# Burke Mtn sold to Jay Peak



## noski (May 24, 2012)

http://www.wcax.com/story/18614019/burke-mountain-sold


----------



## SIKSKIER (May 24, 2012)

Wow.Didn't see that coming.


----------



## BMac (May 24, 2012)

What!?


----------



## wa-loaf (May 24, 2012)

That'll be a sweet joint pass!


----------



## TheBEast (May 24, 2012)

Holy cow!!


----------



## thetrailboss (May 24, 2012)

Whoa.  Just heard about this from the_original_trailboss.  I've got to get caught up on this.  Did not see this coming.  I do know that Stenger has had an interest in Burke for some time.  In 2000 Jay and Stenger partnered up to offer pass benefits and to help the new owners bail Burke out.  I imagine that Stenger was interested in buying it then but did not have the coin or the ability until he was his own boss.  This is a gamechanger.  Burke is a good compliment in many ways and can really benefit from the traffic.  I wonder, though, if folks will gripe because Jay will stay open longer and have more money invested in it than Burke...kind of like the Pico/Killington syndrome...


----------



## Rambo (May 24, 2012)

wa-loaf said:


> That'll be a sweet joint pass!



How would something like that work? Burke lists a seasons pass at $399 and Jay at $649.


----------



## nelsapbm (May 24, 2012)

Growing up at Burke I've always though that Jay and Burke would make great partners. Now its looking like a reality!  I am interested in hearing more details such as what he actually bought-just the ski operations or all the real estate as well?
Rambo-since this deal has literally just happened I'm sure we'll see some different 2012-13 pass pricing come out as summer moves on.


----------



## billski (May 24, 2012)

Woah!


----------



## thetrailboss (May 24, 2012)

Rambo said:


> How would something like that work? Burke lists a seasons pass at $399 and Jay at $649.



Burke and Jay have a history of joint pass benefits actually.  In 2000-2001, 2001-2002, and 2002-2003 they shared pass benefits as a way to help struggling Burke and its new owners.  After that, Burke was bought by the now former real estate investment trust in partnership with Ginn Resorts, so the pass benefits ended because there was no need for it.  

And FWIW Burke passes are on the order of $500 or so, not $399.


----------



## wa-loaf (May 24, 2012)

Rambo said:


> How would something like that work? Burke lists a seasons pass at $399 and Jay at $649.



I could see two tiers. Jay pass price gets you both. Get a Burke pass and you get X number of vouchers to Jay.


----------



## snowmonster (May 24, 2012)

The prospect of having a combined Jay-Burke pass made me re-think my Boyne pass. That will be one helluva powder pass!


----------



## from_the_NEK (May 24, 2012)

How am I just finding out about this...
Holy crap. Not sure how to feel yet.


----------



## ScottySkis (May 24, 2012)

This is pretty cool,  I love to try Burke again.


----------



## Cornhead (May 24, 2012)

When does construction begin on the water park, ice rink, hotel, and golf course? This could be sweet for those of you who live in the area, Burke's a ton of fun, and Jay's great too. A combo pass would be a tree skier's dream come true.


----------



## JPTracker (May 24, 2012)

Is this the real reason Jay isn't putting in their new lift this summer?


----------



## jimmywilson69 (May 24, 2012)

I wonder if they would both work on a multi-day ticket for the "vacation" folks.


----------



## BigJay (May 24, 2012)

JPTracker said:


> Is this the real reason Jay isn't putting in their new lift this summer?



Jay Peak IS putting a new lift in the snowpark to replace the broken T-bar... it's just a useless lift from an "expert"-skier standpoint... for park rats and beginners, this lift will rock!


----------



## wa-loaf (May 24, 2012)

Cornhead said:


> When does construction begin on the water park, ice rink, hotel, and golf course? This could be sweet for those of you who live in the area, Burke's a ton of fun, and Jay's great too. A combo pass would be a tree skier's dream come true.



Somehow I don't see that happening. Who'd want to drive all the way to Jay if you can do all that stuff at Burke?


----------



## steamboat1 (May 24, 2012)

Rambo said:


> How would something like that work? Burke lists a seasons pass at $399 and Jay at $649.



I'd imagine along the same lines as what Killington offers with their Pico only pass or Sugarbush with their Mt. Ellen only pass. Difference is Burke is a bit further away than Pico is to K or Mt. Ellen is to Lincoln Peak. If you buy the more expensive pass you can ski both mountains.


----------



## thetrailboss (May 24, 2012)

wa-loaf said:


> Somehow I don't see that happening. Who'd want to drive all the way to Jay if you can do all that stuff at Burke?



+1.  They will keep Jay as the destination resort and Burke as the locals/racer place I bet....


----------



## deadheadskier (May 24, 2012)

I wonder if Jay would be able to divert some of their EB5 money towards improvement at Burke.


----------



## thetrailboss (May 24, 2012)

deadheadskier said:


> I wonder if Jay would be able to divert some of their EB5 money towards improvement at Burke.



That's probably their intent.  Now that Burke has two HSQ's, they can focus on snowmaking, lodging, and other amenities.  I bet that they continue expanding the biking ops at Burke.


----------



## JPTracker (May 24, 2012)

Just received from Jay:



> We wanted you to be among the first to know –  Our president Bill Stenger and longtime business partner Ariel Quiros have purchased Burke Mountain Resort.  We alerted staff and you were next on the list.  We (or more specifically JJ Toland) will be covering all the press, but thought it was important that you hear the news, officially, from us and not vague rumors and news reports.
> We’re still working out (all) the details, but are already thinking of ways to amplify your winter experience to include Burke.  Stay tuned – you will, as always, be amongst the first to know.
> For more info on Burke visit skiburke.com.  Maybe like them on Facebook too - facebook.com/BurkeMtn.  Think both will highlight that Burke and Jay Peak will be a good fit.


----------



## wa-loaf (May 24, 2012)

When does the interconnect go in?


----------



## noski (May 24, 2012)

JPTracker said:


> Just received from Jay:



....Imagine, me lumped in with vague rumors and the such. Cruel.


----------



## from_the_NEK (May 24, 2012)

wa-loaf said:


> When does the interconnect go in?



I think that is what they are now going to use the Jet triple for.


----------



## from_the_NEK (May 24, 2012)

I wonder how this will affect the Kingdom Trails and it relationship with the Burke Mtn bike park? MTB has turned Burke into a year round attraction. There is already a strong inflow of riders from Quebec. I wonder if Jay's marketing power in Quebec will step this up even more for promotion of the lift served terrain.


----------



## Masskier (May 24, 2012)

This has been in the works and is excellent news for Burke.  Here is another story 

http://www.boston.com/travel/explorene/specials/ski/blog/2012/05/burke_mountain.html


----------



## marcski (May 24, 2012)

I wonder if this will have any effect on the Academy?   Is the Academy a separate entity or is it part of Burke?  Does the Academy have some type of deeded rights to use Burke...and/or do they pay for the use of the Mountain?


----------



## jimmywilson69 (May 24, 2012)

Maybe they will run a highspeed gondola between Burke and Jay.  They could call it the Northeast Kingdom Express
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:


----------



## thetrailboss (May 24, 2012)

marcski said:


> I wonder if this will have any effect on the Academy?   Is the Academy a separate entity or is it part of Burke?  Does the Academy have some type of deeded rights to use Burke...and/or do they pay for the use of the Mountain?



It's kind of complicated, but as I understand it, the deal goes like this.  In 2000 a group of people affiliated with BMA bought the mountain.  They used folks from BMA administration to kind of fill in with both roles, but the mountain was not technically owned by BMA, but it was so closely affiliated that in essence it was "run" by BMA.  Most Burke locals know who the main "money man" was with this deal, and he was the one who brought in the REIT in 2005 to buy the resort from this group.  

In 2005 the BMA affiliated group sold the mountain to the REIT and Ginn.  Part of the deal included BMA having a say (I can't recall if it was a right of first refusal or an option) should the REIT decide to sell.  The deal, I think, also provided for a large chunk of change going to BMA's endowment.  So as of 2005 BMA was not "running" the mountain per se.  

As I mentioned Jay was very involved with Burke in 2000 after Northern  Star left, Stenger in particular.  He felt that having Burke would only  help Jay because Burke had a great location and could help draw more  skiers north.  So he provided a lot of free advice and guidance to that  regime.  Of all the neighboring hills, Jay was the one who was the most  generous.  I wondered why he did not buy it then, but I think that the  truth was, and it was the same case in the 1990's when Les Otten was  seen walking around the mountain, that it needed a lot of  work...snowmaking, lifts, lodges, etc.  And Stenger was not his own  boss.  So now, in 2012 after a terrible season, Burke has seven years of  expensive upgrades that include two new HSQ's, a renovated base lodge,  expanded and improved snowmaking, better marketing, and the biking in  the summer.


----------



## thetrailboss (May 24, 2012)

Some comments on the Globe and BF articles:

1.  I don't believe that Ginn was the seller: the REIT was.  Ginn has been out for some time now.  

2.  "He estimated Burke's recent skier visitation at about 60,000 visits."  Holy sh^&.  That is way down from their previous levels of about 90k.  

3.  "There's a lot of history at Burke and there's been many master plans  that did not roll out. We're about delivering on our promises, which  means we're not making many on day one."  Smart.  I imagine, again, that they will want to build up the skier visits and not invest in silly extras.  Burke, in some ways, has better terrain than Jay (better consistent pitch, better weather (not as windy or cold), and better location).

Burke will definitely benefit from the Jay marketing machine.


----------



## from_the_NEK (May 24, 2012)

More interesting information here:
http://www.powdermag.com/latest-news/jay-peak-buys-burke/

"QBurke" is the official new owner.


----------



## riverc0il (May 24, 2012)

Just saw the email before coming here. Wow. Couple of thoughts:

The announcement doesn't say Jay Peak buys Burke. It is Stenger and partner. It remains to be seen what type of combo offering will be made. But it seems likely that a two tier pass would eventually be offered: Jay Solo, Burke Solo, and Combined. A Burke/Jay combo would be really amazing. This would drive guest visits at Burke and relieve Jay of crowding on its busiest days. Nice. Also gets folks in Metro Boston on board with a closer area than Jay for day tripping and Jay for the weekend or full week trips.

from_the_NEK points out the MTB and that is HUGE for Jay to have another non-skiing resort item to offer its guests. In fact, I suspect the MTB will be a bigger boon to Stenger and Jay than the skiing at Burke. Summer now includes full resort access, very nice modern lodging, quality on mountain restaurants, golf, water park, and one of the premier MTB networks in the east. This also gets Stenger more real estate to sell without building more units for the Jay expansion just yet.

Benefit to Burke is quite obvious: definite long term sustainability, especially in the face of having purchased two HSQs in recent years and significantly built out the resort. That debt needs to be paid and getting more guests to the mountain will be needed. Stenger knows how to do that.

I can't wait to see how this plays out. I am flying independent for one more year as I finish off my List. I was on the fence about a Jay pass for 2013-2014 but a Jay/Burke combo (with the likelihood of Burke being more aggressive with snowmaking to boot) would certainly seal the deal, even at a slight premium over the Jay pass.


----------



## Masskier (May 24, 2012)

riverc0il said:


> Just saw the email before coming here. Wow. Couple of thoughts:
> 
> The announcement doesn't say Jay Peak buys Burke. It is Stenger and partner. It remains to be seen what type of combo offering will be made. But it seems likely that a two tier pass would eventually be offered: Jay Solo, Burke Solo, and Combined. A Burke/Jay combo would be really amazing. This would drive guest visits at Burke and relieve Jay of crowding on its busiest days. Nice. Also gets folks in Metro Boston on board with a closer area than Jay for day tripping and Jay for the weekend or full week trips.
> 
> ...



What debt?  Jay's expansion is being funded through the EB 5 program.  And I would think that he may do the same at Burke.


----------



## riverc0il (May 24, 2012)

Sorry, typo. I was referring to Burke's debt for the HSQs. I imagine they would need to do another application process to do EB5 at Burke. Would they be able to do it with the Jay project still on going?


----------



## psyflyer (May 24, 2012)

riverc0il said:


> Sorry, typo. I was referring to Burke's debt for the HSQs. I imagine they would need to do another application process to do EB5 at Burke. Would they be able to do it with the Jay project still on going?



Who says Burke financed the HSQ with debt?

Excellent news!


----------



## thetrailboss (May 24, 2012)

I just saw on the latest WCAX news article that Stenger's immediate plans for Burke are to focus on "substantial" snowmaking upgrades in time for next season.


----------



## Masskier (May 24, 2012)

riverc0il said:


> Sorry, typo. I was referring to Burke's debt for the HSQs. I imagine they would need to do another application process to do EB5 at Burke. Would they be able to do it with the Jay project still on going?



As long as they are able to attract the foreign investors and create the jobs.


----------



## skiahman (May 24, 2012)

snowmonster said:


> The prospect of having a combined Jay-Burke pass made me re-think my Boyne pass. That will be one helluva powder pass!


 
I'll rethink my Boyne pass only for as long as it takes to decide to keep it...a far shorter time than I will spend in the dog-house for saying, "Oh look, honey, my Jay/Burke pass came in the mail today!"


----------



## gregnye (May 24, 2012)

Thanks for finding this article!!

Whenever I go up to Jay, I usually can't force myself to leave and try out Burke. The new passes (hopefully) at both Burke and Jay will make me want to get out and explore Burke, as I have heard that it is as awesome as Jay.


Message to Jay Peak: Please don't be too distracted by Burke this summer. Please follow through with your lift upgrades this year--then focus on Burke---Thanks.


----------



## skiahman (May 24, 2012)

I've had that same affliction, hopefully this partnership will cure that.


----------



## thetrailboss (May 24, 2012)

I think folks will see larger crowds at Burke this season...and even then it will still be quiet.  I imagine that the JPR marketing crew will really be pushing Burke as well.  Probably the biggest thing with Burke, next to not having the HSQ to the summit (now fixed), was the lack of notoriety.  I think that will be cured as well.


----------



## halfpintvt (May 24, 2012)

I believe that Burke 2000 LLC financed the Mid-Burke Express.The secured debtor is Burke Lift, LLC; a company that  happens to have a mailing address  of c/o Graham Capital Co 1420 Sixth Ave in York, Pennsylvania. This is a company that should be familiar to people following Burke Mountains financial activities.


----------



## riverc0il (May 24, 2012)

psyflyer said:


> Who says Burke financed the HSQ with debt?


I think it is a safe assumption. I don't recall hearing about any angel investors footing the bill hoping to make a "small fortune" by financining a big fortune. They sure didn't pay ten million in cash or whatever it costed to build those two lifts. I'm sure when the ownership transferred after Ginn bought the first one that the debt transferred too. Even if the first one was on the old house, that second and larger more expensive one still has to be on the books.


----------



## Rambo (May 24, 2012)

thetrailboss said:


> And FWIW Burke passes are on the order of $500 or so, not $399.



You are technically correct. The normal price is $500. But currently on the Burke mountain website, it has a 20% discount which amounts to $399.

Adult (age +16): $399.00/each (save 20%)

BUT, perhaps the info. on the website is very old and not current. It kind of forwards you to liftopia and there are no dates when the 20% off deal on the Burke seasons pass expires if ever.

I THINK THE SEASONS PASS INFORMATION AND PRICES ON BURKES WEBSITE IS FOR LAST YEARS PASS!!!


----------



## Masskier (May 24, 2012)

thetrailboss said:


> I think folks will see larger crowds at Burke this season...and even then it will still be quiet.  I imagine that the JPR marketing crew will really be pushing Burke as well.  Probably the biggest thing with Burke, next to not having the HSQ to the summit (now fixed), was the lack of notoriety.  I think that will be cured as well.




Agreed,  New HSQ last year, new Owner and substantial  snow making improvements this year.  These are certainly exciting times for Burke.


----------



## riverc0il (May 24, 2012)

Masskier said:


> Agreed,  New HSQ last year, new Owner and substantial  snow making improvements this year.  These are certainly exciting times for Burke.


And exciting times for the Masskier portfolio. :beer:


----------



## Masskier (May 24, 2012)

riverc0il said:


> And exciting times for the Masskier portfolio. :beer:



Thanks,   After the last few years, it's nice to see things getting back on track.


----------



## thetrailboss (May 24, 2012)

riverc0il said:


> I think it is a safe assumption. I don't recall hearing about any angel investors footing the bill hoping to make a "small fortune" by financining a big fortune. They sure didn't pay ten million in cash or whatever it costed to build those two lifts. I'm sure when the ownership transferred after Ginn bought the first one that the debt transferred too. Even if the first one was on the old house, that second and larger more expensive one still has to be on the books.



Actually, I don't believe that the lifts were financed with debt.  The REIT invested their funds to buy them outright.  Banks just don't lend money to ski areas anymore, hence EB5 and REIT's.


----------



## thetrailboss (May 24, 2012)

halfpintvt said:


> I believe that Burke 2000 LLC financed the Mid-Burke Express.The secured debtor is Burke Lift, LLC; a company that  happens to have a mailing address  of c/o Graham Capital Co 1420 Sixth Ave in York, Pennsylvania. This is a company that should be familiar to people following Burke Mountains financial activities.



Bingo.  I've ridden up the quad with the man behind the curtain and you would never know that he was a millionaire and was the guy who pretty much (quietly) owned Burke Mountain.


----------



## Nick (May 24, 2012)

I just saw this earlier today. Will be interesting to see what comes of this


----------



## riverc0il (May 25, 2012)

thetrailboss said:


> Actually, I don't believe that the lifts were financed with debt.  The REIT invested their funds to buy them outright.  Banks just don't lend money to ski areas anymore, hence EB5 and REIT's.


Wow, incredible. Without knowing the asking price, I bet this must have been a really sweet deal for Stenger and partner. If they got Burke with a recently built top to bottom HSQ without debt, that is quite a nice deal.


----------



## from_the_NEK (May 25, 2012)

riverc0il said:


> Wow, incredible. Without knowing the asking price, I bet this must have been a really sweet deal for Stenger and partner. If they got Burke with a recently built top to bottom HSQ without debt, that is quite a nice deal.



Lupert-Adler (the property investment company that backed Ginn and eventually took over control of the mtn when Ginn essentially went bankrupt) hired the Crave Group as property managers to, as their website says:



> The challenge Crave took on with this project has been to reposition the asset to maximize value for the owner/investor. Crave is improving Burke daily, by developing a strategic plan to address underlying issues, then executing on that strategy to mitigate risk and create profit.



I don't think Lupret-Adler wanted to be owners of a ski resort. They did have an interest in fixing some glaring issues at the mountain to make it attractive to potential buyers. I'm not sure of the relationship between them and Graham Capital Co, but they are both based in PA. I'm sure keeping the mountain’s debt load to a minimum was something that they knew would make the mountain that much more attractive to a buyer and allow them to get a better return on their investment. Buying the new lift with cash probably made them more money in the end (e.g. spending $7,000 remodeling the kitchen so that the asking price for the house can be raised by $10,000).  

The other major attraction for a potential buyer is the master plan is already Act 250 approved. 
http://www.anr.state.vt.us/ANR/ACT250/Act250SearchResults.aspx
I'm sure there will be adjustments to this plan, but having this already through the thickest part of the red tape is huge for QBurke.


----------



## jimmywilson69 (May 25, 2012)

It sounds like this is a win for the NEK of VT.  I mean from a PA boy's perspective if you want anyone to have a monoply on the ski industry on Northern VT, It appears that Stenger and Friends should be the one.


----------



## WWF-VT (May 25, 2012)

More information here:

http://www.timesargus.com/article/20120525/BUSINESS03/705259875/1006/BUSINESS

Jay gets nearly half of its business from Canada — Montreal is 90 minutes away — and had about 4,000 season ticket holders this past season, spokesman J.J. Toland said. Burke has about half that number of season ticket holders and caters to a more local clientele.

Stenger said Burke’s role as a resort destination has been hampered by too few accommodations in the area for out-of-town visitors.

“The thing they need more than anything else is a bed base that guests who come to the area can go to,” Stenger said. “I think a hotel is definitely in the future” at Burke Mountain.

Burke has had a spotty history financially. 

Before Ginn arrived on the scene, Burke had four owners in the previous 20 years and had gone bankrupt four times.


----------



## troy (May 25, 2012)

hopin' they change management completely at Burke cuz that place is poorly run.  just sayin'

trails wise Burke has huge potential as the mt is barely developed.  there's a whole new peak without one friggin trail on it!  

way to go J!


----------



## from_the_NEK (May 25, 2012)

troy said:


> hopin' they change management completely at Burke cuz that place is poorly run.  just sayin'



...Looking for middle finger icon....




troy said:


> trails wise Burke has huge potential as the mt is barely developed.  there's a whole new peak without one friggin trail on it!
> 
> way to go J!



:blink:


----------



## thetrailboss (May 25, 2012)

riverc0il said:


> Wow, incredible. Without knowing the asking price, I bet this must have been a really sweet deal for Stenger and partner. If they got Burke with a recently built top to bottom HSQ without debt, that is quite a nice deal.



I think it was as FTNEK said--the REIT wanted to get their payout, so they invested last summer in the HSQ to up the value of the resort (tremendously I might add) and then put it on the market.  Once the HSQ was in, Stenger and company realized they could make a go of it.  Just think: Burke has more HSQ's then Jay does, and more room for handling folks.


----------



## thetrailboss (May 25, 2012)

troy said:


> hopin' they change management completely at Burke cuz that place is poorly run.  just sayin'
> 
> trails wise Burke has huge potential as the mt is barely developed.  there's a whole new peak without one friggin trail on it!
> 
> way to go J!



What part is not run well?  They have turned the place around.  There is a real summer business now, great lifts, more of a media presence, and it is still running!


----------



## from_the_NEK (May 25, 2012)

thetrailboss said:


> What part is not run well?  They have turned the place around.  There is a real summer business now, great lifts, more of a media presence, and it is still running!



And all on a shoe-string budget.


----------



## snowmonster (May 25, 2012)

Just thought about this: from Boston, the distance/drive time to Jay Peak and Burke is almost the same as Sugarloaf and Sunday River. I know that Jay's big market is Montreal. But, a Jay-Burke combo pass would offer serious competition to the Boyne Pass for the Boston Metro market. 

If in the future Stenger et. al. decide to buy another resort closer to Boston (like Waterville Valley) then you could have a pass combo that would mirror the current Boyne pass. Interesting times in the New England ski industry.


----------



## WWF-VT (May 25, 2012)

snowmonster said:


> Just thought about this: from Boston, the distance/drive time to Jay Peak and Burke is almost the same as Sugarloaf and Sunday River. I know that Jay's big market is Montreal. But, a Jay-Burke combo pass would offer serious competition to the Boyne Pass for the Boston Metro market.
> 
> If in the future Stenger et. al. decide to buy another resort closer to Boston (like Waterville Valley) then you could have a pass combo that would mirror the current Boyne pass. Interesting times in the New England ski industry.



The attraction for the Boyne pass for the Boston market  = Sunday River and Loon which are two well established destinations  that are very popular in the intermediate skier target demographic– Loon for a day trip, Sunday River for a weekend or extended stay.   Burke has very limited market awareness in the Boston area and Jay Peak, like Sugarloaf , is seen as “too far” for the Boston area weekend warrior.   The combo pass for Jay/Burke would offer minimal competition to Boyne.


----------



## snowmonster (May 25, 2012)

^ You're forgetting that the Boyne New England Pass started out as the Maine Pass which offered only Loaf/River then. Even without Loon, people in Boston ate up that pass. Loon was thrown in a year later. What I am pointing out is that the Stenger group now has the basic tools to make a run at the Boyne pass. I agree that Jay is too far from Boston and Burke is too unknown. But, time and good marketing can make the difference. 

I would not be surprised if one of these days, Stenger buys Waterville or Sunapee just to go head-to-head with Boyne.


----------



## from_the_NEK (May 25, 2012)

Affordable buys right now...
Ascutney and Tenny

I don't know if the Jay ownership would want to invest that far south. Their marketing is about snow. Southern NH locations aren't known for that. 

Hmmm...Cannon lease?


----------



## thetrailboss (May 25, 2012)

I doubt that Jay will buy Ascutney or Tenney.  Both need too much work to be marketable.  Tenney needs some major lift upgrades and help with snowmaking.  Ascutney now has lost its HSQ and has older fixed grip lifts that nobody wants to ride (nobody being the majority of the intermediate skier market).  Ascutney has little natural snow.  As for Sunapee and that lease, I don't see it happening.  Triple Peaks may want out because the state will not let them expand and build their Okemo II village/development, but they make some good coin there off of just skiing.


----------



## thetrailboss (May 25, 2012)

WCAX story with video:  

http://www.wcax.com/story/18614019/burke-mountain-sold

Stenger and company began the purchase process five months ago....so waiting for the HSQ to go in must have been a big part of it.


----------



## from_the_NEK (May 25, 2012)

thetrailboss said:


> WCAX story with video:
> 
> http://www.wcax.com/story/18614019/burke-mountain-sold
> 
> Stenger and company began the purchase process five months ago....so waiting for the HSQ to go in must have been a big part of it.



5 months of keeping this deal under their cap is seriously amazing. :-o


----------



## thetrailboss (May 25, 2012)

More interesting insight.  Apparently, Burke's owners approached Stenger about the deal and it was about three months ago, or at the end of the season.  And Stenger said that there will be no real estate development until they have built up a base of folks who will want it.  That makes sense.  Make the skiing product better before trying to sell homes.  

http://www.vpr.net/news_detail/94616/jay-peak-owners-purchase-burke-mountain-resort/


----------



## Sick Bird Rider (May 25, 2012)

thetrailboss said:


> ...And Stenger said that there will be no real estate development until they have built up a base of folks who will want it.  That makes sense.  *Make the skiing product better before trying to sell homes. *



It sure does make sense. Too bad Bill Stenger did not apply the same thinking to Jay Peak.


----------



## from_the_NEK (May 25, 2012)

My guess is, after snowmaking upgrades (which are easy to plan and execute in a few months), something like this will be the first new thing we see at Burke.


----------



## thetrailboss (May 25, 2012)

Yep, snowmaking and a hotel are in the works in my mind.  Good year-round business with the biking.  It will have nice amenities I imagine...pool, etc.  Maybe some condo unit/timeshares for sale.


----------



## thetrailboss (May 25, 2012)

Sick Bird Rider said:


> It sure does make sense. Too bad Bill Stenger did not apply the same thinking to Jay Peak.



Just curious--what is the take on the Burke acquisition in the Jay community?


----------



## troy (May 25, 2012)

thetrailboss said:


> What part is not run well?  They have turned the place around.  There is a real summer business now, great lifts, more of a media presence, and it is still running!



yeah umm, let's see.. where to start.  Maybe with the voice/marketing gal at Burke.  Being obese don't inspire much confidence in my book...

went to burke in mid feb, got to the mid burke lodge and bar tender smoking outside leaving bar unattended with the big gal.  No fire, no hello, no nothing.  Yeehaw  :flame:


----------



## from_the_NEK (May 25, 2012)

All I can say is I don't plan on ever skiing with you at Burke (or anywhere for that matter) ...Ass...


----------



## thetrailboss (May 25, 2012)

troy said:


> yeah umm, let's see.. where to start.  Maybe with the voice/marketing gal at Burke.  Being obese don't inspire much confidence in my book...



Wow, that is a really sexist and shallow view.  I guess I was expecting a comment about her work as opposed to your chauvinistic opinion as to how she looks.

At any rate, it will be interesting to see what marketing is done and if Jay just uses their own crew or if they incorporate Burke's department.


----------



## Cannonball (May 25, 2012)

from_the_NEK said:


> Affordable buys right now...
> Ascutney and Tenny
> 
> I don't know if the Jay ownership would want to invest that far south. Their marketing is about snow. Southern NH locations aren't known for that.
> ...



While I'm generally against the Cannon lease idea.  A Cannon/Burke/Jay pass is pretty much my wet dream....


----------



## troy (May 25, 2012)

from_the_NEK said:


> All I can say is I don't plan on ever skiing with you at Burke (or anywhere for that matter) ...Ass...



...Looking for middle finger icon.... :smash:


----------



## thetrailboss (May 25, 2012)

Cannonball said:


> While I'm generally against the Cannon lease idea.  A Cannon/Burke/Jay pass is pretty much my wet dream....



A little TMI there!  :lol:  But agree, that trio would be a very interesting ticket.  I doubt we will see a Cannon lease anytime soon.  The Sunapee lease was the compromise.


----------



## jimmywilson69 (May 25, 2012)

from_the_NEK said:


> My guess is, after snowmaking upgrades (which are easy to plan and execute in a few months), something like this will be the first new thing we see at Burke.



from_the_NEK  the Google Earth Master!

Nothing wrong with a little hotel action IMO.  I have never skied at Burke, I would like to and now that there is a real possibility with a combined pass/ticket with Jay I can certainly see it happening!


----------



## from_the_NEK (May 25, 2012)

jimmywilson69 said:


> from_the_NEK  the Google Earth Master!
> 
> Nothing wrong with a little hotel action IMO.  I have never skied at Burke, I would like to and now that there is a real possibility with a combined pass/ticket with Jay I can certainly see it happening!



Notice that in my rendering, the Bear Den bar is preserved and connected to the new Hotel/Lodge with a breezeway.  
New owners...please take note 8)


----------



## thetrailboss (May 25, 2012)

I think that the short-term goals for Burke are really quite simple:  more snowmaking and more marketing.  Jay does really well with the latter.  They will want to simply bring more people to the mountain to show them how easy it is to get there and what a great place it is.  I think they will want to get the visit numbers up above 100,000 per season in the next few years in order to even think about growing anything more substantial.  

If Stenger fails then we know that nobody can make it at Burke.  I hope I didn't just jinx it.

Burke's marketing stepped up in the last few seasons and did a great job with the limited resources that they had.  The direct marketing effort in Boston was met with a good response from here at least.  Get folks there.  Let them see what a great place it is.  That's all you need to do.


----------



## Sick Bird Rider (May 25, 2012)

thetrailboss said:


> Just curious--what is the take on the Burke acquisition in the Jay community?



Hopefully JPtracker, MagogFishy, FBrissette and others will chime in on this question. Personally, I think it is a good thing. I've skied at Jay for 40+ years, never been to Burke though thought about it many times. If my Jay pass will get me there, I'm going.

My optimistic view is that Qresorts will invest in Burke enough to improve the amenities & ski experience but not so much that the spirit of the place gets overwhelmed. They can promote Jay as the "big" resort with all that goes with it and leave Burke as the "back to basics" but comfortable alternative.


----------



## from_the_NEK (May 25, 2012)

Sick Bird Rider said:


> My optimistic view is that Qresorts will invest in Burke enough to improve the amenities & ski experience but not so much that the spirit of the place gets overwhelmed. They can promote Jay as the "big" resort with all that goes with it and leave Burke as the "back to basics" but comfortable alternative.



This seems to be the common consensus among the regulars at both mtns. Let's hope that is the plan :beer:

I've also been thinking that they might promote Burke as the "pit-stop" to break up the long drive to Jay from southern NE?

(BTW. I posted a quick comment on your blog)


----------



## BigJay (May 25, 2012)

from_the_NEK said:


> I wonder how this will affect the Kingdom Trails and it relationship with the Burke Mtn bike park? MTB has turned Burke into a year round attraction. There is already a strong inflow of riders from Quebec. I wonder if Jay's marketing power in Quebec will step this up even more for promotion of the lift served terrain.



No, i want true mountain biking back up at Jay Peak like in the old days! (But with more modern trails!)


----------



## gregnye (May 25, 2012)

BigJay said:


> No, i want true mountain biking back up at Jay Peak like in the old days! (But with more modern trails!)



Yes! You could have the thrill of holding on to your bike as you go up the Freezer! 

(or you could use common sense and use the tram)


----------



## riverc0il (May 25, 2012)

WWF-VT said:


> “The thing they need more than anything else is a bed base that guests who come to the area can go to,” Stenger said. “I think a hotel is definitely in the future” at Burke Mountain.


An on mountain slopeside hotel would be a huge boost for Burke. There is ample local accommodation in the area for current demand/need but a slopeside hotel would put Burke in another league.

That said, I am quite surprised that someone as savvy as Stenger would suggest that a bed base is the thing that Burke needs more than anything else. He is of course looking at Burke as a new owner and probably has automatically assumed Burke's real problem is a thing of the past: lack of awareness and lack of "perceived reason" for potential guests to make the drive. It will be REALLY interesting to see what happens as Burke transitions from sleepy old school unknown mountain to Jay's sister mountain. Guest visits more than doubling within one year's time could certainly happen even without that increased bed base...


----------



## fbrissette (May 26, 2012)

thetrailboss said:


> Just curious--what is the take on the Burke acquisition in the Jay community?



Cannot speak for my Jay Peak neighbours (who all miss on the summer fun) but I only see positive in that purchase.  Like Sick Bird Rider, I've skied Jay for nearly 30 years and have never been to Burke.  Any sort of deal for Jay pass holders will definitely see us go there a couple of times every year and spend money for food.  That's the problem with a season pass.  It suck having to pay for lift tickets somewhere else (especially for a family).  Gimme a reasonable deal and we'll go for sure.   It actually might results in less skiers at Jay which is also a positive.  

Strangely enough, now that Burke is almost home, we may want to go mountain biking there, at least until Jay decides to invest in a reasonable network.

Homeowner meeting is next Saturday and hopefully we'll get more information.

Francois


----------



## thetrailboss (May 26, 2012)

fbrissette said:


> Cannot speak for my Jay Peak neighbours (who all miss on the summer fun) but I only see positive in that purchase.  Like Sick Bird Rider, I've skied Jay for nearly 30 years and have never been to Burke.  Any sort of deal for Jay pass holders will definitely see us go there a couple of times every year and spend money for food.  That's the problem with a season pass.  It suck having to pay for lift tickets somewhere else (especially for a family).  Gimme a reasonable deal and we'll go for sure.   It actually might results in less skiers at Jay which is also a positive.
> 
> Strangely enough, now that Burke is almost home, we may want to go mountain biking there, at least until Jay decides to invest in a reasonable network.
> 
> ...



It's funny to hear folks comment about the pass reciprocity.  They had reciprocity for a while in 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003.  Did you all not go to Burke then?


----------



## thetrailboss (May 26, 2012)

And, interestingly enough, this Burke thread, like others here on AZ, is getting tons of hits.  There is lots of interest of Burke here and I know lots of folks from here went to Burke last season for their first time.


----------



## dropKickMurphy (May 26, 2012)

thetrailboss said:


> +1.  They will keep Jay as the destination resort and Burke as the locals/racer place I bet....



I would think so. They really want to fill all those new hotel rooms at Jay. I don't see them adding lodging at Burke for the foreseeable future.

In the competition for the ski week crowd, Having a second mountain is a big plus. It wold be nice if they were a bit closer to each other, but I can see them running a shuttle several times a day fr the Jay resort guests to have a chance to try a different mountain. 

This could be great news. 

Being under the Jay umbrella, maybe Burke will be able to survive financially without  having to make the kind of changes that  would change the essential character of the place.

I see the paring between Jay and Burke as similar to Sugarloaf and Saddleback. About the same distance apart. A full scale destination resort  and a smaller ski area that offers smaller crowds, loads of character, and the type of terrain that would appeal to the advanced skier that tends to be drawn to Jay and the Loaf. 

I wouldn't mind seeing The Loaf and Saddleback end up under the same ownership...whether Boyne or someone else


----------



## fbrissette (May 26, 2012)

thetrailboss said:


> It's funny to hear folks comment about the pass reciprocity.  They had reciprocity for a while in 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003.  Did you all not go to Burke then?



Wasn't a season pass holder then.   Even if I was at the time, the extra hour of driving from Montreal was annoying,   With a home in Jay, things change quite a bit.  It's a relatively short drive and we'll be happy to 'sacrifice' a few of our 50+ ski days and go to Burke.

Francois


----------



## crank (May 26, 2012)

I've been skiing Jay since 1984 and have never skied Burke.  I've been meaning to but every time I have been heading to that region there has been a lot more snow at Jay.

I do not think Jay would buy Burke to keep it a "locals and racers mountain".  Hell, what else has it been for it's entire existence? Would Jay Peak buy it to preserve it as is MRG style?  No, ski area development is more about development than ski. and, while Jay does have great skiing, in my mind they have been concentrating a lot more on the development side in recent years and I see no reason not to expect the same at Burke.

Burke has been on my ski hill bucket list for years... I think I will finally get off 91 there next season.  Heading up next month for NEMBAfest!


----------



## bobbutts (May 26, 2012)

I think the problem at Burke with the Locals plan is simply that they don't exist in significant numbers..  According to Wikipedia, Lyndon has ~5,500 population and St. J ~7,500.  

All the significant population centers have a closer local mtn as far as I know.

I think 2 unique things about Jay ability allow it to succeed, one is reaching the Montreal market, and two is natural snowfall and glades.  Don't see that carrying over to Burke.  I think an ice arena or Waterpark there would be in competition with Jay, so doubt those types of destination attractions are coming either.  I'm not saying it won't succeed, more that Jay and Burke are apples and oranges.


----------



## Razor (May 26, 2012)

This sucks.  Wife and I have been going to Burke midweek a few times/year since we retired.  Now we're going to have other people on the lifts, and we won't be the only ones on the trails and in the trees.  We won't still be getting fresh tracks in the afternoon.


----------



## riverc0il (May 26, 2012)

Razor said:


> This sucks.  Wife and I have been going to Burke midweek a few times/year since we retired.  Now we're going to have other people on the lifts, and we won't be the only ones on the trails and in the trees.  We won't still be getting fresh tracks in the afternoon.


Mid-week? I don't think much is going to change. Unless it is a powder day, you can ski anywhere in New England mid-week without lines and be alone in the woods. Even with the new management and Jay connection, I don't foresee a massive bump in mid-week skiers. Weekends... well, they won't be offering their five minute line guarantee any more.

Personally, I'd rather be able to share Burke with some new like minded skiers than see it continue playing owner roulette and teetering on the edge.


----------



## Zand (May 26, 2012)

Wet dream here: change the Triple Major pass to Burke, Jay, MRG. I'll go wipe the drool off my keyboard now.


----------



## Razor (May 27, 2012)

riverc0il said:


> Mid-week? I don't think much is going to change. Unless it is a powder day, you can ski anywhere in New England mid-week without lines and be alone in the woods. Even with the new management and Jay connection, I don't foresee a massive bump in mid-week skiers. Weekends... well, they won't be offering their five minute line guarantee any more.
> 
> Personally, I'd rather be able to share Burke with some new like minded skiers than see it continue playing owner roulette and teetering on the edge.



Comments were tongue-in-cheek.  Actually quite happy to see local ownership.  Burke is a great hill.  And as someone who has spent some quality times on the Kingdom Trails, I can see the area's relatively untapped 4 season attraction enhanced tremendously.


----------



## BigJay (May 27, 2012)

Jay Peak has been planning for an expansion since the 90s... they've just realized it's much easier to buy a whole mountain altogether!

Will they rename Burke: "The East Bowl"?

Maybe they'll put the Jet over at Burke when they replace it?


----------



## thetrailboss (May 27, 2012)

Re:  Jet.  Was thinking it would go great in the Dippers area where the old Poma was.


----------



## deadheadskier (May 28, 2012)

troy said:


> yeah umm, let's see.. where to start.  Maybe with the voice/marketing gal at Burke.  Being obese don't inspire much confidence in my book...



so, how would you suggest they improve the staff at Burke?  Hire classless a-holes like yourself?


----------



## wawawawawa (May 29, 2012)

deadheadskier said:


> so, how would you suggest they improve the staff at Burke?  Hire classless a-holes like yourself?



Haha, funniest thing I've read in a while. Cant wait to hit Burke this winter. Pretty awesome it can only get better.


----------



## thetrailboss (May 29, 2012)

Just saw this update on Burke's site from McGuire, the current GM:  



> Improvements for the upcoming winter, including significant upgrades to  the snowmaking system and additional marketing are now being discussed.   Beyond this season, further improvements and attractions, including  additional bed base are seen as important to the success of Burke.  We  will also be discussing reciprocal pass and ticket deals that will allow  the customers of both resorts to take advantage of this new  partnership.


----------



## from_the_NEK (May 29, 2012)

Yeah nothing super surprising there. I'm sure there will be more details of the next month or two.


----------



## skiahman (May 30, 2012)

Cannonball said:


> While I'm generally against the Cannon lease idea.  A Cannon/Burke/Jay pass is pretty much my wet dream....[/QUOTe
> 
> Pretty much a wet dream?  I'm soaked and not allowed in the big bed anynore.


----------



## St. Bear (May 30, 2012)

skiahman said:


> Cannonball said:
> 
> 
> > While I'm generally against the Cannon lease idea.  A Cannon/Burke/Jay pass is pretty much my wet dream....
> ...



No joke, a pass like that would have me seriously considering buying it.


----------



## xwhaler (May 30, 2012)

+1 on that...first time to Cannon and Burke this past season, loved them both.


----------



## thetrailboss (May 30, 2012)

The Triple Major will probably be the Quad Major now, or perhaps 'College Quad.'  That would be a good pass to have...Jay, MRG, Burke, and Bolton.


----------



## from_the_NEK (May 30, 2012)

thetrailboss said:


> 'College Quad.'




You need to trademark and sell that name to Jay Peak right now :lol:


----------



## from_the_NEK (May 30, 2012)

Burke's new logo:


----------



## Masskier (May 31, 2012)

from_the_NEK said:


> Burke's new logo:



LOL     Burke has probably had more logo's than any other ski area in the east.  Does anyone know of any ski area's that has had more?


----------



## stomachdoc (Jun 1, 2012)

Very exciting news for Burke.  Always enjoy skiing there.  Clearly the new owners jumped in at the right time; the Quads are in and the master plan is approved.  The long term upside from real estate development is obviously a significant attraction.  The challenge that Burke has faced is its location: it's a little far from Boston for a day trip when there are reasonable options 1 hour closer.  For regular weekenders (read that as affluent condo or homeowners), the 3 hour from Boston "market" includes Sugarbush and Okemo (not to mention Loon and Waterville) and Burke hasn't had the "resort community" feel/amenities that its competitors have to make a prospective property buyer seriously consider Burke.  Once these amenities go in (pool/golf/etc.) then I think Burke has a shot, using the same formula that has seen Jay move ahead successfully.

I hope it retains the un-Mcmountain feel that keeps it special!


----------



## from_the_NEK (Jun 1, 2012)

Burke has always struggled with its location. But that can't really be physically changed. However, now Burke can be packaged with Jay Peak and I think the power of the two together will help attract more people from southern NE to both mtns. 
I don't think a golf course would ever pay off at Burke. The previous owers had already canned the idea. With the excellent course already at Jay I doubt the new owners are going to want to compete with themselves. 
East Burke is all about mountain biking in the non-snow months.IMHO, the new ownership should focus on supporting growth in that sport. There are very few "destination" resorts for MTB, especially on the East Coast. The golf market is saturated.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 2, 2012)

Golf market is definitely saturated.  Hell, Killington was offering a season membership this year for $250


----------



## bigbog (Jun 2, 2012)

Hope the owner doesn't fall in love with building the more expensive condos on the mountain, as is the case most other resorts.  Word = *S*ki*A*rea*S*prawl...
[Cannon]/Burke/Jay = great pass for everyone.


----------



## the original trailboss (Jun 10, 2012)

*Crap continues*

As a long time follower and player at Burke it always amuses me that the "too far" thing continues - Burke is really no further than most other ski areas if you consider that many are 30-50 minutes away once you leave I-91 and one post suggests that Burke needs more amenities and then,in the same post, hopes Burke maintains its un-mcdonaldized feel. I have said this here before: Burke's biggest asset is what it isn't. Could it use a few upgrades (specifically on-mountain beds, as in a hotel) - yes, but golf courses and swimming pools in an area saturated with lakes and ponds and golf courses of every $$ range - no!  I always remind people who come here/move here and then start looking for the crap they left behind that there is a reason they were attracted to the area in the first place.............................


----------



## stomachdoc (Jun 10, 2012)

the original trailboss said:


> Burke's biggest asset is what it isn't.



But remember that this asset has been a financial hot potato for many years.  Running a ski area by itself is a 4 month a year business with a razor thin-to-negative margin.  Other things, be it hotel rooms,condos, water parks, golf courses, zoos or whatever, are absolutely necessary to make Burke a viable going concern, not just next year, but 15-30 years from now.


----------



## the original trailboss (Jun 10, 2012)

*A Zoo?*

There is a long history behind why Burke is where it is right now but I will take a financial hot potato with the heart and soul of Burke Mountain over a water park or a zoo any day. If you want a waterpark go to Jay-if you want a zoo go to San Diego! The first thing the new owners should do (notwithstanding the hotel issue) is to get Kingdom Trails headquarters moved to the ski area and out of the village of East Burke which is so congested with bikers and traffic that someone's going to get hurt or worse. Burke has the space and parking, it enhances their bike park, village businesses will still benefit and it will be safe to drive through town on the weekends again.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 10, 2012)

+ 1 on the KT moving to Burke.  Win win there.  I imagine that Bill and company will want to increase biking.


----------



## from_the_NEK (Jun 11, 2012)

I can't see KT ever moving to Burke Mtn or somehow being absorbed by Burke and its new owner. The relationship just needs to remain mutually beneficial. Kingdom Trails is a not-for-profit entity. Remember that the vast majority of the Kingdom Trails are on private land. If KT gets rolled into a for profit resort company, I have a feeling a lot of property owers are either going to want something (i.e. $$) for allowing use of their property, or they will cut off access. If that happens goodbye Kingdom Trails. 
What needs to happen is some better traffic control in East Burke village. There needs to be an actual cross walk put in from the KT's walkway across to East Burke Sports/East Burke Market. Improving signage on the road and for the people on bikes would help too. Getting the office out of the village would help as well. If they ever get the chance to buy the Algonquin Lodge, I think that would make a great spot.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 11, 2012)

Interesting short article from the BFP on the KT:  

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/...dom-gets-financial-boost-from-mountain-bikers


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 11, 2012)

the original trailboss said:


> As a long time follower and player at Burke it always amuses me that the "too far" thing continues - Burke is really no further than most other ski areas if you consider that many are 30-50 minutes away once you leave I-91 and one post suggests that Burke needs more amenities and then,in the same post, hopes Burke maintains its un-mcdonaldized feel. I have said this here before: * Burke's biggest asset is what it isn't. * Could it use a few upgrades (specifically on-mountain beds, as in a hotel) - yes, but golf courses and swimming pools in an area saturated with lakes and ponds and golf courses of every $$ range - no!  I always remind people who come here/move here and then start looking for the crap they left behind that there is a reason they were attracted to the area in the first place.............................



To those who ski Burke, yes absolutely.  To those who own it and try to get by with only 60 - 90K skier visits in a season?  Probably not.

I'd have to imagine Stenger wants to grow Burke into a 150K visit area at minimum.  It's going to take more than a hotel and improved marketing to hit that number.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 11, 2012)

Re: KT

I don't think that Burke/JPR can "buy" Kingdom Trails.  I was agreeing with TOTB that having Burke host or lease/give space to a new KT Headquarters might be a good thing for the mountain and for the town.  

And agree that Burke can't be just a ski area.  Right now they are growing their off-season business with the biking.  But I just don't see a golf course making it for them.  I think getting some on-mountain lodging, improving the snowmaking, and increasing marketing will make the difference.  It is a delicate balance of keeping what is special without ruining it in the name of progress.  But it is true that as it is there is just not enough business.


----------



## kingdom-tele (Jun 11, 2012)

so, hopefully not to derail this anymore, maybe a new topic, but it keeps coming up about progress, business growth, sustainability, etc as the means to the end. its a sentiment that is obviously strong and has accountability in history. talking to our local CSA owner this weekend we had the same discussion with regards to the local construction, power lines to supply JPR, installation of proper conduits for the lowell wind project, etc, creating havoc we don't necessarily want, then  had a new adventure ride yesterday through this part of the kingdom with a good friend, and it came up again, but in the context of how lucky we feel to have a place you can ride 40+ miles of dirt roads with views of minimal sign of man's "growth", questionable road conditions, a whitetail or two, a couple pleasant conversations with homeowners diligently working their land, you get the picture.  While it remains to be seen what JPR does with Burke, and recognizing that the employees of Burke need sustainability I only ask the following.  Does everything need to be bigger to be sustainable? Are there any places left that have topped out sort of speak in their vision. Someone here said it a while ago and it struck me, J has become a "resort", which I have my own issues with, but I live here, so I don't necessarily need a "resort", and we had Burke to spend our weekend teaching my child to ski without the rat race of J. I know that sounds ridiculous to anyone who doesn't live here, as J is probably far from a rat race from your perspective, but for many of us it has become just that. It is nice to have a quite ski "hill", not a resort atmosphere, to fall back on, with prices that were representative of the local community

Has the notion of simplifying instead of aquiring, developing, and attracting the horde been lost? What the hell is sustainable,150K/year, 200K, 300K, 400K. 50K


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 11, 2012)

I think an example of a ski area that has maintained it's character well through growth is Smuggler's Notch.  Yes, they have a water park and a pretty extensive village, but it doesn't feel blown up and overdone.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 11, 2012)

kingdom-tele said:


> so, hopefully not to derail this anymore, maybe a new topic, but it keeps coming up about progress, business growth, sustainability, etc as the means to the end. its a sentiment that is obviously strong and has accountability in history. talking to our local CSA owner this weekend we had the same discussion with regards to the local construction, power lines to supply JPR, installation of proper conduits for the lowell wind project, etc, creating havoc we don't necessarily want, then  had a new adventure ride yesterday through this part of the kingdom with a good friend, and it came up again, but in the context of how lucky we feel to have a place you can ride 40+ miles of dirt roads with views of minimal sign of man's "growth", questionable road conditions, a whitetail or two, a couple pleasant conversations with homeowners diligently working their land, you get the picture.  While it remains to be seen what JPR does with Burke, and recognizing that the employees of Burke need sustainability I only ask the following.  Does everything need to be bigger to be sustainable? Are there any places left that have topped out sort of speak in their vision. Someone here said it a while ago and it struck me, J has become a "resort", which I have my own issues with, but I live here, so I don't necessarily need a "resort", and we had Burke to spend our weekend teaching my child to ski without the rat race of J. I know that sounds ridiculous to anyone who doesn't live here, as J is probably far from a rat race from your perspective, but for many of us it has become just that. It is nice to have a quite ski "hill", not a resort atmosphere, to fall back on, with prices that were representative of the local community
> 
> Has the notion of simplifying instead of aquiring, developing, and attracting the horde been lost?
> 
> 150K/year. why not 200K, 300K, 400K.



I don't think you can "simplify" a 250 acre ski area with 2 HSQs and be economically sustainable when only 60K people visit your mountain during a bad year and 90K during an exceptional year.


----------



## kingdom-tele (Jun 11, 2012)

why not?

seriously.  I am not a business person. My field has having its share of adjustments.  Recognizing we will likely never be the ultra rich but a service to our community that remains sustainable and accessible.


----------



## Nick (Jun 11, 2012)

FYI. I am running the Challenge again for 2012/13 and just reached out to Steve Wright to see if we can get him to participate this year again. I imagine we can put together quite a list of questions about the continued growth / expansion of Jay Peak.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 11, 2012)

kingdom-tele said:


> why not?
> 
> seriously.  I am not a business person. My field has having its share of adjustments.  Recognizing we will likely never be the ultra rich but a service to our community that remains sustainable and accessible.



Because HSQs are expensive to install and operate and 250 acres of terrain is expensive to maintain.

Great that money isn't the motivating factor of your business if that's what makes you happy.  Nothing wrong with money being the motivating factor for other business owners though.


----------



## St. Bear (Jun 11, 2012)

kingdom-tele said:


> Has the notion of simplifying instead of aquiring, developing, and attracting the horde been lost? What the hell is sustainable,150K/year, 200K, 300K, 400K. 50K



Depends on the dollars per visit.  If visitors are spending $$$ in the hotel, restaurants, water-park and golf course, then fewer visits would be sustainable.  If not, then it would require more visitors per year.

As noted earlier in this thread, when a place like Burke has repeatedly gone in and out of business over the course of the previous decade, I don't see how investment and growth can be viewed as anything but a good thing.


----------



## kingdom-tele (Jun 11, 2012)

for clarity DHS, not trying to imply money is the issue, to each his own. its at what cost to the nature of something

60K x say $40 = not enough?

where can fat be trimmed instead of compiled to make operating margins healthy for sustainability instead of having to spend millions to cater to clientel that want "resort" ammenities

I have to assume that the burke history of chewing through investors can be somewhat attributable to overzealous expectations amongst other parameters


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 11, 2012)

kingdom-tele said:


> f
> 60K x say $40 = not enough?



That's $2.4M from lift ticket revenue, which clearly isn't enough with how often Burke has gone under.  That was before adding fancy lifts that cost several million dollars.


----------



## from_the_NEK (Jun 11, 2012)

thetrailboss said:


> Re: KT
> 
> I don't think that Burke/JPR can "buy" Kingdom Trails.  I was agreeing with TOTB that having Burke host or lease/give space to a new KT Headquarters might be a good thing for the mountain and for the town.
> .



I don't believe it is actually purchasable either. However, completely moving the main office out of East Burke Village up to the mtn would not be good for down town East Burke. 
The office is currently roughly central to the trail system. Bikers can either go up Darling Hill or up Burke and end their day with a long downhill all the way to the village. Another drawback for having the main office at the mountain is that side of the trail system is open for a month or so less on each end of the season due to weather and ski resort operations. 
This is why I brought up the Algonquin Lodge as being a good location for the office. It is on the edge of the village, but close enough that the bikers would still visit the businesses in town. More biker parking could be also be developed there (and right now there are issues with bikers parking at businesses in town).
First things first. Put in a CLEARLY marked crosswalk!


----------



## the original trailboss (Jun 11, 2012)

*crosswalks*

One of the issues with a crosswalk in East Burke (other than the fact that the speed and volume of traffic there would lead to ignoring it) is that setbacks on each side of the crosswalk would eliminate parking in front of businesses (such as the Northeast Kingdom Country Store). It has been looked at a few times in the past ten years. Moving KT outside of the village would be a good thing, not a bad thing and would benefit Burke and the bikers. Route 114 through East Burke was a problem before KT came along and now it can be dangerous,particularly on the weekends, and, as I mentioned earlier, the high volume of cars and bikers will ultimately lead to someone getting hurt or worse there and nobody wants or needs that (lots of bad publicity,lawsuits,etc).


----------



## from_the_NEK (Jun 11, 2012)

kingdom-tele said:


> for clarity DHS, not trying to imply money is the issue, to each his own. its at what cost to the nature of something
> 
> 60K x say $40 = not enough?
> 
> ...



I think I'm somewhere in between here,

I don't know that there was a lot of fat to be trimmed at Burke. Back in 2000 when it was purchased by the small group of BMA organized investors, they didn't have much of an operating budget. They just wanted to keep it open. Ginn came in added a lot of fat (e.g. 2 greeters at the bottom of the main lodge stairs and two more at the top :roll: ). That fat got trimmed when Ginn went bankrupt. The mountain has been running in the red. To get into the black, I would give my non-binding hack estimate to be 100,000 skier visits (avg) and 3,000 lift served MTB visits. To do that, they need the hotel, an improved mid-lodge, and a modest amount of snow making improvements. These pieces combined with the ability of tandem marketing with Jay makes keeping the mountain out of the red a very attainable goal without overrunning/overglitzing the place.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 11, 2012)

deadheadskier said:


> That's $2.4M from lift ticket revenue, which clearly isn't enough with how often Burke has gone under.  That was before adding fancy lifts that cost several million dollars.



+ 1.  

You have to pay for lifts, grooming, snowmaking, LABOR, ELECTRICITY, insurance, taxes, diesel for equipment, snowmobiles, maintenance of lifts, buildings, and trails, marketing, and paying for stock to sell in shops.  As said, $2.4 is just not enough to do it all.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 11, 2012)

I would think that they would need somewhere between 100-150,000 to make it somewhat sustainable.  Even 150k may not do it.  I believe that Sugarbush combined usually runs around 450k visits, with Mount Ellen garnering about 150k of those visits and SB claims that Mount Ellen doesn't make money.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 11, 2012)

the original trailboss said:


> One of the issues with a crosswalk in East Burke (other than the fact that the speed and volume of traffic there would lead to ignoring it) is that setbacks on each side of the crosswalk would eliminate parking in front of businesses (such as the Northeast Kingdom Country Store). It has been looked at a few times in the past ten years. Moving KT outside of the village would be a good thing, not a bad thing and would benefit Burke and the bikers. Route 114 through East Burke was a problem before KT came along and now it can be dangerous,particularly on the weekends, and, as I mentioned earlier, the high volume of cars and bikers will ultimately lead to someone getting hurt or worse there and nobody wants or needs that (lots of bad publicity,lawsuits,etc).



Lawsuits are not always a bad thing 

And through in a few very fast truckers and you have a mess in EB village.  

Hey from_the_nek--remind me where Algonquin Lodge is.


----------



## kingdom-tele (Jun 11, 2012)

from what I am reading though NEK overglitz is the new black and the only way to be profitable

TB seems like you could ditch a couple of things from that list and still have a nice day skiing.  I am out of the loop. Just an opinion.


----------



## bobbutts (Jun 11, 2012)

If I were a local I'd probably prefer to ski-on to the lifts on Saturdays and track powder all day too, but 2 hsq's + modern snowmaking and grooming isn't really compatible with an underused mtn.


----------



## from_the_NEK (Jun 11, 2012)

the original trailboss said:


> One of the issues with a crosswalk in East Burke (other than the fact that the speed and volume of traffic there would lead to ignoring it) is that setbacks on each side of the crosswalk would eliminate parking in front of businesses (such as the Northeast Kingdom Country Store). It has been looked at a few times in the past ten years. Moving KT outside of the village would be a good thing, not a bad thing and would benefit Burke and the bikers. Route 114 through East Burke was a problem before KT came along and now it can be dangerous,particularly on the weekends, and, as I mentioned earlier, the high volume of cars and bikers will ultimately lead to someone getting hurt or worse there and nobody wants or needs that (lots of bad publicity,lawsuits,etc).



Kind of a head scratcher as there is very little space to work with in the heart of the village. Something definitely needs to be done to slow the traffic through and to funnel the biker/pedestrian traffic to safer routes. However, simply saying the the KTA office should move is kind of like shooting your goose.

If I had ultimate power, this is what I would do:

Make the street parking "30 minute". On weekends the currently no time limit parking is often taken up by the cars of MTB'ers left parked there all day making the street parking for the businesses almost pointless. Eliminate the one spot (red "X"). The green cross walk goes from the KTA walkway across to the corner of the EB Market parking lot (I'm not sure what regulations are for *not* ending a crosswalk at another sidewalk). Add temporary *middle of the road *"SLOW" signs that are posted before the curve on the south side of town and just below the Post Office on the north end. The signs would be a pain for the Canadian trucks that drive through town at 40-45 mph but i think that is point right 
The other thing would be to redesign the intersection where Belden Hill Rd and the Pub Outback driveway connect onto Rt 114. Right now that intersection takes up almost 90ft of road frontage and creates a lot of confusion when vehicles are going in and out of that area at the same time. The parking spot eliminated above could be revived here.







Belden Hill/Pub Outback intersection revision (5 parallel parking spaces between the intersection and the cross walk):


----------



## from_the_NEK (Jun 11, 2012)

Maybe Burke should offer Segway tours up the Toll Road as a source of income :idea:


----------



## the original trailboss (Jun 11, 2012)

*Enforcement*

Restricted parking requires enforcement - currently not available unless done by KT or by contract with the sheriffs, etc. I stand by my earlier post - again - headquartering KT at the Sherburne Lodge won't hurt East Burke business as long as there is a trail (or trails) that connect the Sherburne with the rest of the system. Plus all the traffic has to travel through town to get to the mountain so food, gas, etc will still be sold. Route 114 and East Burke village cannot sustain the volume now being seen in spite of what some say that the over-congestion is a "good problem to have". Good problems eventually become just problems or bad problems and are self-limiting i.e. too much of a good thing.......... I am not by any stretch trying to be negative about KT and its success and its success for East Burke (a ghost town before John Worth,etc created KT) but there is a reality there that has to be dealt with. Pretending it doesn't exist is in the category of lying to yourself.


----------



## kingdom-tele (Jun 11, 2012)

bobbutts said:


> If I were a local I'd probably prefer to ski-on to the lifts on Saturdays and track powder all day too, but 2 hsq's + modern snowmaking and grooming isn't really compatible with an underused mtn.



which makes one wonder why they are so important to the powers that be for an underused mountain 

NEK - you should get on that segway rental business, maybe a few nicely paved trails through Darling Hill.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 11, 2012)

kingdom-tele said:


> TB seems like you could ditch a couple of things from that list and still have a nice day skiing.  I am out of the loop. Just an opinion.



The discussion is about what it will take for Burke to be a successful business.  One can certainly have a good day of skiing in many places by earning their turns.  But the question is what Burke needs or doesn't need to operate.


----------



## riverc0il (Jun 11, 2012)

Jay was a resort long before the waterpark and golf course went in. It just wasn't a four season resort.

Regarding Burke, sustainability, and is bigger better... depends entirely on how you personally feel about those issues. But if Burke was strictly a locals mountain, it would have long since closed. Part of keeping the mountain open and being viable in the long term is getting metro area skiers there and spending money. And that means giving them more of what they want. HSQs certainly have helped. Base area lodging will also go a long way. Beyond that, I don't know. I hope that is it.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 11, 2012)

kingdom-tele said:


> which makes one wonder why they are so important to the powers that be for an underused mountain



I think that the goal of the REIT was to keep the mountain going and to upgrade it so that it could be further developed or resold to make more money.  They wanted to invest their money and get a return.  They certainly had a bumpy ride as the owners and now are out of the ski business.


----------



## from_the_NEK (Jun 11, 2012)

thetrailboss said:


> Hey from_the_nek--remind me where Algonquin Lodge is.



It is the large white house near the softball field (past the turn for mountain road).






I have no idea if the owners would ever sell it.


----------



## troy (Jun 11, 2012)

Originally Posted by the original trailboss  
Burke's biggest asset is what it isn't.



stomachdoc said:


> But remember that this asset has been a financial hot potato for many years.  Running a ski area by itself is a 4 month a year business with a razor thin-to-negative margin.  Other things, be it hotel rooms,condos, water parks, golf courses, zoos or whatever, are absolutely necessary to make Burke a viable going concern, not just next year, but 15-30 years from now.



well said stomachdoc.  The original trailboss is just spouting the same crap most locals of most mountains say so that they can keep the place to themselves.  I and most of my flatlander buds, hope JP developes Burke like there is no tomorrow.  just sayin'


----------



## from_the_NEK (Jun 11, 2012)

the original trailboss said:


> Restricted parking requires enforcement - currently not available unless done by KT or by contract with the sheriffs, etc. I stand by my earlier post - again - headquartering KT at the Sherburne Lodge won't hurt East Burke business as long as there is a trail (or trails) that connect the Sherburne with the rest of the system. Plus all the traffic has to travel through town to get to the mountain so food, gas, etc will still be sold. Route 114 and East Burke village cannot sustain the volume now being seen in spite of what some say that the over-congestion is a "good problem to have". Good problems eventually become just problems or bad problems and are self-limiting i.e. too much of a good thing.......... I am not by any stretch trying to be negative about KT and its success and its success for East Burke (a ghost town before John Worth,etc created KT) but there is a reality there that has to be dealt with. Pretending it doesn't exist is in the category of lying to yourself.



Agreed but basing the main office at the mtn 1.6 (up-hill) miles away is a bad idea.  Getting it out of the heart of downtown would be good but keep it close.


----------



## from_the_NEK (Jun 11, 2012)

troy said:


> I and most of my flatlander buds, hope JP developes Burke like there is no tomorrow.  just sayin'



This is what happens when 15 year olds are allowed to use computers. They are constantly thinking with other parts of their bodies.


----------



## troy (Jun 11, 2012)

from_the_NEK said:


> Kind of a head scratcher as there is very little space to work with in the heart of the village. Something definitely needs to be done to slow the traffic through and to funnel the biker/pedestrian traffic to safer routes. However, simply saying the the KTA office should move is kind of like shooting your goose.
> 
> If I had ultimate power, this is what I would do:
> 
> ...



and this is what happens when folks are bored at work! :flame:


----------



## kingdom-tele (Jun 11, 2012)

thetrailboss said:


> The discussion is about what it will take for Burke to be a successful business.  One can certainly have a good day of skiing in many places by earning their turns.  But the question is what Burke needs or doesn't need to operate.



EYT might be a bit drastic TB. I was just contemplating letting the edges get a little roughed up a bit. 

but your right, moot discussion.

so an underused mountain needs how much infrastructure developed to catch the eye of people who have yet to visit, sounds eerily familiar to every other owner

think burke can sink JPR?

anyone want odds on when stenger and co dump it back into the market (I'm going 5)


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 11, 2012)

troy said:


> Originally Posted by the original trailboss
> Burke's biggest asset is what it isn't.
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah, um, OK.  :roll:  You obviously don't understand what makes Burke what it is.  The question is how do you keep what folks like but make it a stable and viable business.  There are plenty of built out places for you to visit.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 11, 2012)

thetrailboss said:


> Yeah, um, OK.  :roll:  You obviously don't understand what makes Burke what it is.  The question is how do you keep what folks like but make it a stable and viable business.  There are plenty of built out places for you to visit.



The thing is that what Burke "is" is what most ski areas "were" in the 70s.  I'm sure there are many old time Okemo skiers who wish the place was still all Poma lifts and narrow trails.  I'm sure there are old school Stowe skiers who miss the single chair and the Front Four the way they once were.  

Outside of co-op owned MRG and Magic (obviously not full co-op), the only 2000 vert mountains I can think of that have preserved much of their old school character would be Wildcat and that's due to strict development restrictions in the WMNF and Cannon due to it being a state park.

I love Burke for what it "is", but I don't necessarily think most businessmen see much long term financial stability and profitability in keeping it the way it is.  With the abundance of great intermediate terrain, if I were Stenger I'd be using Smuggs as a template for base development at Burke.  Turn it into a place that is a mecca for families from the Boston metro area.  It's a more palatable commute than Jay from Boston (and much more so than Smuggs).  Get those wealthy skiing families from Boston buying vacation homes at Burke with the attraction of Jay being on the same pass to appease family members who want the option of more advanced terrain.

Mind you, that's just how I'd look at Burke through business owner glasses.  As for me, the occasional Burke skier, I hope nothing changes.  It's the single best place to ski on a Saturday in New England.  Wish it wasn't 3 hours away and I had local accommodations, otherwise I'd ski there much more often.


----------



## riverc0il (Jun 11, 2012)

The idea of using Smuggs as a model for Burke is sound (Smuggs is also kinda old school and over 2k vert). Obviously, Smuggs has had no difficulty in over coming its geographical hurdles. Saddleback is another old schooler over the 2k mark (dubiously, albeit). Back has done well in recent years due to tapping into the Maine market but they have generated a buzz and increased visits from metro markets by building a new quad, expanding terrain, and adding glades plus just getting the word out. Burke did not do a good job marketing their new quad, IMO. I just didn't see the buzz that a new high speed quad should generate. The Jay acqusition is surely going to generate some buzz, especially this summer with the Kingdom Trails (just 45 minutes away from Jay! LOLOLOLOL).


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 11, 2012)

I agree that they did not market the new HSQ well at all.  In fact they spent most of the summer saying nothing at all.  Weird.  Their winter marketing, from what I saw, looked good but I wish they kept the same logo that they had.


----------



## WWF-VT (Jun 11, 2012)

deadheadskier said:


> I love Burke for what it "is", but I don't necessarily think most businessmen see much long term financial stability and profitability in keeping it the way it is.  With the abundance of great intermediate terrain, if I were Stenger I'd be using Smuggs as a template for base development at Burke.  Turn it into a place that is a mecca for families from the Boston metro area.  It's a more palatable commute than Jay from Boston (and much more so than Smuggs).  Get those wealthy skiing families from Boston buying vacation homes at Burke with the attraction of Jay being on the same pass to appease family members who want the option of more advanced terrain.



Smuggs has built its reputation over many years as VT’s top family destination ski resort.  It also has the advantage of being only an hour from Burlington which serves as a draw for college students and locals with reasonably priced season passes.   Burke is close to two hours from Burlington and there are too many mountains closer to Burlington that draw from that population ahead of Burke.

I think that last 3 or 4 owners have hoped to make Burke “a mecca for families from the Boston metro area” but there are too many mountains that have already captured that market.  I don’t think that a HSQ and a shared pass with Jay Peak – which is still another hour drive – is going to do much to get “wealthy skiing families from Boston” to buy vacation homes there.


----------



## kingdom-tele (Jun 12, 2012)

deadheadskier said:


> The thing is that what Burke "is" is what most ski areas "were" in the 70s.  I'm sure there are many old time Okemo skiers who wish the place was still all Poma lifts and narrow trails.  I'm sure there are old school Stowe skiers who miss the single chair and the Front Four the way they once were.
> 
> Outside of co-op owned MRG and Magic (obviously not full co-op), the only 2000 vert mountains I can think of that have preserved much of their old school character would be Wildcat and that's due to strict development restrictions in the WMNF and Cannon due to it being a state park.
> 
> ...





WWF-VT said:


> Smuggs has built its reputation over many years as VT’s top family destination ski resort.  It also has the advantage of being only an hour from Burlington which serves as a draw for college students and locals with reasonably priced season passes.   Burke is close to two hours from Burlington and there are too many mountains closer to Burlington that draw from that population ahead of Burke.
> 
> I think that last 3 or 4 owners have hoped to make Burke “a mecca for families from the Boston metro area” but there are too many mountains that have already captured that market.  I don’t think that a HSQ and a shared pass with Jay Peak – which is still another hour drive – is going to do much to get “wealthy skiing families from Boston” to buy vacation homes there.



so whats the happy medium?

can't seem to have a mountain for only skiing, can't seem to have a mountain that cater's to a local community, can't draw from the ultra privileged, can't draw from the college community, doesn't have "expert" terrain , so the hardcore won't come, doesn't have infrastructure to entice people to hang out and not be outside doing something, seems like a pretty well effed situation from a business standpoint. Maybe Burke, or more to the point, the operators of Burke, should stop trying to polish the turd, it hasn't worked, based on the market review I've read here, it won't work, and the effort to make it something it will likely never be eradicates the access from a local community who can't afford to pay for the "enhancement" of a mountain that will never be on the radar of the wealthy

are there that really that few people left that are looking for something that isn't?  I am afraid of the answer I think.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 12, 2012)

WWF-VT said:


> Smuggs has built its reputation over many years as VT’s top family destination ski resort.  It also has the advantage of being only an hour from Burlington which serves as a draw for college students and locals with reasonably priced season passes.   Burke is close to two hours from Burlington and there are too many mountains closer to Burlington that draw from that population ahead of Burke.
> 
> I think that last 3 or 4 owners have hoped to make Burke “a mecca for families from the Boston metro area” but there are too many mountains that have already captured that market.  I don’t think that a HSQ and a shared pass with Jay Peak – which is still another hour drive – is going to do much to get “wealthy skiing families from Boston” to buy vacation homes there.



As a UVM alum, I can tell you very few of the student skiers I knew got passes at Smuggs.  Most got passes to Stowe or Sugarbush.  The Burlington Metro area is also only about 200K residents.  Compare that with what? 3.5M in Metro Boston?  Heck, metro Manchester, NH is more than twice the size of metro Burlington and only two hours away. While I'm sure Smuggs generates a fair amount of local business, their bread and butter is traveling destination skiers filling their condos in the village.  

I disagree that just because Burke hasn't been successful at drawing in second home owners from Boston in the past, doesn't mean they can't be successful at it in the future.  I kind of look it at from my own family's experience.  The first few years as a skiing family we skied primarily Killington.  We tried Okemo the 1st year the Northeast Summit Triple went in.  My folks chose to buy real estate there as it was less expensive than Killington and they saw Okemo as up and coming.  Now look at the place.   

I think with upgrades to their snowmaking and improving their lodging offering, Burke can very much steal family ski business from not just Smuggs, but Sugarbush and Stowe in VT and perhaps Sunday River and Sugarloaf in ME as well.  The commute is so much easier to Burke than any of those other destinations.  They just haven't had a developer with deep enough pockets to make it happen.  It would appear that now they do in Stenger/Jay.


----------



## from_the_NEK (Jun 12, 2012)

thetrailboss said:


> I agree that they did not market the new HSQ well at all.  In fact they spent most of the summer saying nothing at all.  Weird.  Their winter marketing, from what I saw, looked good but I wish they kept the same logo that they had.



Hey, I tried


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 12, 2012)

WWF-VT said:


> Smuggs has built its reputation over many years as VT’s top family destination ski resort.  It also has the advantage of being only an hour from Burlington which serves as a draw for college students and locals with reasonably priced season passes.   Burke is close to two hours from Burlington and there are too many mountains closer to Burlington that draw from that population ahead of Burke.
> 
> I think that last 3 or 4 owners have hoped to make Burke “a mecca for families from the Boston metro area” but there are too many mountains that have already captured that market.  I don’t think that a HSQ and a shared pass with Jay Peak – which is still another hour drive – is going to do much to get “wealthy skiing families from Boston” to buy vacation homes there.



Agree that Burlington is not the market, but I think you don't understand that Burke is not going after the "Okemo" crowd, or the wealthy ski families, but rather those that are not looking for the Okemo experience.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 12, 2012)

from_the_NEK said:


> Hey, I tried



Yeah I know!  :lol:  They just were off on their timing with the new site and all the new marketing things that came online in early fall.  It would have been pretty easy to throw up some updates on their website as you did.


----------



## WWF-VT (Jun 12, 2012)

thetrailboss said:


> Yeah I know!  :lol:  They just were off on their timing with the new site and all the new marketing things that came online in early fall.  It would have been pretty easy to throw up some updates on their website as you did.



If people barely know that Burke exists then marketing a HSQ isn’t likely to increase skier visits. Most people assume that a tier 1 resort has high speed quads.  (I always wonder how many people are surprised when they find nothing but slow doubles at Smuggs)


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 12, 2012)

WWF-VT said:


> If people barely know that Burke exists then marketing a HSQ isn’t likely to increase skier visits. Most people assume that a tier 1 resort has high speed quads.  (I always wonder how many people are surprised when they find nothing but slow doubles at Smuggs)



Yes, folks see tier one ski areas as having high speed lifts.  There have been many who have either visited Burke or looked into it and have been deterred by the fact that the former summit lift was a very slow quad.  So the HSQ to the top was a huge improvement that would spur traffic...in a normal ski season of course...


----------



## AdironRider (Jun 12, 2012)

deadheadskier said:


> As a UVM alum, I can tell you very few of the student skiers I knew got passes at Smuggs.  Most got passes to Stowe or Sugarbush.  The Burlington Metro area is also only about 200K residents.  Compare that with what? 3.5M in Metro Boston?  Heck, metro Manchester, NH is more than twice the size of metro Burlington and only two hours away. While I'm sure Smuggs generates a fair amount of local business, their bread and butter is traveling destination skiers filling their condos in the village.
> 
> I disagree that just because Burke hasn't been successful at drawing in second home owners from Boston in the past, doesn't mean they can't be successful at it in the future.  I kind of look it at from my own family's experience.  The first few years as a skiing family we skied primarily Killington.  We tried Okemo the 1st year the Northeast Summit Triple went in.  My folks chose to buy real estate there as it was less expensive than Killington and they saw Okemo as up and coming.  Now look at the place.
> 
> I think with upgrades to their snowmaking and improving their lodging offering, Burke can very much steal family ski business from not just Smuggs, but Sugarbush and Stowe in VT and perhaps Sunday River and Sugarloaf in ME as well.  The commute is so much easier to Burke than any of those other destinations.  They just haven't had a developer with deep enough pockets to make it happen.  It would appear that now they do in Stenger/Jay.



I agree with you on the passes and Burlington not being the primary market. 5 of my 6 best friends growing up are UVM alums as well, and none of them really bothered with Smuggs, outside of the occaisional midweek pow day. 

However, Im not so sure Im buying the easier to get to argument of Burke vs. Smuggs or Stowe. Probably a bit quicker time wise, thats probably neglible in Stowe's case, but taking the exit onto 89 after the Hooksett toll really isnt that much more difficult.  

I havent seen much marketing for Burke at all, but I would think pumping up the advertising to the ski racer famililes would be the first step. Im sure they already do this to some extent though...


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 12, 2012)

Burke is about a half hour closer to Boston than Stowe and almost an hour closer than Smuggs.  It's a PITA to get to Smuggs from 89.  Stowe isn't as bad, but it's still double the distance off of 89 to Stowe than it is off of 91 to Burke.  Route 100 from Waterbury to Stowe can be jammed with traffic going 35 mph the whole way as well.  

My point is that there is this perception that Burke is so far away, but the reality is that it's an easier commute than many Northern New England ski areas.


----------



## AdironRider (Jun 12, 2012)

deadheadskier said:


> Burke is about a half hour closer to Boston than Stowe and almost an hour closer than Smuggs.  It's a PITA to get to Smuggs from 89.  Stowe isn't as bad, but it's still double the distance off of 89 to Stowe than it is off of 91 to Burke.  Route 100 from Waterbury to Stowe can be jammed with traffic going 35 mph the whole way as well.
> 
> My point is that there is this perception that Burke is so far away, but the reality is that it's an easier commute than many Northern New England ski areas.



I see your point. Burke isnt out in the middle of nowhere as much as people think it is. 

That being said, for every traffic jam in Waterbury, there are weather events in the Notch. I know I've gotten stuck behind big rigs in snowstorm crawling up through there before. Its not a straight trade as they are mutually exclusive of each other, but you get the idea. 

Burke is a fun hill, I wouldnt compare it to Stowe so much as I would to Smuggs, and in that case its most likely a better fit for the Boston market, especially if the kids compete.


----------



## from_the_NEK (Jun 12, 2012)

One thing I've noticed is that the occasional big city skier wants to be able to brag to their friends where they skied last weekend. Their bragging hinges on the name recognition of the resort they went to. Burke does not have that name recognition. 

As an example, I keep coming back to my uncle's family that lives in suburban Boston. He loves to name drop all of the places he has skied. Everytime they come to Burke they love it and for some reason have a hard time remembering how close it was and how much they loved it when the next winter rolls around. My cousin (my uncles son) came up with his wife this last winter. They were amazed at the lack of crowds and the good terrain . I swear they forget these minor details when they go home because they only talk about their trips to Colorado and Stratton (where my other cousins in-laws have a condo :roll. 

Historically they have not really paid much attention to Jay either since they ski primarily groomers (don't get me started on my uncles stories of his chest deep powder skiing experience in Aspen :lol. Recently they have actually heard of Jay as "that mountain with the waterpark" and are now interested in trying it out. I see this as evidence of a total change in perception of Jay by a several  members of the "typical Boston area" market. If Jay is able to change the perceptions of Burke in a similar manner (but without building a waterpark) I will be impressed. I think having the two mountains marketable together will be a big cog in the perception dept.


----------



## riverc0il (Jun 12, 2012)

WWF-VT said:


> If people barely know that Burke exists then marketing a HSQ isn’t likely to increase skier visits. Most people assume that a tier 1 resort has high speed quads.  (I always wonder how many people are surprised when they find nothing but slow doubles at Smuggs)


Chicken or the egg: How does a resort become a tier 1 resort? By adding High Speed Quads? Oh, then no resort would be tier 1 because they all didn't have HSQs at one point. You are essentially saying Burke can't be a tier one resort as it currently stands for reasons other than a HSQ. I guess Bolton, Saddleback, Mad River, and Smuggs are not Tier 1 either...

Speaking of Smuggs, when I ski there, I talk to a lot of resort guests on the lifts, not many locals. Lots of dads sneaking away from the family for a few quick runs. If Smuggs can do it, Burke can do it much closer and with high speed lifts.


----------



## AdironRider (Jun 12, 2012)

riverc0il said:


> Chicken or the egg: How does a resort become a tier 1 resort? By adding High Speed Quads? Oh, then no resort would be tier 1 because they all didn't have HSQs at one point. You are essentially saying Burke can't be a tier one resort as it currently stands for reasons other than a HSQ. I guess Bolton, Saddleback, Mad River, and Smuggs are not Tier 1 either...
> 
> Speaking of Smuggs, when I ski there, I talk to a lot of resort guests on the lifts, not many locals. Lots of dads sneaking away from the family for a few quick runs. If Smuggs can do it, Burke can do it much closer and with high speed lifts.



Outside of Smuggs, and even then its a stretch, I wouldnt consider any of those places Tier 1 level resorts. I wouldnt even include Whiteface, Attitash, etc. 

Tier one places arent as numerous as people think IMO. Mt. Snow, Killington, Sunday River, Stowe, Okemo, and Stratton would qualify, possibly Sugarloaf (which you either ski or you dont, I dont hear of too many people dabbling with that place).


----------



## WWF-VT (Jun 12, 2012)

riverc0il said:


> Chicken or the egg: How does a resort become a tier 1 resort? By adding High Speed Quads? Oh, then no resort would be tier 1 because they all didn't have HSQs at one point. You are essentially saying Burke can't be a tier one resort as it currently stands for reasons other than a HSQ. I guess Bolton, Saddleback, Mad River, and Smuggs are not Tier 1 either...
> 
> Speaking of Smuggs, when I ski there, I talk to a lot of resort guests on the lifts, not many locals. Lots of dads sneaking away from the family for a few quick runs. If Smuggs can do it, Burke can do it much closer and with high speed lifts.



In my earlier response I was not trying to make a point on what qualifies as a tier 1 resort.  My point was that if you were trying to market a resort based upon adding a HSQ that’s not going to do much to increase your visits when you don’t already have a market presence.   Part of this thread has been about adding skier visits from the Boston market.  Burke has limited name recognition in this area.


----------



## stomachdoc (Jun 12, 2012)

thetrailboss said:


> + 1 on the KT moving to Burke.  Win win there.  I imagine that Bill and company will want to increase biking.



You're absolutely right.  We have a home in Waterville Valley, and my skiing friends are, of course, also avid Mountain Bikers.  When they want to get out of Waterville Valley for a change of MTB venue in the summer, Burke is the usual destination.   When they want to get out of Waterville Valley for a change of skiing destination in the winter, Cannon is the usual destination.


----------



## farlep99 (Jun 13, 2012)

What's a "tier 1" resort?  Sounds terrible!


----------



## bobbutts (Jun 13, 2012)

deadheadskier said:


> ...  The Burlington Metro area is also only about 200K residents.  Compare that with what? 3.5M in Metro Boston?  Heck, metro Manchester, NH is more than twice the size of metro Burlington and only two hours away.....



While technically correct per wikipedia, 400k for metro Manchester seems way too high.

I found this Metropolitan NECTAs

Burlington–South BurlingtonVT194,354




ManchesterNH187,398



Which I think is a much more fair comparison.  The 400k metro Manchester number must include Portsmouth/Concord/Nashua, which is kind of wacky to include in my book.


----------



## bobbutts (Jun 13, 2012)

thetrailboss said:


> Yes, folks see tier one ski areas as having high speed lifts.  *There have been many who have either visited Burke or looked into it and have been deterred by the fact that the former summit lift was a very slow quad*.  So the HSQ to the top was a huge improvement that would spur traffic...in a normal ski season of course...


Bingo, I visited only once in the 90's and did not return.  Barely remember the trip, except that I was not a fan of the Willoughby Quad.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 13, 2012)

bobbutts said:


> Bingo, I visited only once in the 90's and did not return.  Barely remember the trip, except that I was not a fan of the Willoughby Quad.



I think if you look at Burke, circa 1995 or so, you'd see that it had three huge problems: (1) snowmaking; (2) lifts (the slow Willoughby Quad and the slow double); and (3) bed base for folks who wanted hotel accommodations.  Well, Northern Star put a dent in the snowmaking problem, but I think more needs to be done to not just improve what they have but to expand it to include a few more runs (just add coverage--DON'T widen).  They say that they have 80% or something like that, but when you look at the trail map and when you ski Burke you get the feeling that it is less than that...or at least it seems that way especially since they just don't blow on Little Dipper anymore for whatever reason.  Ginn/REIT fixed the lift problem at great expense.  The only thing really for Stenger et al is some snowmaking upgrades and the bedbase issue...the latter Stenger has been doing at Jay.  I wouldn't say that JPR is lighting the world on fire with its snowmaking system, but at least they know the business and understand what it will take to improve it.  And yes marketing is a big thing that Burke needs.  That's Jay's forte.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 13, 2012)

...and surprised about Manchester NH population vs. Burlington.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 13, 2012)

bobbutts said:


> While technically correct per wikipedia, 400k for metro Manchester seems way too high.
> 
> I found this Metropolitan NECTAs
> 
> ...



The population of Burlington is only about 45K.  South Burlington, I would assume 20ish.  The population of Manchester alone is 110K. The population of all of Chittenden County is only 150K, though I've often read that the Burlington Metro population is considered to be 200K, so there must be towns outside of Chittenden County included in that figure.  The city of Manchester and town of Derry alone are over 150K.  There is definitely easily double the people in Manchester and surrounding communities than there is in Burlington and it's surrounding communities.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 13, 2012)

How much access does Burke have to water?  Is that an issue or is it mainly not enough terrain coverage (lack of pipe and guns) and an unwillingness to max out what they have?


----------



## from_the_NEK (Jun 13, 2012)

deadheadskier said:


> The population of Burlington is only about 45K.  South Burlington, I would assume 20ish.  The population of Manchester alone is 110K. The population of all of Chittenden County is only 150K, though I've often read that the Burlington Metro population is considered to be 200K, so there must be towns outside of Chittenden County included in that figure.  The city of Manchester and town of Derry alone are over 150K.  There is definitely easily double the people in Manchester and surrounding communities than there is in Burlington and it's surrounding communities.



Correct, Burlington-South Burlington does not contain 200,000 people. All of Chittenden County is only 156,000( http://2010.census.gov/2010census/popmap/ipmtext.php ) 

If you look a that NECTA map in the link, Burlington's metro area includes all of Chittenden County and a good share of Franklin County (St Albans, Swanton, etc) which adds quite a bit of population to the figure. If you are going to include those, then Waterbury and Vergennes should be included too. Really the entire champlain valley (Chittenden, Franklin, and Addison Counties = 240,000 people).
Edit: This "metro" area is a bit obsurd. It is like the metro area has been artificially inflated to boost numbers in order to make the city more attractive to business.

Using the same link to the census I provided above, I get a population of 400,000 for Hillsborough County in NH (the county that Manchester as well as Nashua). Merrimack County (where Concord is) has a population of 146,000.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 13, 2012)

deadheadskier said:


> How much access does Burke have to water?  Is that an issue or is it mainly not enough terrain coverage (lack of pipe and guns) and an unwillingness to max out what they have?



One of the best things that Northern Star did for Burke was that in 1996 or 1997 they spent a shit-ton of money to basically rebuild the snowmaking system and get the water withdrawal permits that were needed.  Before then Burke relied on the single snowmaking pond right below the Willoughby Quad that was stream and spring-fed and would basically dry up after a few days of snowmaking.  Northern Star built a dam on the Passumpsic River, installed a pumphouse, and placed about 2-3 miles of pipe from the River to Mid-Burke and the Pond so that they could recharge the Pond when needed.  So water is no longer the issue.  

They do rely on rental compressors and it is still a cobbled together system on that end, but it works.  

The biggest thing has been paying for the labor and expense of making snow.  They have good piping and, as Masskier has pointed out, updated guns and fanguns that they have added.  So having a bigger budget is one thing that is needed.  

Adding snowmaking to a few more runs is, in my mind, what remains really to help out.  They could do it by simply running two sets of additional lines on the upper mountain--one that begins at Mid-Burke, runs up Dipper Doodle to Powderhorn and then up Wilderness (with perhaps a spur down Lew's Leap or perhaps running it up Lew's Leap) and the other up Lower Doug's or McHarg's and then up Doug's.  The line along Toll Road/Deer Run has a tie-in for Doug's already, so someone contemplated doing this.  The lower mountain is fine.  

I think it is important to get a couple more top-to-bottom, well mid-mountain, routes with coverage because right now in a bad year you basically only have three main ways down.  Adding these two other lines would boost that and also give more options because as folks know you ski many different trails to get down as opposed to one long straight line.  Having other options with coverage, the ever-popular Powderhorn in particular, helps.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 13, 2012)

...and it looks like Burke is becoming the "Cannon" thread of the summer of 2012.  Although last year we had quite a Burke thread with the HSQ.


----------



## from_the_NEK (Jun 13, 2012)

thetrailboss said:


> ...and it looks like Burke is becoming the "Cannon" thread of the summer of 2012.  Although last year we had quite a Burke thread with the HSQ.



The only other place you used to see the kind of controversy you saw in last year's Cannon thread was occasional Killington threads. But then Highwaystar starting dilluting those by starting a new one every other day.
This Burke thread has legs and some good discussion but not the over the top controversy element. If the new ownership suddenly announced that they were going to build Six Flags NEK where the golf course had been planned, then we might start to approach the epicness of that Cannon thread.


----------



## bobbutts (Jun 13, 2012)

I like all the talk of metro areas.  I guess the takeaway is that Manchester is much closer to much more population so it's much easier to assign a wide range of numbers to the "Metro" that aren't too far fetched.  Some consider it part of the Megalopolis even, I think a reasonable argument considering it's commuting distance to Boston with nearly continuous populated areas in between them.

As some have alluded to, Burke has an uphill battle reaching the Burlington Market.







Jay, Smugs, Stowe,MRG, Bush, Bolton, Killington, all quicker to reach per google maps.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 14, 2012)

So with all this talk about Burke, who is going this season?


----------



## AdironRider (Jun 14, 2012)

thetrailboss said:


> So with all this talk about Burke, who is going this season?



Ill be there for an extended weekend. Going to be one of those Im going regardless of conditions things to scope it out and hit up Jay and Cannon on the same trip. Most likely mid-Feb.


----------



## crank (Jun 14, 2012)

thetrailboss said:


> So with all this talk about Burke, who is going this season?




I'm going weekend after next.


----------



## ScottySkis (Jun 14, 2012)

thetrailboss said:


> So with all this talk about Burke, who is going this season?


I be happy to go back I hear it like Platty, then I be their, I went 2 seasons ago but it was raining all day so I chose not to ski.


----------



## Masskier (Jun 16, 2012)

thetrailboss said:


> One of the best things that Northern Star did for Burke was that in 1996 or 1997 they spent a shit-ton of money to basically rebuild the snowmaking system and get the water withdrawal permits that were needed.  Before then Burke relied on the single snowmaking pond right below the Willoughby Quad that was stream and spring-fed and would basically dry up after a few days of snowmaking.  Northern Star built a dam on the Passumpsic River, installed a pumphouse, and placed about 2-3 miles of pipe from the River to Mid-Burke and the Pond so that they could recharge the Pond when needed.  So water is no longer the issue.
> 
> They do rely on rental compressors and it is still a cobbled together system on that end, but it works.
> 
> ...



Yes,  Thanks to Northern Star Burke has more than enough water.  I think we are going to see a major expansion to Burke's snowmaking this year.


----------



## Masskier (Jul 2, 2012)

I was up at Burke this past weekend.  Kingdom Trails were in great shape, the town was really buzzing with lots of Mtn Bikers.  Up at the mid Burke parking lot were two huge pumps (I think).  They looked old.  I don't know if Burke was replacing them or rebuilding them.  This could be the start of some of the upgrades to snow making that Jay mentioned when they bought Burke.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 3, 2012)

Could be either one.  The pumps at the pond are pretty old I imagine and the booster pump on Bear Den is pretty old as well.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 3, 2012)

SAM is reporting that next week Jay and Burke will be offering their new pass combos and that Burke is going to have a 50% increase in snowmaking firepower this season, or *75-100 new guns*.  

http://www.saminfo.com/news/article.php?tid=5887


----------



## riverc0il (Jul 3, 2012)

Nice! *thumbs up*

Curious to see what their season passes come in at. Next season I am still adventuring but by 2013-2014, I'll probably looking to get back into the season pass market. A Jay/Burke combo would be hard to beat. In addition to Burke being a great place to ski, having great trees, and being uncrowded... Burke would be a great option when conditions go south and skiing is groomers only, especially with a lot more snow making fire power.


----------



## xwhaler (Jul 9, 2012)

http://www.skiburke.com/shop/season-passes-combo.html

$799 for unlimited Jay and Burke--nice value


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 9, 2012)

xwhaler said:


> http://www.skiburke.com/shop/season-passes-combo.html
> 
> $799 for unlimited Jay and Burke--nice value



Very good deal.


----------



## riverc0il (Jul 9, 2012)

Only $50 more (before tax) for Burke which is a total no brainer if you are planning to get a Jay pass or if you plan to ski both Jay and Burke. What is not such a great deal is $749 (before 6% tax) for a Jay only pass. I think that is getting a little too high. Basically, add $50 to either of these prices for your total after tax. For some perspective, my pass in 2007-2008 was $600. So a 1/3 increase in five years. Not sure how that compares to other areas but 1/3 increase in five years seems like a lot to me. I don't know if I'd go for a Jay pass at $800 but if I did, the Burke upgrade for $850 would be a no brainer.


----------



## kingdom-tele (Jul 10, 2012)

riverc0il said:


> Only $50 more (before tax) for Burke which is a total no brainer if you are planning to get a Jay pass or if you plan to ski both Jay and Burke. What is not such a great deal is $749 (before 6% tax) for a Jay only pass. I think that is getting a little too high. Basically, add $50 to either of these prices for your total after tax. For some perspective, my pass in 2007-2008 was $600. So a 1/3 increase in five years. Not sure how that compares to other areas but 1/3 increase in five years seems like a lot to me. I don't know if I'd go for a Jay pass at $800 but if I did, the Burke upgrade for $850 would be a no brainer.



with daily rates of $55...

$150/month 
or
$90/month for midweek access

still waiting to hear if burke keeps their $25 sunday afternoons to take my daughter.

$1049 after Oct.  wow.


----------



## from_the_NEK (Jul 10, 2012)

kingdom-tele said:


> $1049 after Oct.  wow.



Hopefully that is not where they start pricing for next year


----------



## Riverskier (Jul 10, 2012)

riverc0il said:


> Only $50 more (before tax) for Burke which is a total no brainer if you are planning to get a Jay pass or if you plan to ski both Jay and Burke. What is not such a great deal is $749 (before 6% tax) for a Jay only pass. I think that is getting a little too high. Basically, add $50 to either of these prices for your total after tax. For some perspective, my pass in 2007-2008 was $600. So a 1/3 increase in five years. Not sure how that compares to other areas but 1/3 increase in five years seems like a lot to me. I don't know if I'd go for a Jay pass at $800 but if I did, the Burke upgrade for $850 would be a no brainer.



My Boyne Silver pass went from $499 to $645 over that period, so a similar increase. Granted I haven't skied there, but $750 for an unlimited pass to Jay seems like a steal. What comparable mountains offer a cheaper unlimited pass?


----------



## kingdom-tele (Jul 10, 2012)

from_the_NEK said:


> Hopefully that is not where they start pricing for next year



2 years NEK.

13-14 will be 950
14-15 1050


----------



## xwhaler (Jul 10, 2012)

Riverskier said:


> What comparable mountains offer a cheaper unlimited pass?



Smuggs is $569 and includes access to pools/waterslides during the summer.
$749 to Saddleback
$785 Cannon, $588 if NH Resident
$699 (Wildcat, Attitash, Crotched)

With the exception of Smuggs I'm not suggesting the above mtns are comparable to a Jay/Burke offering. Rather, I don't think people will see $799 and immediately jump at the pass based on price alone. It's a nice value for sure but not totally out of the ordinary. They will need to discount the pass a bit to get folks to make the trek all the way up there.


----------



## Nick (Jul 10, 2012)

Incase you guys missed it or it got buried Steve is doing the AZ Challenge 2012 and will answer our questions re: the acquisition or anything else --> http://forums.alpinezone.com/showth...eZone-Challenge-2012-Steve-Wright-of-Jay-Peak


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 10, 2012)

Re: price.  

In terms of similar terrain options and amenities, based on what they have now, I would suggest that Stowe and Sugarbush might be similar options.  Sugarbush has hovered around $1,000 per season, all access pass for the same timeframe which is pretty amazing.  Stowe, well we know, is well over $1,000 if not $1,400 now.  

I don't think you can only look at the price, but the value that you get for a pass.  A Jay day pass is now what, $75+ or so without discounts?  So if you go 10 days you pay for it.  And in terms of improvements, I don't think anyone else has done as much as Jay.  But the improvements are in the non-skiing departments.  So, unfortunately, folks like Riv and KT are paying for improvements that they don't care or want.  

I also think that JPR was undervaluing their passes for a while and got folks expecting a pass in the $5-600 range, which is a really good deal.  When you condition folks to that price any increase is hard to swallow even though costs continue to climb.  

That said, it has been a while since I was a passholder at Jay, but I will say that they did a good job with their customers and with service.  Sugarbush does as well.  Yes the price is high, but I felt I got good value.  Same is the case with Snowbird...we feel we get good value for the price.


----------



## Riverskier (Jul 10, 2012)

xwhaler said:


> Smuggs is $569 and includes access to pools/waterslides during the summer.
> $749 to Saddleback
> $785 Cannon, $588 if NH Resident
> $699 (Wildcat, Attitash, Crotched)
> ...



Those numbers you provide just further illustrate my point, as I don't think those mountains are comparable to a Jay/Burke combo (with the possible exception of Smuggs), yet are similar in price. Places like Sugarbush and Stowe are MUCH more expensive. Therefore, I stand by my opinion that the pass is an exceptional value.

That said, your opinion regarding discounting the pass in order to convince people to make the long drive may very well be valid. I don't know enough about current business levels, future expectations, how much they can increase business via other means (water parks, marketing, etc.) to really have an opinion on that. I do know that it is certainly a challenege running a ski resort in a remote area, as Sugarloaf and Saddleback can attest. At least Jay has Montreal.


----------



## from_the_NEK (Jul 10, 2012)

Nick said:


> Incase you guys missed it or it got buried Steve is doing the AZ Challenge 2012 and will answer our questions re: the acquisition or anything else --> http://forums.alpinezone.com/showth...eZone-Challenge-2012-Steve-Wright-of-Jay-Peak



So far I don't really have any questions. The general announcements for snow making improvements has been announced as well as the new Pass pricing. I'm waiting for more info to come out on plans for the mtn in order to ask somewhat intelligent questions.
And Steve is the Marketing guy for Jay and not Burke even though they are now under the same ownership. Wait.... maybe there is a question in there


----------



## JPTracker (Jul 10, 2012)

Here's another significant price increase:

For Jay only
Senior Before May 15 Age: *55-69* Price: $499
Senior After May 15 Age: *60-69* Price: $549
Adult After May 15 Age:19-59 Price: $749

If you didn't buy your pass early and in the 55- 59 age range thats a 50% ($250) increase.


----------



## riverc0il (Jul 10, 2012)

Riverskier said:


> My Boyne Silver pass went from $499 to $645 over that period, so a similar increase. Granted I haven't skied there, but $750 for an unlimited pass to Jay seems like a steal. What comparable mountains offer a cheaper unlimited pass?


Depends how you define "comparable". For 2k mountains, quite a few, actually.


----------



## riverc0il (Jul 10, 2012)

thetrailboss said:


> I don't think you can only look at the price, but the value that you get for a pass.  A Jay day pass is now what, $75+ or so without discounts?  So if you go 10 days you pay for it.  And in terms of improvements, I don't think anyone else has done as much as Jay.  But the improvements are in the non-skiing departments.  So, unfortunately, folks like Riv and KT are paying for improvements that they don't care or want.
> 
> I also think that JPR was undervaluing their passes for a while and got folks expecting a pass in the $5-600 range, which is a really good deal.  When you condition folks to that price any increase is hard to swallow even though costs continue to climb.


You really can't compare straight up full value when estimating the break even price. That assumes paying full walk up every day. Maybe day trippers that don't ski much might do that. But someone that skis enough to look at a season pass option... not so much. Season passes can be broken down into two camps: those that do it for the culture and those that do it for the savings. If you are interested in savings, you're probably sniping deals. And goodness knows Jay tosses out more deals than average.

That said, you are right on the mark that the price increases take into account non-skiing amenities (plus RFID -- I'll eat crow, Jay is passing along the cost of that onto the consumer). Improvements to skiing and terrain have been essentially nil. New beginner lift going in? Great, now it will take longer to get to Tramside than grabbing the t-bar (tongue in cheek on that one, just saying it isn't an improvement that does me any good). 

Regarding JPR undervaluing passes... perhaps. They were definitely in the big mountain at a value price category before. They are definitely approaching resort pricing now. And hey, Jay is a resort. But the on mountain product hasn't improved the 1/3 price increase over five years. Why anyone wouldn't upgrade to the Burke deal for $50 is beyond me. Two mountains for $850 after taxes is certainly stomachable. That said, I'm not sure I'll be looking at Jay for a season pass next season when I stop playing the field.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 10, 2012)

riverc0il said:


> You really can't compare straight up full value when estimating the break even price. That assumes paying full walk up every day. Maybe day trippers that don't ski much might do that. But someone that skis enough to look at a season pass option... not so much. Season passes can be broken down into two camps: those that do it for the culture and those that do it for the savings. If you are interested in savings, you're probably sniping deals. And goodness knows Jay tosses out more deals than average.



True.  But even when factoring in discounts, and not considering that one has to wait for promotions to occur and have no control over when and where to ski, a person still will pay at least, what, $45-50 or so per day for lift-served skiing?  So for the dollar value, yes, the break-even may be closer to 15 days or so.  

But I guess I was also going for the more abstract idea of "value" for the money.  I think that Jay built up a core group of die-hard skiers that valued the terrain, glades, and snow as well as the very reasonable season pass price.  Obviously passholders have to subsidize other things that they may not want, but I wonder if in Jay's case the die-hards are going to start getting unhappy with subsidizing the amenities for others that they don't want and won't use, and if Jay will start to lose "value" for that crowd.  

Then again, they just added a whole new ski area to the mix and a good one for folks that desire good skiing and terrain.  I guess we can only wait and see what happens next season.  If the price holds steady then we may know, or at least figure, that they were just going for a one-time adjustment.


----------



## riverc0il (Jul 10, 2012)

15 days I think is realistic factoring in deals such as early season, late season, 242 newsletter, coupons, ski club deals, skivt deals, etc. And don't forget discount for passholder at another mountain, something to be considered as well if you are on the fence. Regarding the value issue... Jay does have some of the best powder in New England and a great glade network. But that is a wash with high winds, cold, distance, and not great terrain when the snow isn't powdery (i.e. Jay is a horrible mountain after a rain/freeze event or when the snow is firm). I still think as a skiing experience, Jay caters to a certain crowd. But as a resort experience.... I don't know. Their FB photo today was a bunch of kids teeing up at the driving range. Raising Em' Jay no longer means Raising Em' Skiers. 

Basically, I've had a Jay pass before and barely broke even both times I paid for one compared to discounting. There are other perks being a pass holder such as not having to hunt for deals, not having to go to customer service for a ticket, walking right up to the lift, etc. and now Burke for only $50 more.

I guess to sum up my point, I'm concerned that this Jay/Burke pass is only a price increase or two away from being a four figure pass after taxes. At $847 after taxes, it is getting pretty darn, it is only $140 away (pre-taxes) from being a four figure deal. It'll get there within a few seasons for sure at this rate.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 10, 2012)

I think that most passes do use the 15 day number for calculating pass prices or setting up pricing tiers.  They want to get people to commit.  

The fact that Jay, for most folks, is a long ways away I think  restricted them from pushing their prices up too much for a while.  As  you suggest, committing to driving that far for most of the market is a  hard thing to do.  So to compensate Jay had lower prices to attract  folks.  Now the price is going up.  Will folks still commit or will they  start looking again like you?  

But you hit on some shortfalls for Jay--the weather, location, and terrain.  Burke compliments them as being a better location for access and having less wind issues.


----------



## riverc0il (Jul 10, 2012)

Not an issue for locals or MTL, but gas expense might be a consideration as well for folks traveling. Only two hours for me... but every area in VT is two hours for me. But an hour or two longer drive (each way) can add up to an extra $20/trip. Times 20 trips and you're up to $400 more for the travel time.

But I doubt most people factor in fuel expense when selecting pass prices. I bet time on the road is MUCH more of an issue compared to extra gas.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 10, 2012)

FWIW Bretton Woods passes are $839 each.  Not a similar ski experience, but lots of resort amenities and nearby.  

And I wonder who Jay targets as its competitors.


----------



## kingdom-tele (Jul 10, 2012)

riverc0il said:


> 15 days I think is realistic factoring in deals such as early season, late season, 242 newsletter, coupons, ski club deals, skivt deals, etc. And don't forget discount for passholder at another mountain, something to be considered as well if you are on the fence. Regarding the value issue... Jay does have some of the best powder in New England and a great glade network. But that is a wash with high winds, cold, distance, and not great terrain when the snow isn't powdery (i.e. Jay is a horrible mountain after a rain/freeze event or when the snow is firm). I still think as a skiing experience, Jay caters to a certain crowd. But as a resort experience.... I don't know. Their FB photo today was a bunch of kids teeing up at the driving range. Raising Em' Jay no longer means Raising Em' Skiers.
> 
> Basically, I've had a Jay pass before and barely broke even both times I paid for one compared to discounting. There are other perks being a pass holder such as not having to hunt for deals, not having to go to customer service for a ticket, walking right up to the lift, etc. and now Burke for only $50 more.
> 
> I guess to sum up my point, I'm concerned that this Jay/Burke pass is only a price increase or two away from being a four figure pass after taxes. At $847 after taxes, it is getting pretty darn, it is only $140 away (pre-taxes) from being a four figure deal. It'll get there within a few seasons for sure at this rate.




it already is 4 figures for anyone buying after Oct 15

curious to see what the VT'r rate will be this year

800-1000 is out of our league


----------



## WWF-VT (Jul 10, 2012)

thetrailboss said:


> And I wonder who Jay targets as its competitors.



Tremblant ?


----------



## fbrissette (Jul 11, 2012)

WWF-VT said:


> Tremblant ?



I would be surprised and i certainly hope they do not.  I don't think Trembant skiers would enjoy Jay Peak that much.  They might steal a few families away with the aquaparc but Tremblant caters to the rich and glitzy crowd.  I was Tremblant raised and gradually move south to Jay as a late teen (when we could drive), as Intrawest gradually destroyed the mountain spirit.

Jay Peak marketing north of the border consisted entirely of the aquapark.  This tells me that they are after families that spend a ski week once a year.  

Francois

And for your information, a Tremblant season's pass is 1500$.


----------



## JPTracker (Jul 11, 2012)

JPTracker said:


> Here's another significant price increase:
> 
> For Jay only
> Senior Before May 15 Age: *55-69* Price: $499
> ...



Followup:

Just got a letter from Jay saying that since I had previously purchased a Senior Pass I will continue to be able to purchase a pass at Senior Rates until I turn 60.

That's how you treat your loyal customers.


----------



## Sick Bird Rider (Jul 12, 2012)

JPTracker said:


> Followup:
> 
> Just got a letter from Jay saying that since I had previously purchased a Senior Pass I will continue to be able to purchase a pass at Senior Rates until I turn 60.
> 
> That's how you treat your loyal customers.




That's cool, I guess I will be getting the same letter. I noticed this increase and was gearing up for a rant. Purchased my first full pass back in May (at the $499 price) and was pleased that they let me buy it before I turned 55, though I will be 55 by the time the snow flies. At least there is one good thing about getting old!


----------



## Zand (Jul 13, 2012)

Last year for me: 

Triple Major Pass: $299
Burke LSC Pass: $229

This year:

Jay/Burke College Pass: $249

Savings = $270. Never hit MRG last year with the Triple Major Pass, and while I won't have that option this year, I definitely don't mind using a portion of that to buy one or two $49 MRG day tickets. Never hit BV either, didn't plan on it. 

Wish this could've happened in '09.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 13, 2012)

So I take it that the Triple Major is no more?


----------



## Zand (Jul 13, 2012)

thetrailboss said:


> So I take it that the Triple Major is no more?



Still there... still $299 and still Jay, Bolton, and MRG. If Burke was part of it I'd get it but it's much more cost effective to get the Jay/Burke pass instead and hit MRG on a day pass if necessary.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 13, 2012)

Zand said:


> Still there... still $299 and still Jay, Bolton, and MRG. If Burke was part of it I'd get it but it's much more cost effective to get the Jay/Burke pass instead and hit MRG on a day pass if necessary.



Interesting.  I did not see it, not at least on Jay's site.  I did not find it on BV or MRG's site and the TM site has not been updated.  Where did you see it was still offered?


----------



## Zand (Jul 13, 2012)

Oh... didn't realize that the TM site still has last year's dates on it. Nevermind then lol.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 13, 2012)

I imagine that the Burke purchase has made Jay rethink the Triple Major Pass Program.  If they do it, I bet it will only be Jay/MRG/Bolton and not include Burke.  But since they have released the pass plans and list a College Pass, then I would think that the Triple Major may be gone, unless they offered the Triple Major alongside the Jay College Pass.  Those two would compete for the same market and offering a pass that sees the revenue go elsewhere is not in Jay's interest.    

As to who benefits from the Triple Major, in my mind Bolton would be the big winner.  I would see a lot of serious college-aged skiers going to MRG and skiers/riders going to Jay.  Not many going for Bolton except those who might not have a car, want night skiing, or want something less intense than Jay or MRG.  And, in my mind, if there is no Triple Major, Bolton loses.  When I was in college, a lot of folks both at my alma mater (Middlebury) and UVM who were really serious skiers/riders would focus on Stowe, Sugarbush, or MRG.  Some would go to Jay.  Nobody really considered, let alone knew, about Bolton.  The Triple Major was designed to compete head on with Sugarbush or Stowe by combining the three.  At least Sugarbush considered the Triple Major as its primary competition.


----------



## riverc0il (Jul 13, 2012)

Interesting thoughts, trailboss. I would think that Bolton would be heavily utilized by the Burlington crowd since it is the closest, has night skiing, and probably caters to the park scene. Also, it is a mellow mountain so friends and ski and ride together from any lift without fear of getting in over someone's head. It is hard to say who the Triple Major worked out best and worst for without knowing how the money was distributed. I would think the best pay off would be getting the most amount of money for the fewest visits impacting the facility. Then again, the pass is so cheap, perhaps the areas were competing for on hill dollars hoping poor college students would buy some food or do some gear or something. I wonder what the demographics are for college skiers/riders regarding skill level? I bet perpetual intermediate is very high in the curve. I haven't met any super die hards here at PSU. Not saying they don't exist, but all the skiers/riders I know from the PSU student population aren't getting in 50+ days on their pass and ripping it up. So I don't see that type of argument working for Jay and MRG getting more visits than Bolton, it just doesn't match up with the casual skier population I see at our University. Things could be different in NoVT, of course.


----------



## from_the_NEK (Jul 14, 2012)

When I was at UVM, there were quite a few people that went to Bolton because it was closest and had night skiing. I believe they have improved their park since then as well which should also have been a draw for that crowd. Sounds like the Burlington area colleges have a more "core" skier/rider crowd than Plymouth State  . There were lost of students that set up their schedules around skiing. Bolton offered the best bet for running out to ski for a few hours if you didn't have classes during a morning or afternoon.


----------



## thetrailboss (Aug 15, 2012)

Bump.  

Just as I predicted, Triple Major is no more.  JPR is going on its own with a Burke/Jay Combo and Jay only option.  



> *[h=6]To all of our Triple Major members. We are no longer running the Triple Major pass. Instead, we are offering a Jay Peak season's pass to college students for just $199 and combo Jay/Burke passes for just $249. Start those coin jars to ski/ride our trees; you could use the change.*


*

Hence why MRG is teaming up with SB.  


[/h]**[h=6] 
[/h]*


----------



## riverc0il (Aug 15, 2012)

Two hundred for a Jay pass, wow. Good deal even for students. Fiddy more fo' Burke? No brainer.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Aug 16, 2012)

riverc0il said:


> I would think that Bolton would be heavily utilized by the Burlington crowd since it is the closest, has night skiing, and probably caters to the park scene.



You'd think, but it doesn't really seem to pan out that way.  I think in the 6 years I lived in Burlington I went to Bolton only 3 or 4 times (which I regret now thinking about it), and I didnt know too many locals that made a habit of frequenting Bolton either.  When Stowe, Smuggs, Sugarbush, and MRG, arent far away (even Jay is only 1.5h), it sort of seems "meh" to hit Bolton if you live there.  As for the Bolton night terrain, it's very small, can be very cold, and can get very packed.  It's popular with high school ski clubs in the area (even > 1 hour away), but I didnt know too many adults that bothered with it.  I really do like Bolton though, and since I'm often in n.VT for ski season, this thread is making me want to go there this year.


----------



## xwhaler (Aug 16, 2012)

thetrailboss said:


> Hence why MRG is teaming up with SB.




Has this been confirmed yet? I did see the news on Win's Blog on SB site that they would be offering the $80 MRG weekday add-on option to the 19-29 4 20s pass. But I did not see that they would be adding it to the college pass. It would make sense that they would of course if Jay is aggressively pricing their college option.

Right now SB's website has TBD for college pass pricing. If they came in around $250 for SB All mtn and MRG I think they would clean up over Jay.


----------



## xwhaler (Aug 16, 2012)

Just noticed this little gem as well....Smuggs and Bolton Valley teaming up for $249 for the college crowd
Assuming SB/MRG also come in at $249 unsure what I'd choose if I were a college kid at UVM right now....prob the Smuggs/BV option since I like the vibe and the drive time would prob be the least from Burlington.

http://www.smuggs.com/pages/winter/skiride/pass-store/index.php

sometimes I do wish I had gone to UVM over UNH...for the skiing aspect only!


----------



## thetrailboss (Aug 16, 2012)

xwhaler said:


> Has this been confirmed yet? I did see the news on Win's Blog on SB site that they would be offering the $80 MRG weekday add-on option to the 19-29 4 20s pass. But I did not see that they would be adding it to the college pass. It would make sense that they would of course if Jay is aggressively pricing their college option.
> 
> Right now SB's website has TBD for college pass pricing. If they came in around $250 for SB All mtn and MRG I think they would clean up over Jay.



They will offer the college pass in a few weeks, but in the past it has been the same as the 4-20 pass (maybe less money).


----------



## BenedictGomez (Aug 16, 2012)

xwhaler said:


> Just noticed this little gem as well....Smuggs and Bolton Valley teaming up for $249 for the college crowd
> Assuming SB/MRG also come in at $249 unsure what I'd choose if I were a college kid at UVM right now....*prob the Smuggs/BV option since I like the vibe and the drive time would prob be the least from Burlington.*



My guess is the Smugg/BV one will be more popular too, but not because of the drive time (Smuggs, Sugarbush, MRG are all fairly similar drives from UVM), but because so many people in the 18-21 demographic are snowboarders.  If you're a skier, however?  The Sugarbush/MRG one would be the obvious choice.


----------

