations:
> 
> ...





> Real Estate Segment
> 
> We have extensive holdings of real property at our resorts throughout Summit and Eagle Counties in Colorado.  Our real estate
> operations, through Vail Resorts Development Company (“VRDC”), a wholly-owned subsidiary, include the planning,
> ...




```
[FONT=sans-serif]Year Ended July 31,[/FONT][FONT=sans-serif]
2013[/FONT][FONT=serif](1)[/FONT]        [FONT=sans-serif]2012[/FONT][FONT=serif](1)            [/FONT][FONT=sans-serif]2011[/FONT][FONT=serif](1)             [/FONT][FONT=sans-serif]2010[/FONT][FONT=serif](1)            [/FONT][FONT=sans-serif]2009[/FONT][FONT=serif](1)[/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif]Statement of Operations Data:[/FONT]
[FONT=serif]Net revenue:[/FONT]  (Thousands)
[FONT=serif]Mountain[/FONT]
[FONT=serif]$867,514           $766,608            $752,191          $638,495             $614,597[/FONT]
[FONT=serif]Lodging[/FONT]
[FONT=serif]210,974              210,623             214,658              195,301              203,606[/FONT]
[FONT=serif]Real estate[/FONT]
[FONT=serif]42,309                47,163             200,197                61,007              186,150[/FONT]
[B][FONT=serif]Total net revenue[/FONT]
[FONT=serif]1,120,797        1,024,394       1,167,046         894,803           1,004,353[/FONT][/B]
[FONT=serif]Segment operating expense:[/FONT]
[FONT=serif]Mountain[/FONT]
[FONT=serif]639,706              568,578             540,366              456,017              451,025[/FONT]
[FONT=serif]Lodging[/FONT]
[FONT=serif]198,813              204,270             205,903              192,909              196,847[/FONT]
[FONT=serif]Real estate[/FONT]
[FONT=serif]58,090                63,170             205,232                71,402              142,070[/FONT]
[FONT=serif]Total segment operating expense[/FONT]
[FONT=serif]896,609              836,018             951,501              720,328              789,942[/FONT]
[FONT=serif]Depreciation and amortization[/FONT]
[FONT=serif](132,688)          [/FONT][FONT=serif](127,581[/FONT][FONT=serif])[/FONT]      [FONT=serif](117,957)            [/FONT][FONT=serif](110,638[/FONT][FONT=serif])[/FONT]       [FONT=serif](107,213[/FONT][FONT=serif])[/FONT]
[FONT=serif]Gain on sale of real property[/FONT]
[FONT=serif]6,675                       —                      —                  6,087                       —[/FONT]
[FONT=serif]Mountain equity investment income, net[/FONT]
[FONT=serif]891                     878                 1,342                  1,558                     817[/FONT]
[FONT=serif]Investment income, net[/FONT]
[FONT=serif]351                     469                    719                     445                  1,793[/FONT]
[FONT=serif]Interest expense, net[/FONT]
[FONT=serif](38,966)[/FONT]       [FONT=serif](33,586[/FONT][FONT=serif])[/FONT]      [FONT=serif](33,641[/FONT][FONT=serif])[/FONT]         [FONT=serif](17,515)           [/FONT][FONT=serif](27,548[/FONT][FONT=serif])[/FONT]
[FONT=serif]Loss on extinguishment of debt[/FONT]
[FONT=serif](7,372[/FONT])
[FONT=serif]Income before provision for income taxes[/FONT]
[FONT=serif]59,229                27,092               55,520                53,797                81,196[/FONT]
[FONT=serif]Net income[/FONT]
[FONT=serif]37,610                16,391               34,422                35,775                50,552[/FONT]
[FONT=serif]Net loss (income) attributable to[/FONT][FONT=serif]noncontrolling interests[/FONT]
[FONT=serif]133                       62                      67                     [/FONT][FONT=serif](5,390[/FONT][FONT=serif])               [/FONT][FONT=serif](1,602[/FONT][FONT=serif])[/FONT]
[FONT=serif]Net income attributable to Vail Resorts, Inc.[/FONT]
[FONT=serif]$37,743             $16,453             $34,489              $30,385                $48,950[/FONT]

[FONT=sans-serif]Other Data:[/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif]Mountain[/FONT]
[FONT=serif]Skier visits[/FONT]
[FONT=serif](2)[/FONT]
[FONT=serif]6,977                  6,144                 6,991                  6,010                  5,864[/FONT]
[B][FONT=serif]ETP [/FONT](ticket yield per visit)[/B]
[FONT=serif]$56.02              $55.75                $48.99                $48.13                $47.16[/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif]Lodging[/FONT]
[FONT=serif]ADR[/FONT] (average room price)
[FONT=serif]$264.36           $260.04              $245.03             $237.57               $230.48[/FONT]
```

Taking revenue divided by visits, Vail resorts brings in about $160 per skier visit.  This is more than double what Killington's last published figures from 2007, about $74...btw.  They make an operating profit of about $32 per visit, which isn't really that huge - even using conservative figures, PCMR's profits are likely higher.

Where does Killington fit into this?  I highly doubt they are lusting after it.  Operating profit per skier visit are well under Vail's average, at around $10-15.  This makes it very hard to cover any debt payments while still reinvesting in the mountain.  Killington really needs about $50M+ of investment to bring it up to par with the standards set by other Vail resorts - new lifts, lodges, upscale lodging, and the interconnect.  

The only thing that would drive Vail to be interested is that they would gain ~800,000 skier visits, adding yet another possibly top 10 resort to their portfolio, and it's action as a feeder resort from passholders taking trips to their western resorts.  All the develop-able land is owned by Texas guys, so maybe its available in a package deal.

Lets say this feeder effect results in a massive 62,500 additional visits to its western resorts.  That's $2M in operating profit.  Killington's operating profit is about $10M.  So, they pick up $12M operating profit, or an increase of about 5%. 

 Is that worth their time?  Is it worth the needed capital improvements?  Is it possible to cover the resulting debt?  Can they get the real estate and are they interested in developing it?  Nope.

While it would be great and I sure wish it would happen, somehow,* I HIGHLY DOUBT IT*.


----------



## skiNEwhere (Sep 4, 2014)

Wow, that's some good info :-o

I'd like to know how Vail resorts chose Afton Alps and Mt Brighton to add to the Epic pass. If they chose it based on the proximity to a large metro area (Minneapolis and Detroit, respectively), then I don't see why they couldn't (not saying "wouldn't) buy Killington. Although if all they want is close proximity to Boston, they'd be better off buying Wachusett honestly.


----------



## VTKilarney (Sep 4, 2014)

Highway Star, I just want to say how much you have made my day by your post.  When I have enough time I will try to get out a response.  I can assure you, however, that I won't be spending as much time as you feel the need to spend on me.  But I am flattered for sure.


----------



## Highway Star (Sep 4, 2014)

VTKilarney said:


> Highway Star, I just want to say how much you have made my day by your post.  When I have enough time I will try to get out a response.  I can assure you, however, that I won't be spending as much time as you feel the need to spend on me.  But I am flattered for sure.



Vail acquiring Killington has been brought up by many people in recent days, so I felt the need to discuss it.  I'm not really responding to you, you're still an idiot.


----------



## moresnow (Sep 5, 2014)

Highway Star said:


> Vail acquiring Killington has been brought up by many people in recent days, so I felt the need to discuss it.  I'm not really responding to you, you're still an idiot.



Can you guys feel the love here? Can you?

I can.


----------



## VTKilarney (Sep 5, 2014)

Highway Star said:


> Vail acquiring Killington has been brought up by many people in recent days, so I felt the need to discuss it.  I'm not really responding to you, you're still an idiot.


You quoted me and responded to the quote.  So, yes, you really were responding to me.   You are so cute when you lie over trivial things.  And I certainly was flattered by your response.  Now I know how Justin Bieber feels when some lonely fan pays him all sorts of attention.  It feels pretty cool.  You wouldn't have dug through all of that data for just anyone, so I thank you for doing so.  It meant a lot to me.


----------



## skiNEwhere (Sep 5, 2014)

This was kind of amusing but is getting old......

Can you two hug and make up?


----------



## VTKilarney (Sep 5, 2014)

I've previously stated that I am willing to extend an olive branch.  You'll have to focus your energy on Highway Star since he has lacked the discipline to accept my offer.


----------



## Highway Star (Sep 5, 2014)

VTKilarney said:


> I've previously stated that I am willing to extend an olive branch.  You'll have to focus your energy on Highway Star since he has lacked the discipline to accept my offer.





VTKilarney said:


> You quoted me and responded to the quote.  So, yes, you really were responding to me.   You are so cute when you lie over trivial things.  And I certainly was flattered by your response.  Now I know how Justin Bieber feels when some lonely fan pays him all sorts of attention.  It feels pretty cool.  You wouldn't have dug through all of that data for just anyone, so I thank you for doing so.  It meant a lot to me.


----------



## VTKilarney (Sep 5, 2014)

Well, skiNEwhere, there is your answer.  :roll:


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 5, 2014)

Re: Vail

Based on those reports, they have the 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6th top resorts for visits.  My question is, who is 3rd?


----------



## Domeskier (Sep 5, 2014)

thetrailboss said:


> Re: Vail
> 
> Based on those reports, they have the 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6th top resorts for visits.  My question is, who is 3rd?



Appears to be Mammoth.


----------



## Domeskier (Sep 5, 2014)

skiNEwhere said:


> I don't see why they couldn't (not saying "wouldn't) buy Killington.



Probably don't want another feeder hill in their portfolio!!


----------



## skiNEwhere (Sep 5, 2014)

Domeskier said:


> Probably don't want another feeder hill in their portfolio!!



I don't know if you would quantify killington as a "feeder hill."
Way too big and far from boston


----------



## mbedle (Sep 5, 2014)

skiNEwhere said:


> I don't know if you would quantify killington as a "feeder hill."
> Way too big and far from boston



I got to agree with that - I wouldn't call Killington or any of the other larger resorts in the northeast feeder hills.


----------



## trackbiker (Sep 5, 2014)

skiNEwhere said:


> I don't know if you would quantify killington as a "feeder hill."
> Way too big and far from boston





> I got to agree with that - I wouldn't call Killington or any of the other larger resorts in the northeast feeder hills.



I think you guys missed the joke and who it was aimed at. :wink:

Good one, Domeskier.


----------



## Domeskier (Sep 5, 2014)

trackbiker said:


> I think you guys missed the joke and who it was aimed at. :wink:
> 
> Good one, Domeskier.



Thank you, thank you - you're too kind.


----------



## skiNEwhere (Sep 5, 2014)

Xanadu. The ultimate feeder hill?


----------



## mbedle (Sep 5, 2014)

Domeskier said:


> Thank you, thank you - you're too kind.



I missed it!!!!! I can't keep up with you guys. lol


----------



## trackbiker (Sep 5, 2014)

skiNEwhere said:


> Xanadu. The ultimate feeder hill?



I look at Xanadu as more of an amusement ride like bungee jumping or parasailing that people will do to say they did it, once.


----------



## skiNEwhere (Sep 5, 2014)

trackbiker said:


> I look at Xanadu as more of an amusement ride like bungee jumping or parasailing that people will do to say they did it, once.



That's pretty much what I said about ski Dubai


----------



## trackbiker (Sep 5, 2014)

skiNEwhere said:


> That's pretty much what I said about ski Dubai



Sorry I missed that post but I did get the joke. :smile:


----------



## trackbiker (Sep 5, 2014)

Back to the original topic.....Wasn't there supposed to be some type of ruling today on the lease bond? Tick...tick...tick....tick..


----------



## steamboat1 (Sep 5, 2014)

trackbiker said:


> Back to the original topic.....Wasn't there supposed to be some type of ruling today on the lease bond? Tick...tick...tick....tick..


I think 3pm mountain time.


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 5, 2014)

T-Minus 1:43 minutes......


----------



## AdironRider (Sep 5, 2014)

Heard on the wire bond set at 17.5 million. 

So HS was nowhere close.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/58378483-78/pcmr-park-resort-talisker.html.csp


----------



## VTKilarney (Sep 5, 2014)

AdironRider said:


> Heard on the wire bond set at 17.5 million.
> 
> So HS was nowhere close.
> 
> http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/58378483-78/pcmr-park-resort-talisker.html.csp


HS was only predicting what Vail was asking for, not what the judge would grant.  He was, however, way off on what Vail asked for.

I'd call this a win for PCMR.  They have some heat taken off them if they want to drag this out.  The judge's decision may not speed up a resolution.


----------



## Highway Star (Sep 5, 2014)

VTKilarney said:


> He was, however, way off on what Vail asked for.



No, I wasn't.  You're an idiot.


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 5, 2014)

AdironRider said:


> Heard on the wire bond set at 17.5 million.
> 
> So HS was nowhere close.
> 
> http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/58378483-78/pcmr-park-resort-talisker.html.csp



OK.  I guess it shows that PCMR and Talisker have not been able to come to some kind of deal in mediation.  Bummer.  I guess we now know that PCMR has to pay to play or get out.  We will see what they do.


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 5, 2014)

VTKilarney said:


> I'd call this a win for PCMR.  They have some heat taken off them if they want to drag this out.  The judge's decision may not speed up a resolution.



It is a Pyrrhic victory at best.  They've lost the war.  They might have one more season if they cough up the cash and in a short time.  Otherwise they have to get off.


----------



## VTKilarney (Sep 5, 2014)

Agreed they have lost the war.


----------



## Highway Star (Sep 5, 2014)

Skidog said:


> FYI thats to be PAID in assurity bond or cash by NEXT FRIDAY...
> 
> to operate 15/16 season another $19 MIL has to be paid by march 2, 2015.
> 
> total to operate 2 seasons looks to be *$36.5 mil*...



This $36.5M figure compares directly to my guess of $200M to $300M Vail was asking for in their docs, actual $201M that Vail was asking for in their docs, $125M Vail asked for in court, and $1M to $7M POWDR asked for.


----------



## Highway Star (Sep 5, 2014)

thetrailboss said:


> It is a Pyrrhic victory at best.  They've lost the war.  They might have one more season if they cough up the cash and in a short time.  Otherwise they have to get off.



They will likely operate the next two seasons, but at the end Vail will likely recover the bond amounts or more, and POWDR will be kicked out or pay rent over $10m per year.  Pretty much worst case scenario IMHO, I'm not happy with how this effects Killington going forward.


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 5, 2014)

Highway Star said:


> They will likely operate the next two seasons, but at the end Vail will likely recover the bond amounts or more, and POWDR will be kicked out or pay rent over $10m per year.  Pretty much worst case scenario IMHO, I'm not happy with how this effects Killington going forward.



Good point.  Killingtonians would prefer to see this end NOW before Killington revenues get sucked away to pay for this mess at PCMR.  I imagine that they will impose a "legal fee surcharge" on their passes soon


----------



## Highway Star (Sep 5, 2014)

thetrailboss said:


> Good point.  Killingtonians would prefer to see this end NOW before Killington revenues get sucked away to pay for this mess at PCMR.  I imagine that they will impose a "legal fee surcharge" on their passes soon



John Cumming is like a black hole.  Millions of dollars go to him every year.  You can bet that any money funding this whole fiasco is going to come from what would normally be capital improvements at his resorts, and not his own personal profits.  

Looking at Vail's reports is pretty insightful.  While they may pay their executives and directors a few $100k each year, and stock dividends, they plow over $100M (half their profits) back into capital improvements to keep the machine going and their customers happy.  At this point, POWDR's profits are going to Cumming, debt, Vail legal issues and then a small sliver for capital.


----------



## VTKilarney (Sep 5, 2014)

Well, I guess the TGR forum rumor of a deal turned out to be BS.


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 5, 2014)

VTKilarney said:


> Well, I guess the TGR forum rumor of a deal turned out to be BS.



It's a case of Vail wanting too much money and Powdr wanting to pay too little....

Powdr had a hell of a deal--$150k annually for a lease of that size?!


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## VTKilarney (Sep 5, 2014)

I wonder why POWDR said that they would have to make a decision as to whether or not to post the bond.  I thought if it was in that range they would have gladly posted it.  Is business that bad because of this fiasco that they are actually worried about turning a profit even with the bond?


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 5, 2014)

VTKilarney said:


> I wonder why POWDR said that they would have to make a decision as to whether or not to post the bond.  I thought if it was in that range they would have gladly posted it.  Is business that bad because of this fiasco that they are actually worried about turning a profit even with the bond?



I would not think that they would have $17.5 mill just lying around....

Also maybe they were waiting to see what the bond amount would be before trying to come to some kind of deal with Vail. 


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## VTKilarney (Sep 5, 2014)

thetrailboss said:


> I would not think that they would have $17.5 mill just lying around....


If they haven't made arrangements in anticipation of the judge's ruling they are incompetent.  I suppose their hesitation could also be a sign that a deal really is in the works and that they just need time to put the finishes touches on it.  For all we know there was an agreement in principle and the parties stipulated that the judge's ruling would be irrelevant.


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 5, 2014)

VTKilarney said:


> If they haven't made arrangements in anticipation of the judge's ruling they are incompetent.  I suppose their hesitation could also be a sign that a deal really is in the works and that they just need time to put the finishes touches on it.  For all we know there was an agreement in principle and the parties stipulated that the judge's ruling would be irrelevant.



I don't know. Seeing how much in denial POWDR has been makes me think that they really don't have their ducks in a row. 



Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## mister moose (Sep 5, 2014)

thetrailboss said:


> I would not think that they would have $17.5 mill just lying around....



The bond was set at $17.5 cash or surety.  Surety bonds are common, and are purchased from insurance companies for pennies on the dollar, if you have the balance sheet to support it.  You don't need the cash.


----------



## steamboat1 (Sep 6, 2014)

Highway Star said:


> This $36.5M figure compares directly to my guess of $200M to $300M Vail was asking for in their docs, actual $201M that Vail was asking for in their docs, $125M Vail asked for in court, and $1M to $7M POWDR asked for.


You're an idiot....:grin:


----------



## VTKilarney (Sep 6, 2014)

mister moose said:


> The bond was set at $17.5 cash or surety.  Surety bonds are common, and are purchased from insurance companies for pennies on the dollar, if you have the balance sheet to support it.  You don't need the cash.


Surety bonds for appeals are not nearly as cheap as people assume.  The odds of prevailing on a appeal are extremely poor and the bond companies know it.  The standard requirement is 100% collateral - although very high net worth corporations can sometimes pay less.  If land is used as collateral it can not be the subject of the dispute and many bond companies require that there be no other liens on the land.


----------



## marcski (Sep 6, 2014)

VTKilarney said:


> If they haven't made arrangements in anticipation of the judge's ruling they are incompetent.  I suppose their hesitation could also be a sign that a deal really is in the works and that they just need time to put the finishes touches on it.  For all we know there was an agreement in principle and the parties stipulated that the judge's ruling would be irrelevant.



Dude.....they forgot to mail a letter that would have let them continue paying 150K/year for one of the most profitable resorts in the country.  YES, they are incompetent. Period.


----------



## Highway Star (Sep 6, 2014)

marcski said:


> Dude.....they forgot to mail a letter that would have let them continue paying 150K/year for one of the most profitable resorts in the country.  YES, they are incompetent. Period.



They also ran Killington worse than a bankrupt ASC.


----------



## Highway Star (Sep 6, 2014)

Here's another spin on it - why doesn't Cumming just cut a deal, or is he holding out to try to leverage the best deal possible?  Short of entirely selling out, the only way he's going to make good money on this, with minimal headache, is leasing the business to Vail or selling them a stake of the business.

Vail could lease the PCMR business and lower land from Cumming for a pretty big figure.  Say $30M yearly plus inflation and a percentage of profits above a certain level.  More than enough to cover existing debts, and a nice tidy profit with no overhead.  PCMR combines with the Canyons, skier visits increase 20%, Vail rakes in the cash and Cumming gets a cut.

Or Cumming could sell Vail partial ownership of the PCMR business/land, say 49% or 51%, depends if Vail insists on a controlling interest.  Cumming pays off his debts on PCMR or other POWDR resorts, and pockets the rest or plows it into the other resorts.  Still has a nice tidy income every year, and Vail has to deal with running the resort.

Or he could sell a minority or a controlling interest in all of POWDR, and Vail becomes the resort operator.  Vail greatly expands and diversifies its portfolio, Cumming gets to settle most of his debts, revenues increase across the board, and Cumming would probably increase his yearly income off the whole deal overall, while still owning a ski resort company.  This of course would be the best deal for Killington, LOL.


----------



## AdironRider (Sep 6, 2014)

We all get you have a serious axe to grind with Powdr, but ultimately, the humorous part is you think Vail would be a better option. 

I'm guessing they know Canyons is bad juju and just need to wait for Vail to cut bait and leave. They have two years they can operate, then even if evicted Vail is going to need 100 million to rebuild Canyons between lifts, work arounds for access (the two alternative points are through a million+ entry level neighborhood with an HOA (good luck) or another piece with serious grade issues. 

Water rights will be a 7 year battle at minimum if they want to continue the hostile takeover route. 

Or they can rent out the base for 30 mill like HS suggests and end up paying 55 million a year before making a dime for the most absurd ski lease in the world. 

MTN stockholders aren't going to sit around and wait for 5 years plus for this to pay off for them. My bet is in 3 years Vail says fuck it and walks. 

This would be my thinking if I were Cummings.


----------



## abc (Sep 6, 2014)

But does Vail has to do anything? If PCMR stops operating, the skiers will have to go somewhere, some of them will bound to go over t Canyons.


----------



## AdironRider (Sep 6, 2014)

Yeah locals maybe. 

Otherwise the tourists, aka the ones that actually drive profit for resorts, will most likely be heading to Tahoe, California, or Jackson.


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 6, 2014)

Honestly PCMR has a bigger draw than Canyons.  Surprisingly, Canyons has something like HALF as many ski visits as PCMR.  It's in large part because PCMR has the town while Canyons has a fake town.  I find both confusing as hell to navigate.  Canyons has always been the ugly stepchild of the PC resorts.  It's just Talisker dumped a lot of money into making it better (and it is a lot better).  But it will never be the same as Park City or even Deer Valley.


----------



## steamboat1 (Sep 9, 2014)

POWDR agreed to pay the bond.


----------



## ss20 (Sep 9, 2014)

17.5 million is crazy.


----------



## ScottySkis (Sep 9, 2014)

ss20 said:


> 17.5 million is crazy.



Park City Mountain Resort will be open for the 2014-2015 winter ski season! PCMR has announced that it will pay the $17.5 million bond required to keep the resort open for the 2014-15 ski season.


----------



## marcski (Sep 9, 2014)

ss20 said:


> 17.5 million is crazy.



Why?  I don't think they've paid a dime in rent for the leased lands in 3 years.


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 9, 2014)

ss20 said:


> 17.5 million is crazy.



I think a lease for $150k for that land is crazy....


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## ss20 (Sep 9, 2014)

marcski said:


> Why?  I don't think they've paid a dime in rent for the leased lands in 3 years.



It's crazy because...

1. It's only a temporary fix (a 17.5 million dollar fix)
2. They will _never_ recoup that money in one season.  
3. That's 17 million dollars that could've been an investment.  You could have 4 new Snowdon Quads with that money.

It's like buying new windows on a house that you can't pay taxes for and will soon be owned by the bank.


----------



## marcski (Sep 9, 2014)

They are going to owe the money.  The bond will be offset against the future judgment from the lawsuit.


----------



## skiNEwhere (Sep 9, 2014)

thetrailboss said:


> I think a lease for $150k for that land is crazy....



How is that crazy? At less than $50 an acre that's a bargain


----------



## ss20 (Sep 9, 2014)

skiNEwhere said:


> At less than $50 an acre that's a bargain



Exactly.  That's why its crazy.


----------



## Highway Star (Sep 9, 2014)

ss20 said:


> It's crazy because...
> 
> 1. It's only a temporary fix (a 17.5 million dollar fix)
> 2. They will _never_ recoup that money in one season.
> ...



They will pull in a $30M-50M profit this year, more than enough to at least cover their debt on the resort (if there is any) even after paying the bond.

If they go on through next year, the final judgement will probably be somewhere around $50M to $80M.  This bond amount, plus the $19M they have to pay out next year will help cover that, but it will ultimately wipe out all their profits from the next couple years.  Not going to crush them completely considering Cummings already has millions socked away, though they may declare some sort of bankruptcy on the PCMR holding companies to avoid paying out.  After that Vail is still going to want $10M-15M+ a year on a lease, if they are even willing to lease it to POWDR vs. forcing a takeover or splitting off the upper mountain.

If not for this, we might be getting a snowdown quad, better summit lodge, or maybe a south ridge lift or interconnect......but most of it would be going into Cumming's pockets, just like it always has.


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 10, 2014)

How do you know they will pull in $30-50M profits.  What do you think the gross revenue is for PCMR?


----------



## Highway Star (Sep 10, 2014)

deadheadskier said:


> How do you know they will pull in $30-50M profits.  What do you think the gross revenue is for PCMR?



Ballpark of $100M-$130M, based on their known visits and yield per visit of comparable resorts.  Profit I'm citing is EBITDA.


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 10, 2014)

I guess I could see that at a western ski area without massive snowmaking expenses.  When I was at Snowshoe in 2002 the EBITA was $8M on revenue of $45M.


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 10, 2014)

deadheadskier said:


> I guess I could see that at a western ski area without massive snowmaking expenses.  When I was at Snowshoe in 2002 the EBITA was $8M on revenue of $45M.



The thing is though that PCMR does A LOT of snowmaking relatively speaking.  Their parks and big jumps are insane.  They also blow a lot of snow on their main cruisers.


----------



## skiNEwhere (Sep 10, 2014)

thetrailboss said:


> The thing is though that PCMR does A LOT of snowmaking relatively speaking.  Their parks and big jumps are insane.  They also blow a lot of snow on their main cruisers.



I'm assuming that they host events akin to the dew tour? If so that should've more than offset those expenditures.


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 10, 2014)

skiNEwhere said:


> I'm assuming that they host events akin to the dew tour? If so that should've more than offset those expenditures.



Yes, they do A LOT of events.


----------



## VTKilarney (Sep 10, 2014)

It's hard to say if PCMR posted the bond because they would still turn a profit or if they posted it because they would be evicted if they did not.  My suspicion is that they will still turn a profit - although the cost of the bond is definitely capital that could have been used for infrastructure improvements that they will never get back.  

If it was not profitable to post the bond, they may have done so anyway because if they win on appeal (good luck), it's a lot harder to get your business back up and running if it has been dormant for a year or two.  Unless they are idiots, they have to realize that their chances of winning an appeal are EXTREMELY low, which is why my hunch is that it was still profitable in the short term to post the bond.


----------



## Domeskier (Sep 10, 2014)

Can I get 10% of this bond if I capture this Cummings dude?


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 10, 2014)

Domeskier said:


> Can I get 10% of this bond if I capture this Cummings dude?



I don't know, but that is an intense avatar


----------



## Domeskier (Sep 10, 2014)

thetrailboss said:


> I don't know, but that is an intense avatar



I hope Sundown starts selling these so I can get one for my wall!


----------



## drjeff (Sep 11, 2014)

Expect an announcement very soon that Vail Resorts WILL be operating PCMR this year!  At least that's what a friend of mine who is a VR employee told me that she/employees were just told this AM......


----------



## drjeff (Sep 11, 2014)

Just posted on VR's FB page

http://news.vailresorts.com/corporate/park-city-mountain-resort-is-now-epic.htm

Not quite sure the exact details of who is running/owning what, but it seems like PCMR and The Canyons will soon be as one based on this


----------



## jimmywilson69 (Sep 11, 2014)

Wow...  Not so suprised by the outcome.  Just suprised it happend this quickly


----------



## skiNEwhere (Sep 11, 2014)

Wow. Talk about good timing for VR, since this should help them sell more epic passes before the season begins.

Even as an epic pass holder, I'm not sure how I feel about this. I'm a little worried about Vail getting so big that they are going to eventually run the little ski areas out of business.


----------



## jimmywilson69 (Sep 11, 2014)

skiNEwhere said:


> Wow. Talk about good timing for VR, since this should help them sell more epic passes before the season begins.
> 
> Even as an epic pass holder, I'm not sure how I feel about this. I'm a little worried about Vail getting so big that they are going to eventually run the little ski areas out of business.



or go the way of ASC.  

They own a lot of ski infrastructure...


----------



## Puck it (Sep 11, 2014)

VR acquired the whole lot from Powdr for $183.  I wonder if Kton will see any of that cash for improvements.


----------



## buellski (Sep 11, 2014)

Puck it said:


> VR acquired the whole lot from Powdr for $*183*.  I wonder if Kton will see any of that cash for improvements.



Wow! That's pretty cheap. I would have offered at least $200.


----------



## skiNEwhere (Sep 11, 2014)

Stockholders responding eagerly


----------



## jimmywilson69 (Sep 11, 2014)

buellski said:


> Wow! That's pretty cheap. I would have offered at least $200.



I was curious to what the going rate is.  Although Vail had Cummings by the Balls...


----------



## skiNEwhere (Sep 11, 2014)

This should definitely sell more epic passes in Utah, now that you can ski 2 resorts. 

Might be worth looking into options 6 months out of the money after the stock sells off a little


----------



## skiNEwhere (Sep 11, 2014)

I am dumbfounded by this entire situation. 

An entire ski resort lost, just because someone forgot to file some paperwork.

I think this can be categorized as an epic fail.


----------



## skiNEwhere (Sep 11, 2014)

Trail boss, would you consider getting an epic local pass now because of this? Not sure if you've skied these resorts extensively.


----------



## jimmywilson69 (Sep 11, 2014)

i would love to know how much the Lawyers fees were for this...  They are probably pissed that their billings will have an end in the foreseeable future.


----------



## VTKilarney (Sep 11, 2014)

This is good news for Killington.


----------



## VTKilarney (Sep 11, 2014)

jimmywilson69 said:


> i would love to know how much the Lawyers fees were for this...  They are probably pissed that their billings will have an end in the foreseeable future.


I seem to recall that Vail stated their legal fees were about $7 million when they made the bond request.  Whether or not those fees were high, they are gong to be worth the investment.  For PCMR that may be another story.


----------



## skiNEwhere (Sep 11, 2014)

Not sure if POWDR may have had to pay some or all of vail's legal fees


----------



## VTKilarney (Sep 11, 2014)

The media is reporting that Vail _has bought_ PCMR.  Commercial undertakings such as this require much more effort than people realize.  If the transaction has indeed closed, this indicates that the deal was agreed to at least several days ago.  My suspicion is that, during a chambers conference, the judge was told that there was a deal but that the case would not be dismissed until and unless the closing went through.  The bond amount seems to have been enough to keep up appearances, but not so much that it would get in the way of a settlement.

Apart from the unbelievable blunder of not renewing the lease, the real question is this: How much was the amount Vail agreed to pay for PCMR influenced by PCMR's decision to litigate a losing cause?  I am still of the opinion that they could have done better if they didn't dig themselves into an inescapable hole, but at the end of the day I don't really know.  

I recall hearing about a study that found that when management of a business is handed down to a child, the business is much more likely to under-perform.   This case doesn't seem to refute that study.


----------



## VTKilarney (Sep 11, 2014)

skiNEwhere said:


> Not sure if POWDR may have had to pay some or all of vail's legal fees


My gut feeling is that each party is paying their own fees and that Vail accounted for this in the purchase price.  Egos tend to get in the way of a different sort of resolution.


----------



## AdironRider (Sep 11, 2014)

Cummings sold out for 182.5 million. Whoa. 

I always thought Cummings would get a nice golden parachute, ala Sterling without the racism, but not that high of one. 

That was a real nice payout.

And they negotiated all current PCMR employees get to stay on board. Nice move. 

http://freeskier.com/the-wire/vail-resorts-acquires-park-city-mountain-resort-182-5-million


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 11, 2014)

Coming soon: Canyons East

http://www.saminfo.com/news/vail-buys-pcmr-1825-million


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## skiNEwhere (Sep 11, 2014)

thetrailboss said:


> Coming soon: Canyons East
> 
> http://www.saminfo.com/news/vail-buys-pcmr-1825-million



You're about an hour late :smash:

So you going to fork up $569 for an Epic local?


----------



## steamboat1 (Sep 11, 2014)

skiNEwhere said:


> Not sure if POWDR may have had to pay some or all of vail's legal fees


The announcement states that all litigation has been settled.


----------



## DoublePlanker (Sep 11, 2014)

This is EXCELLENT!   The best news possible for Park City.  Vail's deep pockets will interconnect the mountains eventually.  More stability and economic growth for Park City.


----------



## Talisman (Sep 11, 2014)

Big Sky is going to have to change their "Biggest Skiing in America" marketing line.


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 11, 2014)

skiNEwhere said:


> Trail boss, would you consider getting an epic local pass now because of this? Not sure if you've skied these resorts extensively.



Nope. LCC for me. Alta/ Bird pass. 


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## skiNEwhere (Sep 11, 2014)

Talisman said:


> Big Sky is going to have to change their "Biggest Skiing in America" marketing line.



I think they've had that line for a while, even before they acquired Moonlight Basin. I think they are referring to the experience more than the actual size.


----------



## VTKilarney (Sep 11, 2014)

steamboat1 said:


> The announcement states that all litigation has been settled.


Sometimes settlement includes an agreement to pay the other side's attorney's fees.


----------



## steamboat1 (Sep 11, 2014)

VTKilarney said:


> Sometimes settlement includes an agreement to pay the other side's attorney's fees.


Didn't read anything about that in the press release. Also didn't read anything about the profits Powdr made over the past few years since losing the lease. I take all litigation has been settled to mean they get to keep that too.


----------



## from_the_NEK (Sep 11, 2014)




----------



## marcski (Sep 11, 2014)

He's still at it!: The guy just remains clueless.   From Cummings statement today:

"Selling was the last thing we wanted to do, and *while we believe the law  around this issue should be changed*, a protracted legal battle is not  in line with our core value to be good stewards of the resort  communities in which we operate.” 

And...What law are you talking about here, Mr. Cummings?  The law that says a lease is a contract who's terms are binding?


----------



## ss20 (Sep 11, 2014)

Park City is 3,300 acres.  Canyons is 4,000.  Whistler Blackomb is 8,171 acres.  

Anyone got plans for a 471 acre interconnect?  Folks, this may be the first step to Park City, UT becoming the skiing capital of North America.


----------



## VTKilarney (Sep 11, 2014)

steamboat1 said:


> Didn't read anything about that in the press release. Also didn't read anything about the profits Powdr made over the past few years since losing the lease. I take all litigation has been settled to mean they get to keep that too.


That's a reasonable assumption.


----------



## mbedle (Sep 11, 2014)

I would venture to say this is a win/win for both parties. Granted long-term its a loss for Powdr, but given what they messed up, its not a bad deal to walk away with 183M, plus the last three years profits. Wonder how much Cummings paid for Snowbird.


----------



## AdironRider (Sep 11, 2014)

ss20 said:


> Park City is 3,300 acres.  Canyons is 4,000.  Whistler Blackomb is 8,171 acres.
> 
> Anyone got plans for a 471 acre interconnect?  Folks, this may be the first step to Park City, UT becoming the skiing capital of North America.



To bad they are actually kinda lacking in terms of snow. One or two canyons over though.....


----------



## Highway Star (Sep 11, 2014)

jimmywilson69 said:


> I was curious to what the going rate is.  Although Vail had Cummings by the Balls...



Vail's annual report cites the upper PCMR land as a $57.8M value, plus $77M in "goodwill", which I took as a potential partial value of an intact PCMR business.  Meaning the real value of PCMR is $317.3M - pretty much what I had estimated in some occasions (over $300M), and in line with comparable resorts.  This puts their EBITDA at $40M to $53M.  Combined with the Canyons, they should be making a good $60M-$80M EBITDA off a combined resort worth nearly $500M.


----------



## Highway Star (Sep 11, 2014)

mbedle said:


> I would venture to say this is a win/win for both  parties. Granted long-term its a loss for Powdr, but given what they  messed up, its not a bad deal to walk away with 183M, plus the last  three years profits. Wonder how much Cummings paid for Snowbird.



Additionally, I don't really know how PCMR resort would have been valued if they still had control of the upper mountain terrain.  I have to assume that it is largely by the value of the business, which is 6-8x EBITDA.  So you have to figure Cumming lost in excess of $100M on this deal.  But given the situation, he could have been reduced to holding a mini-PCMR on the lower mountain, worth only $30M-40M.  So figure he more or less split the difference.


----------



## skiNEwhere (Sep 11, 2014)

Passed this in idaho springs on the way home from work.

I'll set the over/under for it getting replaced at 4.5 days, and take the under myself


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 11, 2014)

mbedle said:


> I would venture to say this is a win/win for both parties. Granted long-term its a loss for Powdr, but given what they messed up, its not a bad deal to walk away with 183M, plus the last three years profits. Wonder how much Cummings paid for Snowbird.



Actually, it is probably the best outcome for POWDR considering the world of hurt they were in.  

And, again, Snowbird is NOT at all related to POWDR.  That's Daddy's project.  Bass still owns half.


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 11, 2014)

skiNEwhere said:


> Passed this in idaho springs on the way home from work.
> 
> I'll set the over/under for it getting replaced at 4.5 days, and take the under myself
> 
> View attachment 13643



I would not be surprised if in the next few years they rebrand Canyons again so that it is one large resort.....Park City.  That name has more cache than Canyons.


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 11, 2014)

And looks like the current management has gone bye-bye....



> All resort employees will keep their jobs with the exception of top management, he said.


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 11, 2014)

And their site has been somewhat streamlined, but season passes are still for sale at the full-PCMR price.  

http://secure.parkcitymountain.com/...ProductGroupCode=150&ProductCategoryCode=4257

I'd sure be pissed if I bought a full-priced PCMR pass upon reassurances that they would indeed open, and then it gets sold to Vail, and folks are going to be skiing on the SAME pass for less than half the price!


----------



## ss20 (Sep 11, 2014)

thetrailboss said:


> And looks like the current management has gone bye-bye....



I suppose that included the financial department? :grin:


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 11, 2014)

ss20 said:


> I suppose that included the financial department? :grin:



The lease manager for sure  oh wait...there wasn't one in 2011! :lol:


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## snoseek (Sep 11, 2014)

I have mixed feeling on how big VR is getting...but as a part time, part year employee I'll be taking some road trips this winter I think. Also, I want a fucking raise!


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 19, 2014)

No surprise here.  Interconnect apparently coming next summer.....

http://unofficialnetworks.com/2014/...s-by-connecting-park-city-canyons-in-201516-2

I'm going to do some other digging because this article lacks substance....it just shows a merged map.


----------



## mbedle (Sep 20, 2014)

I don't see the interconnect coming that fast. Doesn't it take years to get permits in place to install new lifts and cut trails?


----------



## drjeff (Sep 20, 2014)

mbedle said:


> I don't see the interconnect coming that fast. Doesn't it take years to get permits in place to install new lifts and cut trails?



As I understand it, the land that would comprise the interconnect is privately owned, so that apparently makes the whole process easier. Secondly, the local planning boards, based on past expansion requests tend to be very pro expansion, since they seem to get the idea that expansion tends to equal increased visits which tends to translate into gains in the local economy. And I imagine that Vail Resorts would LOVE to be able to roll out a big marketing campaign next season about "the largest resort in the US"

Also as I understand it, most of the preliminary design work for trail layout and lift routing is already on paper


----------



## AdironRider (Sep 20, 2014)

It also isnt Vermont and no Act 250.


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 22, 2014)

Grrr.....

Looks like no free days for me this season at PCMR.  



			
				Alta said:
			
		

> Additional Benefits
> This pass includes Wasatch Benefit WB
> The Wasatch Benefit includes three days of complimentary skiing at Snowbird Ski & Summer Resort and Deer Valley Resort, with the following blackout dates: Dec. 24, 2014 - Jan. 2, 2015; Jan. 17-19, 2015 and Feb. 14-16, 2015. The Wasatch Benefit is available for a limited number of qualifying passes, so buy now. The complimentary day tickets are non-transferable.



Good thing I went last season.

Just means more time for me at Alta/Snowbird.


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 23, 2014)

And though Killingtonians can no longer ski for free at PCMR, fear not, I bet they will still give you reciprocal benefits at POWDR's remaining awesome Park City business:  *the mighty Gorgoza.* 







They've got glades:






Incredible vert:






And "open snowfields":






I'm also sure that this guy will be making more of an appearance at Killington:






Consider that our gift from Utah


----------



## bigbob (Sep 24, 2014)

Trailboss, Vail will be honoring the 3 days from people with Killington passes purchased prior to 9/.11/14 along with the other Powdr owned Mnt resort passes, so no need to fly across the country to visit the tubing park.


----------



## jaytrem (Sep 24, 2014)

Never realized they had "learn to ski" at Gorgoza.  I guess that technically makes it a ski area.


----------



## drjeff (Sep 24, 2014)

jaytrem said:


> Never realized they had "learn to ski" at Gorgoza.  I guess that technically makes it a ski area.



I could be wrong, but when I was driving by Gorgoza last March while out in Park City, it sure looked like from I-80 while going 75mph that it was only the tubing lanes that were in operation.  Now just over the ridge to the South of Gorgoza where the Utah Winter Olympics Park is (the ski jumping and luge/bobsled tracks from the '02 games, they 100% have a "small" ski operation there with some serious training facilities for areils and youth slalom and GS training with lighted courses


----------



## jaytrem (Sep 24, 2014)

drjeff said:


> I could be wrong, but when I was driving by Gorgoza last March while out in Park City, it sure looked like from I-80 while going 75mph that it was only the tubing lanes that were in operation.



The web site says they have 50' and 390' conveyors for learning to ski.  Probably not too easy to spot at 75MPH.

http://www.gorgoza.com/gorgoza/learn-to-ski/index.html


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 24, 2014)

bigbob said:


> Trailboss, Vail will be honoring the 3 days from people with Killington passes purchased prior to 9/.11/14 along with the other Powdr owned Mnt resort passes, so no need to fly across the country to visit the tubing park.



Where do you see that?  

http://www.killington.com/site/tickets/winter_passes/perks_benefits

http://www.killington.com/site/tickets/winter_passes/passholder_faqs

I see where PCMR "used" to be on the benefits list, but it is not there now.


----------



## steamboat1 (Sep 24, 2014)

thetrailboss said:


> Where do you see that?
> 
> http://www.killington.com/site/tickets/winter_passes/perks_benefits
> 
> ...


Here: http://www.snow.com/epic-pass/info/park-city-faq

*I purchased a season pass from Killington, Las Vegas Resort, Boreal, Mt Bachelor or Copper and was told I would receive 3 days (or unlimited skiing for Teens and Children) at Park City. Do I still get this? *
Yes. We will honor the 3 day or unlimited benefit for applicable season passes purchased prior to 9/11/14. This includes some Killington, Las Vegas Resort, Boreal, Mt Bachelor or Copper Adult, Teen and Child passes. However, proof of purchase prior to 9/11/2014 will be required. Proof of purchase includes your season pass and detailed, dated receipt of purchase. It is recommended you call Park City prior to your visit in order to confirm your season pass product is eligible. Restricted dates are December 27 - 31, 2014.


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 24, 2014)

steamboat1 said:


> Here: http://www.snow.com/epic-pass/info/park-city-faq
> 
> *I purchased a season pass from Killington, Las Vegas Resort, Boreal, Mt Bachelor or Copper and was told I would receive 3 days (or unlimited skiing for Teens and Children) at Park City. Do I still get this? *
> Yes. We will honor the 3 day or unlimited benefit for applicable season passes purchased prior to 9/11/14. This includes some Killington, Las Vegas Resort, Boreal, Mt Bachelor or Copper Adult, Teen and Child passes. However, proof of purchase prior to 9/11/2014 will be required. Proof of purchase includes your season pass and detailed, dated receipt of purchase. It is recommended you call Park City prior to your visit in order to confirm your season pass product is eligible. Restricted dates are December 27 - 31, 2014.



That's interesting.


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 29, 2014)

More general information of Vail's plans:

http://www.parkrecord.com/park_city...-outlines-plans-connect-pcmr-and-canyons-2015


----------



## thetrailboss (Dec 8, 2014)

Bump.  Vail has announced their plans today.  

$50 million expansion with at least three new lifts and upgrades to snowmaking.

Motherlode at PCMR will be a HSQ; King Con will be a Six Pack; interconnect lift will be an 8-passenger gondola.  New lodges too at PCMR.  Advertised as "the largest single season ski area improvement project in American history."  Sound familiar?  How about a Mr. Les Otten and his ambitious $28 million project at Sugarbush in 1995?

http://parkcitymountain.com/site/bl.../announcing-the-largest-resort#prclt-sQl7Xk2s

http://www.sltrib.com/news/1922827-155/vail-resorts-to-connect-park-city


----------



## thetrailboss (Dec 8, 2014)

Here's the map:

http://www.parkcitymountain.com/sit...2014_ParkCity_ImprovementsMap-FINAL-Small.pdf


----------



## BeefyBoy50 (Dec 9, 2014)

seems to me like the full expansion of this plan doesn't allow for any skiing from the mid station of the gondola down into terrain now known as part of the canyons. This means skiers can't get to Canyons any other way than taking that lift to it, which essentially makes the lift a shuttle. In what way is this so different than just having a full time free bus service for skiers?


----------



## deadheadskier (Dec 9, 2014)

If I'm reading it correctly, there are two trails to be cut from the mid-station towards the Canyons off Pine Cone Ridge and gated BC access off the other side back towards Park City.


----------



## thetrailboss (Dec 9, 2014)

deadheadskier said:


> If I'm reading it correctly, there are two trails to be cut from the mid-station towards the Canyons off Pine Cone Ridge and gated BC access off the other side back towards Park City.



That's my understanding.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## drjeff (Dec 9, 2014)

BeefyBoy50 said:


> seems to me like the full expansion of this plan doesn't allow for any skiing from the mid station of the gondola down into terrain now known as part of the canyons. This means skiers can't get to Canyons any other way than taking that lift to it, which essentially makes the lift a shuttle. In what way is this so different than just having a full time free bus service for skiers?



In essence the biggest advantage to this shuttle lift vs using say a bus is that it will allow people to transition from resort to resort in the "middle" of each resort rather than having to get up and out of the base and then spread out over the mountains.  From where the transfer lift is, it requires a minimum of 3 lift rides (4 if you count their cabriolet lift from the main parking area up to the main base area) from the base area of The Canyons and 2 or 3 from the base area of Park City Mountain Resort to get over to where the transfer lift is.  If you're talking about taking a shuttle bus, then you're going to end up loosing a bunch of time on the hill to get from the middle of one resort to the middle of the other


----------



## jaytrem (Dec 9, 2014)

Some interesting Canyons Maps can be seen here...

http://thecolonywpc.com/maps

The Canyons half of the gondola has been planned for quite a while, though probably not as a gondola.  You can also get an idea of how much of the Canyons is a giant real estate development.


----------



## RopeTow (Dec 10, 2014)

Kind of feels a little like Slidebrook, doesn't it?


----------



## bigbob (Dec 10, 2014)

Would connecting the two areas with a bus still qualify it as the largest ski area in the US? I would think not!


----------



## jaytrem (Dec 10, 2014)

bigbob said:


> Would connecting the two areas with a bus still qualify it as the largest ski area in the US? I would think not!



Probably not, else Squaw/Alpine probably would have claimed that at one point.


----------



## thetrailboss (Mar 26, 2015)

Bump.  

The PC/Canyons interconnect is unanimously approved:

http://www.parkrecord.com/ci_27790835/vail-resorts-wins-historic-vote-


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 30, 2015)

Bump.  

The Canyons brand has come to an end.  

http://www.saminfo.com/news/just-call-it-park-city-now


----------



## Hawkshot99 (Jul 30, 2015)

thetrailboss said:


> Bump.
> 
> The Canyons brand has come to an end.
> 
> http://www.saminfo.com/news/just-call-it-park-city-now



So does that count as UT loosing a resort?


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 30, 2015)

Hawkshot99 said:


> So does that count as UT loosing a resort?



Good point 


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 30, 2015)

Will the interconnect be completed for next season?


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 30, 2015)

deadheadskier said:


> Will the interconnect be completed for next season?



Yes.  Here are the cabs...gotta say I like the new logo:







I always thought that the old one was pretty lame:


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 30, 2015)

New website:

http://www.parkcitymountain.com/



Progress:






http://blog.parkcitymountain.com/si...0-million-dollar-capital-improvement-progress


----------



## snoseek (Jul 30, 2015)

Park west lives on!


----------



## ss20 (Jul 30, 2015)

Holy sh!t that trail map though.  I don't know how James Niehues does it. 

http://www.parkcitymountain.com/~/media/park city/pdfs/1516_pc_trailmap_web.ashx


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 30, 2015)

ss20 said:


> Holy sh!t that trail map though.  I don't know how James Niehues does it.
> 
> http://www.parkcitymountain.com/~/media/park city/pdfs/1516_pc_trailmap_web.ashx



Wow.  That is intense.  






I can only imagine what folks will look like trying to read the trail maps this season.....


----------



## ss20 (Jul 30, 2015)

thetrailboss said:


> Wow.  That is intense.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Funny stuff.  Still better than those old Killington topo maps from the 80s.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 30, 2015)

Just insane.....


----------



## skiNEwhere (Jul 31, 2015)

Very cool map. Although it will probably still feel like 2 separate ski areas due to the transfer lift. I'm curious if they'll try to develop the terrain to the north of the the Quicksilver lift on the canyons side.


----------



## marcski (Jul 31, 2015)

ss20 said:


> Funny stuff.  Still better than those old Killington topo maps from the 80s.


What are you talking about? Those old Killington maps were classic.  They could do double duty as a blanket during the 20 minute K-double ride.


----------



## machski (Jul 31, 2015)

thetrailboss said:


> Just insane.....



Pretty funny though that they put 480 snow guns on that.  Like that is a big number of those to us Easterners!!


----------



## ss20 (Jul 31, 2015)

Trailboss, how busy do think the mountain is going to get now?  Think 30k visitors on a busy Saturday is possible?


----------



## drjeff (Jul 31, 2015)

I don't think the map reading thing will be as much of an issue as many think it will be, as a good number of the lifts out there pre-merger had trail maps on the safety bars (a concept that makes plenty of sense that I see out West a bunch but don't recall hardly ever seeing in the East)


----------



## steamboat1 (Jul 31, 2015)

drjeff said:


> I don't think the map reading thing will be as much of an issue as many think it will be, as a good number of the lifts out there pre-merger had trail maps on the safety bars (a concept that makes plenty of sense that I see out West a bunch but don't recall hardly ever seeing in the East)


I recall Bromley having something on the safety bar like a roller. Don't remember if it was a trail map or just advertisement. I think they've since been removed.


----------



## ironhippy (Jul 31, 2015)

drjeff said:


> I don't think the map reading thing will be as much of an issue as many think it will be, as a good number of the lifts out there pre-merger had trail maps on the safety bars (a concept that makes plenty of sense that I see out West a bunch but don't recall hardly ever seeing in the East)



I saw those out west and thought they made a LOT of sense, not sure why it isn't a thing, probably too expensive.


----------



## skiNEwhere (Jul 31, 2015)

ironhippy said:


> I saw those out west and thought they made a LOT of sense, not sure why it isn't a thing, probably too expensive.



It's probably a pain in the ass and nearly cost prohibitive to replace them on all the chairs on all the lifts when the resort upgrades. Case and point, last season when I skied snowmass, they still had the Burlingame double listed on the safety bar trail map, even though that lift was removed over the summer.


----------



## drjeff (Jul 31, 2015)

The other thing that I like that I've seen a bunch of Western resorts do, but once again I don't recall ever seeing this at an Eastern resort, is when a lift crosses over a trail, the resort has mounted a trail sign in a way that you can actually see it from the lift to figure out what trail it is that your crossing over - for someone who's been at that area many times, it's a non issue, but for people not familiar with that area its a nice thing to help get your orientation of the resort


----------



## skiNEwhere (Jul 31, 2015)

drjeff said:


> The other thing that I like that I've seen a bunch of Western resorts do, but once again I don't recall ever seeing this at an Eastern resort, is when a lift crosses over a trail, the resort has mounted a trail sign in a way that you can actually see it from the lift to figure out what trail it is that your crossing over - for someone who's been at that area many times, it's a non issue, but for people not familiar with that area its a nice thing to help get your orientation of the resort



Only place I've seen that at is winter park. That's a great idea, I think more resorts should do it.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 31, 2015)

skiNEwhere said:


> Only place I've seen that at is winter park. That's a great idea, I think more resorts should do it.



Canyons and Snowbird have them.  Sugarbush used to have them.


----------



## thetrailboss (Mar 21, 2016)

Bump.  One perspective on how this season went at PCMR:  http://www.parkrecord.com/opinion/ci_29657587/pond-skimming-already?platform=hootsuite

Some interesting comments on their FB feed with the article.


----------

