# VT Digger Reports on EB-5 "Saving" Sugarbush



## thetrailboss (Nov 2, 2015)

Interesting read.  Basically, Smith admits that without the EB-5 funding for the base area work, which has returned Sugarbush to profitability, it would have been tough for Sugarbush to continue without filing for bankruptcy.  

Figured that there would be enough interest in this article for its own thread instead of just dropping it in the Sugarbush thread.  

http://vtdigger.org/2015/11/01/fore...il&utm_term=0_dc3c5486db-9c67ca1773-405570561


----------



## skiNEwhere (Nov 2, 2015)

O boy. This should be a long thread


----------



## dlague (Nov 2, 2015)

Funny to read this.  I have only ever known Sugarbush as it is today.  When I was younger, it always seemed to have the stigma of being a resort for the well to do.  Still does IMO.   In fact, I have learned more from this forum than I had ever bothered to know before.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Nov 2, 2015)

Clearly some politics here.  

At any rate, I highly doubt Sugarbush would have literally_"gone bankrupt" _without $20 Million.  I also wince when I read articles that boast of _"profitability"_, yet offer absolutely no transparency of mathematics around that term.  And that goes for, _"losing money"_, as well.  Worthless descriptors without figures to go with them.

Also, the screws are being tightened on EB-5 as well (link below), and some changes are coming.

http://money.cnn.com/2015/10/11/news/eb-5-immigrant-investor-changes/


----------



## thetrailboss (Nov 2, 2015)

BenedictGomez said:


> Clearly some politics here.
> 
> At any rate, I highly doubt Sugarbush would have literally_"gone bankrupt" _without $20 Million.  I also wince when I read articles that boast of _"profitability"_, yet offer absolutely no transparency of mathematics around that term.  And that goes for, _"losing money"_, as well.  Worthless descriptors without figures to go with them.
> 
> ...



I thought that the timing was very interesting.


----------



## thetrailboss (Nov 2, 2015)

skiNEwhere said:


> O boy. This should be a long thread



Better put the safety bar down


----------



## BenedictGomez (Nov 2, 2015)

thetrailboss said:


> I thought that the timing was very interesting.



Exactly.  It's the first thing that pops out.


----------



## tumbler (Nov 2, 2015)

BenedictGomez said:


> Clearly some politics here.
> 
> At any rate, I highly doubt Sugarbush would have literally_"gone bankrupt" _without $20 Million.  I also wince when I read articles that boast of _"profitability"_, yet offer absolutely no transparency of mathematics around that term.  And that goes for, _"losing money"_, as well.  Worthless descriptors without figures to go with them.
> 
> ...



I think that Win is telling the truth about going bankrupt and then having to sell.  It's a private company, they don't have to disclose any numbers.  You have no idea what a crappy business owning a ski area is.  You have a one week window to make money over the Christmas holiday and if the weather sucks you are SOL.  If you don't spend capital on new lifts, snowmaking and lodges then you are obsolete and outdated.  It costs an incredible amount of money to just operate.


----------



## steamboat1 (Nov 2, 2015)

Lets not forget that when Sugarbush received EB-5 money they weren't required to create any new jobs at all because they were a distressed business. They were only required to show that they saved jobs not create them. I'd think that government regulators were shown the financials in order for Sugarbush to qualify for this provision of the EB-5 program. The financials couldn't have looked good.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Nov 2, 2015)

steamboat1 said:


> *The financials couldn't have looked good.*



I believe him that they didn't. 

 I'm just not buying that $20 Million in capital project improvements was the only thing that kept Sugarbush from declaring bankruptcy.  

Sorry, not buying that.  Especially given I have no figures to substantiate the claim.




tumbler said:


> I think that Win is telling the truth about going  bankrupt and then having to sell. * It's a private company, they don't  have to disclose any numbers.*



Perhaps when a private company accepts millions of dollars in funding through a government created program, it should?


----------



## HowieT2 (Nov 2, 2015)

BenedictGomez said:


> Clearly some politics here.
> 
> At any rate, I highly doubt Sugarbush would have literally_"gone bankrupt" _without $20 Million.  I also wince when I read articles that boast of _"profitability"_, yet offer absolutely no transparency of mathematics around that term.  And that goes for, _"losing money"_, as well.  Worthless descriptors without figures to go with them.
> 
> ...



just because the facts dont fit your narrative, doesnt make them any less true.  You can keep on ignoring reality all you want.

After Win bought SB, and while his group was formulating their plan, he met with a bunch of us to talk frankly about the state of affairs and to trade ideas about moving forward.  Basically, while ASC had spent considerably on capital improvements for new lifts, when the development plans were scuttled and things went downhill for the company, it essentially orphaned SB.  There was no marketing and maintenance was deferred.  When Win took over, skier visits were down to like 200k/year, the base facilities were ancient/decrepit and the resort had very limited and old lodging stock.  They were losing money and needed considerable capital investments to turn things around.  Its not an easy business to begin with, but even more so when you have a tremendous hole to dig out of.  We loved it because we basically had the mtn to ourselves but understood that it was not sustainable.  
Obviously they are in a much better position today.  Not only have skier visits grown dramatically but they have more lodging.  And its a four season resort now.  That is in large measure due to the EB5 money which financed the 3 new base lodges and real estate development.  Not only did it directly benefit the resort but also the entire MRV community. and all that in exchange for some 40 visas to some wealthy foreigners.  in the immortal words of Derrick Coleman "whoop dee damned do".


----------



## HowieT2 (Nov 2, 2015)

BenedictGomez said:


> I believe him that they didn't.
> 
> I'm just not buying that $20 Million in capital project improvements was the only thing that kept Sugarbush from declaring bankruptcy.
> 
> ...



First of all, and this is among the major concepts that seems to elude you, there is no government money involved in eb5.  second of all, the goal of the program is to create jobs and so therefore, the jobs creation data is public and required by the legislation.  Insuring the investments of foreigners is not part of the deal and never was.


----------



## thetrailboss (Nov 2, 2015)

The biggest change I have seen is, as was said, Sugarbush is now a true four-season resort.  There is a lot of business on the mountain that did not exist before.  It is nice to see.


----------



## steamboat1 (Nov 2, 2015)

BenedictGomez said:


> I believe him that they didn't.
> 
> I'm just not buying that $20 Million in capital project improvements was the only thing that kept Sugarbush from declaring bankruptcy.
> 
> Sorry, not buying that.  Especially given I have no figures to substantiate the claim.



You are correct, $20 million wasn't enough. Clay Brook residences, Timbers restaurant & the new Gate House base lodge were built at an estimated cost of $40 million. Only $20 million of that came from EB-5 money.


----------



## HowieT2 (Nov 2, 2015)

thetrailboss said:


> The biggest change I have seen is, as was said, Sugarbush is now a true four-season resort.  There is a lot of business on the mountain that did not exist before.  It is nice to see.



not just on the mtn but in the valley in general.  It has been an economic success story and exactly what they eb5 program was intended to do.


----------



## steamboat1 (Nov 2, 2015)

HowieT2 said:


> First of all, and this is among the major concepts that seems to elude you, there is no government money involved in eb5.  second of all, the goal of the program is to create jobs and so therefore, the jobs creation data is public and required by the legislation.  Insuring the investments of foreigners is not part of the deal and never was.


Like I said earlier Sugarbush wasn't required to create a single new job. They only had to show they saved jobs.


----------



## HowieT2 (Nov 2, 2015)

steamboat1 said:


> Like I said earlier Sugarbush wasn't required to create a single new job. They only had to show they saved jobs.



perhaps, but after the eb5 funded development they replaced all the kids from south america with seasonal local workers.


----------



## Newpylong (Nov 2, 2015)

tumbler said:


> I think that Win is telling the truth about going bankrupt and then having to sell.  It's a private company, they don't have to disclose any numbers.  You have no idea what a crappy business owning a ski area is.  You have a one week window to make money over the Christmas holiday and if the weather sucks you are SOL.  If you don't spend capital on new lifts, snowmaking and lodges then you are obsolete and outdated.  It costs an incredible amount of money to just operate.



Couldn't have said it any better.


----------



## steamboat1 (Nov 2, 2015)

HowieT2 said:


> perhaps, but after the eb5 funded development they replaced all the kids from south america with seasonal local workers.



I'm not saying it didn't create new jobs, I'm sure it did. I'm only saying that Sugarbush wasn't required to show they created new jobs. They took advantage of a provision in the EB-5 program which says if they could show their net worth dropped by 20% or more they'd simply have to show they saved 10 jobs per investor not create new ones.


----------



## thetrailboss (Nov 2, 2015)

HowieT2 said:


> not just on the mtn but in the valley in general.  It has been an economic success story and exactly what they eb5 program was intended to do.



Very true.  Which goes back to the timing of this story seems interesting.....


----------



## from_the_NEK (Nov 2, 2015)

BenedictGomez said:


> I believe him that they didn't.
> 
> I'm just not buying that $20 Million in capital project improvements was the only thing that kept Sugarbush from declaring bankruptcy.
> 
> ...



"Equal Opportunity EB-5 Hater" OR "Realist"?

Can you post all of your financial info here?

No?

Then why should Sugarbush have to make all of their financials public for you to scrutinize?


----------



## VTKilarney (Nov 2, 2015)

Can we back up a step?  It is certainly possible that Sugarbush would have had to declare bankruptcy.  But does anyone think for a second that Sugarbush would have actually ceased to operate as a ski area?  I highly doubt that.  So what, then, was actually saved?


----------



## VTKilarney (Nov 2, 2015)

from_the_NEK said:


> "Equal Opportunity EB-5 Hater" OR "Realist"?
> 
> Can you post all of your financial info here?
> 
> ...



BG is not partaking in a cash for citizenship program.  Sugarbush is.  It stands to reason that the latter should be required to disclose financial information whereas the former would not.


----------



## deadheadskier (Nov 2, 2015)

VTKilarney said:


> Can we back up a step?  It is certainly possible that Sugarbush would have had to declare bankruptcy.  But does anyone think for a second that Sugarbush would have actually ceased to operate as a ski area?  I highly doubt that.  So what, then, was actually saved?



How can you highly doubt something when you have no idea how deep the pockets are of Summit Ventures?   We don't even know what they paid for the ski area.  The terms of the deal were not disclosed.  

Sugarbush has had periods of financial hardship before though.  They've gone through numerous ownership changes.  They went from averaging 500K skier visits a year down to 200K.   As mentioned, the place was largely neglected near the end under ASC.


----------



## VTKilarney (Nov 2, 2015)

I just think that somebody would have scooped up the property at bankruptcy and continued to operate it as a ski area.


----------



## slatham (Nov 2, 2015)

I recall Summit buying Sugarbush for $9mm. Pretty good deal considering what they got. 

But also an investment requiring a lot more investment to make it work. I am sure Win had a plan to fund those investments over time, but the financial crisis did those plans in. I have no doubt the EB-5 program dramatically helped Sugarbush and the MRV. You can debate all you want, but that is the bottom line.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Nov 2, 2015)

HowieT2 said:


> First of all, and this is among the major concepts that seems to elude you, there is no government money involved in eb5.  second of all, the goal of the program is to create jobs and so therefore, the jobs creation data is public and required by the legislation.  Insuring the investments of foreigners is not part of the deal and never was.



First of all, I never said government money is involved eb-5*, I said it's a government created program, which it is.

Secondly, jobs are usually, but not always required.

Thirdly, the job accounting with this sort of crap, which I've seen first-hand, is a joke at best, look-the-other-way fraudulent at worst.

*Though there is an admin component if you want to be uber pedantic.



VTKilarney said:


> Can we back up a step?  It is certainly possible that Sugarbush would have had to declare bankruptcy.  But *does anyone think for a second that Sugarbush would have actually ceased to operate as a ski area? * I highly doubt that.  So what, then, was actually saved?



Of course not.



from_the_NEK said:


> "Equal Opportunity EB-5 Hater" OR "Realist"?



Both.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Nov 2, 2015)

VTKilarney said:


> BG is not partaking in a cash for citizenship program.  Sugarbush is. * It stands to reason that the latter should be required to disclose financial information whereas the former would not.*



I'm still amazed that public financial disclosure isn't required with this program. 

 They get around that specifically because even though it is a government program proper, it is not American taxpayer money funded.  Though the entire CARROT that the program's very life depends on is American domicile, which is certainly a public issue.  We've already seen how the operation of EB-5 in the shadows has created a ton of scandal, public financial visibility would help alleviate that, as well as make government/corporate "shenanigans" far more difficult.

That said, if they're going to keep re-upping this program, I do view it as a positive that people are starting to realize the above and increase the scrutiny on EB-5 and increase the disclosure.


----------



## HowieT2 (Nov 2, 2015)

BenedictGomez said:


> I'm still amazed that public financial disclosure isn't required with this program.
> 
> They get around that specifically because even though it is a government program proper, it is not American taxpayer money funded.  Though the entire CARROT that the program's very life depends on is American domicile, which is certainly a public issue.  We've already seen how the operation of EB-5 in the shadows has created a ton of scandal, public financial visibility would help alleviate that, as well as make government/corporate "shenanigans" far more difficult.
> 
> That said, if they're going to keep re-upping this program, I do view it as a positive that people are starting to realize the above and increase the scrutiny on EB-5 and increase the disclosure.



i guess the basic disagreement we have is that you believe that these visas are somehow a valuable public resource.  I don't see it that way.  To the govt, They are worth the paper they're printed on.  They can issue more, as many as they want.  And the number of visas involved in eb5 is a drop in the bucket so the effect on immigration in toto is minuscule at best.  The way I see it, it's money for nothing, literally.  Of course the visas have tremendous value to foreigners and so it makes sense to me to sell some.  As far as scrutiny and oversight to protect the foreign investors capital, caveat emptor.   i don't think any additional regulation is necessary or warranted.


----------



## HowieT2 (Nov 2, 2015)

BenedictGomez said:


> First of all, I never said government money is involved eb-5*, I said it's a government created program, which it is.
> 
> Secondly, jobs are usually, but not always required.
> 
> ...



so what if it's a govt. program?  The govt. provides tax breaks, incentives towards many kinds of economic activities, such as oil exploration, sugar production, real estate development, etc etc etc.  does that mean the govt should oversee, audit and regulate to protect investors in every activity? I think not.


----------



## Tin (Nov 2, 2015)

from_the_NEK said:


>




It will never end.


----------



## ss20 (Nov 2, 2015)

Economics is not my strong suit.  Nor are politics.  Even less so is investment banking.  From a layman's perspective, money flowing into these resorts is great. 


I don't see the gloom and doom with this program.  *Worst case scenario, it's an ASC situation where shit hits the fan... but these mountains are getting improvements that will serve them well for 50 plus years, no matter the EB-5 situation.*  Sunday River did not die with ASC/Otten.  Why?  ASC _built_ SR.  They _built_ Canyons.  They _built_ Killington.  They made _permanent_ improvements that could never be taken away and created strong, financially sustainable resorts.  Here we are, 15 years later... these resorts are powerhouses that are at the top of the industry.  

...back to EB-5

You can question the program's effectiveness in regards to Sugarbush, but do you really believe it'd be the same Sugarbush without EB-5?  Mount Snow got the 100+ investors they needed for West Lake and Carinthia in a matter of _months_.  They've been struggling to get more water for _25 years_... could not have done it without EB-5.  Jay Peak has had their issues, but the face of that mountain has been forever changed for the better with the Pump House and the new hotel(s).  This "scandalous" program is gonna make these mountains great again.

Would you rather have "bad money" or no money?  To be honest I can see differing opinions... but as far as I'm concerned there's a .01% EB-5 will negatively affect my personal financials/political situations... but it's already affected my ski life in a way that is absolutely, undeniably positive.  

Take this all with a grain of salt... I don't post on this issue much because I know posts like this get trashed.


----------



## deadheadskier (Nov 2, 2015)

I'm with you all the way ss20

Not my money, not my problem and I've certainly enjoyed the improvements at Jay and Sugarbush.


----------



## steamboat1 (Nov 3, 2015)

Not surprised


----------



## gostan (Nov 3, 2015)

I was a long term Sugarbush skier who left the mountain from 1995 until returning in 2010.  The folks who are critical of Sugarbush's use of EB-5 have the right to voice your opinions, but there really is nothing to complain about here. Overall,Vermont is really a depressed state economically.  The vibrancy and recent rebirth of Mad River Valley has been revitalized by Win Smith and Sugarbush and their visions.  We should all be applauding the successful use of EB-5 funds to provide such positive results as well as the fact that the EB-5 investors are being repaid.  And Sugarbush remains an independent Mecca (not without issues) in this era of large conglomerates owing our ski areas and all of the USA becoming a homogenized rubber stamp.

And Sugarbush (as far as we know) is not for sale like many ski areas are per this thread elsewhere on Alpine Zone.


http://forums.alpinezone.com/showth...A-Brighton-UT-Sunday-River-ME-amp-12-More-Ski


----------



## VTKilarney (Nov 3, 2015)

A couple of thoughts:

1) Rather than post endless GIFs of someone beating a dead horse, the more mature thing to do is to just not participate in the conversation.  Things are talked about repeatedly in just about every thread in this forum.  Deal with it.
2) EB-5 is more nuanced than 90% of people here realize.  I've said it before, but I'll say it again: Encouraging investment is great, but government should encourage the best investment, not just any investment.  I don't see any such analysis when it comes to EB-5.  A minimum wage job is treated no differently than a high paying job.


----------



## deadheadskier (Nov 3, 2015)

The other side of that argument is that if there was no EB-5 investment in these areas, there would be no investment at all.  

IMO that's a much better situation than say a government / taxpayer backed project like the Balsams, which will produce the same kind of jobs.


----------



## wtcobb (Nov 3, 2015)

deadheadskier said:


> The other side of that argument is that if there was no EB-5 investment in these areas, there would be no investment at all.
> 
> IMO that's a much better situation than say a government / taxpayer backed project like the Balsams, which will produce the same kind of jobs.



+1. The north country has limited options for work, and even part-time, hourly jobs make a difference. 

As for previous comments regarding the addition of new vs. the keeping of current jobs: any investment that can keep these jobs - even without adding more - has to be seen as a benefit opposed to losing those positions. Lose a job, lose a resident, lose that resident's income back into the community.


----------



## HowieT2 (Nov 3, 2015)

VTKilarney said:


> A couple of thoughts:
> 
> 1) Rather than post endless GIFs of someone beating a dead horse, the more mature thing to do is to just not participate in the conversation.  Things are talked about repeatedly in just about every thread in this forum.  Deal with it.
> 2) EB-5 is more nuanced than 90% of people here realize.  I've said it before, but I'll say it again: Encouraging investment is great, but government should encourage the best investment, not just any investment.  I don't see any such analysis when it comes to EB-5.  A minimum wage job is treated no differently than a high paying job.[/QUOTE
> ...


----------



## steamboat1 (Nov 3, 2015)

slatham said:


> I recall Summit buying Sugarbush for $9mm. Pretty good deal considering what they got.



Pretty sure DHS is correct saying we don't know what Summit Ventures paid for Sugarbush. ARA Services sold Sugarbush in 1985 to Claneil Enterprises for $14.5 million. Claneil sold Sugarbush in 1994 to LBO Enterprises (Les Otten) for $9.1 million. I believe it was just before Claneil sold to LBO that rumors of Sugarbush going bankrupt were circulating. Certainly the depressed sale price would indicate that.


----------



## Not Sure (Nov 3, 2015)

deadheadskier said:


> The other side of that argument is that if there was no EB-5 investment in these areas, there would be no investment at all.
> 
> IMO that's a much better situation than say a government / taxpayer backed project like the Balsams, which will produce the same kind of jobs.



Ironically I just heard a radio conversation about a local EB 5 project , if they are correct the sales Tax goes to the developer and not the state ? 
My main objection is after 9/11 "Who are we letting into this country ?" 
How are these potential new citizens being vetted?


----------



## thetrailboss (Nov 3, 2015)

gostan said:


> I was a long term Sugarbush skier who left the mountain from 1995 until returning in 2010.  The folks who are critical of Sugarbush's use of EB-5 have the right to voice your opinions, but there really is nothing to complain about here. Overall,Vermont is really a depressed state economically.  The vibrancy and recent rebirth of Mad River Valley has been revitalized by Win Smith and Sugarbush and their visions.  We should all be applauding the successful use of EB-5 funds to provide such positive results as well as the fact that the EB-5 investors are being repaid.  And Sugarbush remains an independent Mecca (not without issues) in this era of large conglomerates owing our ski areas and all of the USA becoming a homogenized rubber stamp.
> 
> And Sugarbush (as far as we know) is not for sale like many ski areas are per this thread elsewhere on Alpine Zone.
> 
> ...



+ 1

Sugarbush has done a good job of offering at least something better than minimum wage jobs for the locals.  In my recent time there (2007-2011) you saw the same locals working every weekend and every season.  That says something.

As to BG, I have been concerned about the oversight as well.  That's because of my background.  As to BG, it sounds like he works in traditional capital investment that is subject to tighter regulations, etc. and he is not a fan of the loosey-goosey aspect of some of EB-5.


----------



## from_the_NEK (Nov 3, 2015)

VTKilarney said:


> 1) Rather than post endless GIFs of someone beating a dead horse, the more mature thing to do is to just not participate in the conversation.  Things are talked about repeatedly in just about every thread in this forum.  Deal with it.



Apparently I'm too juvenile to participate. I guess I'll stick with the gifs and memes 











You guys really need to lighten up a little bit. Every topic is doom and gloom and "i don't approve!" of this or that.


----------



## tumbler (Nov 3, 2015)

steamboat1 said:


> Pretty sure DHS is correct saying we don't know what Summit Ventures paid for Sugarbush. ARA Services sold Sugarbush in 1985 to Claneil Enterprises for $14.5 million. Claneil sold Sugarbush in 1994 to LBO Enterprises (Les Otten) for $9.1 million. I believe it was just before Claneil sold to LBO that rumors of Sugarbush going bankrupt were circulating. Certainly the depressed sale price would indicate that.


The rumor is that is was around 9M from ASC to SV.
Does anyone recall what the place looked like when Claneil sold?  Obsolete and outdated.  Hence the 9.1M sale.  LBO->ASC spent an incredible amount of money on the skiing infrastructure, at least 7 new or moved lifts and added snowmaking to South.  North had all the firepower.  ASC also went through the arduous process of permitting the Grand Summit in the town of Warren but that is all the real estate work they did.  They went bankrupt, fire sale and SV picked it up.  SV got the benefits of the skiing infrastructure (with deferred maintenance, so $$$ there) and the permit for the Grand Summit.  They re-replaced the GMX at North and then focused on the one area with growth potential- real estate.  They we able to modify the permit and build Clay Brook and lodges then continue with Rice Brook and Gadd Brook.  There was a system in place for increased capital infusion and Win took advantage of it like any savvy businessman would.  Why knock him?  He has increased the economics of the Valley and is a good citizen and neighbor.


----------



## steamboat1 (Nov 3, 2015)

tumbler said:


> The rumor is that is was around 9M from ASC to SV.
> Does anyone recall what the place looked like when Claneil sold?  Obsolete and outdated.  Hence the 9.1M sale.



Claneil made significant investments at Sugarbush. As for new lifts they were all at Mt. Ellen. They installed the original GMX HSQ (now North Ridge Express), Summit Quad & new Inverness lift. They also purchased the Sugarbush Inn, golf course, tennis center, cross country ski center & 3 area restaurants. They also assumed management of several area condo complexes. To infer they let the place run down just isn't true.


----------



## tumbler (Nov 3, 2015)

Correct, I didn't mean to infer that, they invested money also and then ran out and had to sell low with South needing improvements.  ASC invested, ran out and had to sell low.  Without EB-5 money SV would have run out also and been forced to sell low.  The real estate development is now helping to fund the operations of the ski mountain.


----------



## Newpylong (Nov 3, 2015)

steamboat1 said:


> Claneil made significant investments at Sugarbush. As for new lifts they were all at Mt. Ellen. They installed the original GMX HSQ (now North Ridge Express), Summit Quad & new Inverness lift. They also purchased the Sugarbush Inn, golf course, tennis courts, cross country ski center & 3 area restaurants. They also assumed management of several area condo complexes. To infer they let the place run down just isn't true.



Run down might be an incorrect term - outdated, especially when intending to compete with other resorts is a better term.


----------



## steamboat1 (Nov 3, 2015)

Newpylong said:


> Run down might be an incorrect term - outdated, especially when intending to compete with other resorts is a better term.



Both the Super Bravo & Heavens Gate (still operating) triples were just over 10 years old when Claneil sold. Relatively new lifts by today's standards.


----------



## steamboat1 (Nov 3, 2015)

tumbler said:


> Correct, I didn't mean to infer that, they invested money also and then ran out and had to sell low with South needing improvements.  ASC invested, ran out and had to sell low.  Without EB-5 money SV would have run out also and been forced to sell low.  The real estate development is now helping to fund the operations of the ski mountain.



Only improvements south needed at the time was snowmaking. Like I said in my previous post the lifts weren't that old. As for real estate now funding operations I agree with you 100%. EB-5 money was a small but significant part in financing the real estate development. It's my understanding that SV has invested nearly $80 million in the base area development with EB-5 money only accounting for $20 million of that. Look no further than Stowe, Stratton & Okemo to see what a significant role real estate plays in today's ski area operations.


----------



## HowieT2 (Nov 3, 2015)

thetrailboss said:


> + 1
> 
> Sugarbush has done a good job of offering at least something better than minimum wage jobs for the locals.  In my recent time there (2007-2011) you saw the same locals working every weekend and every season.  That says something.
> 
> As to BG, I have been concerned about the oversight as well.  That's because of my background.  As to BG, it sounds like he works in traditional capital investment that is subject to tighter regulations, etc. and he is not a fan of the loosey-goosey aspect of some of EB-5.




How are these eb5 projects any more "loosey goosey" than non eb5 funded, real estate or other private
market investments????  real estate developer putting up a shopping mall or condo development isnt subject to any investment oversight from the federal or state govt.  They are subject to the same laws the eb5 programs are.


----------



## thetrailboss (Nov 3, 2015)

HowieT2 said:


> How are these eb5 projects any more "loosey goosey" than non eb5 funded, real estate or other private
> market investments????  real estate developer putting up a shopping mall or condo development isnt subject to any investment oversight from the federal or state govt.  They are subject to the same laws the eb5 programs are.



It's different because in EB-5 the investors are participating not for a profit or investment but for a Green Card.  EB-5 is a government run program set up to connect investors with projects that can't get traditional capital.  So you need to ensure that the investors and projects are both legit.


----------



## HowieT2 (Nov 3, 2015)

steamboat1 said:


> Only improvements south needed at the time was snowmaking. Like I said in my previous post the lifts weren't that old. As for real estate now funding operations I agree with you 100%. EB-5 money was a small but significant part in financing the real estate development. It's my understanding that SV has invested nearly $80 million in the base area development with EB-5 money only accounting for $20 million of that. Look no further than Stowe, Stratton & Okemo to see what a significant role real estate plays in today's ski area operations.



Agreed.  and if you look at those other mountains, the real estate development is on a far greater scale than that at SB.  I mean between Claybrook, rice brook and Gadd brook, we are only talking about some thing in the neighborhood of 120 units.


----------



## HowieT2 (Nov 3, 2015)

thetrailboss said:


> It's different because in EB-5 the investors are participating not for a profit or investment but for a Green Card.  EB-5 is a government run program set up to connect investors with projects that can't get traditional capital.  So you need to ensure that the investors and projects are both legit.



That's where we disagree.  I dont think there is any reason for the federal govt. to insure anything to the foreign investors other than theyre getting their visa.  In fact, the law specifically requires that in order to qualify for an eb5 visa, the investment must be "at risk".  If the govt. was to insure this program, then the capital would be available from Banks and other private sources of capital.  The whole purpose of the program is to leverage the visas to entice foreign capital to invest in projects that are too risky for traditional sources of capital.


----------



## steamboat1 (Nov 3, 2015)

HowieT2 said:


> That's where we disagree.  I dont think there is any reason for the federal govt. to insure anything to the foreign investors other than theyre getting their visa.  In fact, the law specifically requires that in order to qualify for an eb5 visa, the investment must be "at risk".  If the govt. was to insure this program, then the capital would be available from Banks and other private sources of capital.  The whole purpose of the program is to leverage the visas to entice foreign capital to invest in projects that are too risky for traditional sources of capital.


Exactly!


----------



## VTKilarney (Nov 3, 2015)

Nobody is suggesting that the government insure against loss.  It's reasonable, however, to expect that outfits that take advantage of this program are not engaging in fraud.  I fail to see how this is at all contentious.

It's also reasonable to ensure that the "jobs created" metric is accurate.  I know that government is good at wasting money, but I'd like to know that if they are selling visas for jobs being created, those jobs will actually be created.


----------



## deadheadskier (Nov 3, 2015)

It should be noted that programs like EB-5 aren't unique to the US.  New Zealand has a program like it. I'm sure there are others.

http://www.immigration.govt.nz/migrant/stream/invest/investment/investorplus/requirements.htm


----------



## VTKilarney (Nov 3, 2015)

There are a few Caribbean countries that sell citizenship for cash.


----------



## HowieT2 (Nov 3, 2015)

VTKilarney said:


> Nobody is suggesting that the government insure against loss.  It's reasonable, however, to expect that outfits that take advantage of this program are not engaging in fraud.  I fail to see how this is at all contentious.
> 
> It's also reasonable to ensure that the "jobs created" metric is accurate.  I know that government is good at wasting money, but I'd like to know that if they are selling visas for jobs being created, those jobs will actually be created.



I don't disagree with you.  But "fraud" is already illegal in many ways.  I just dont think there needs to be any additional regulatory oversight to prevent fraud in investments benefiting from eb5 capital. 

As for your comment about "govt. being good at wasting money", this is actually an example of a govt. program that is economically beneficial which isnt costing the govt. anything.  and there are already reporting and disclosure requirements for the jobs creation aspect.  (and if you want to get into it about govt. waste in general, PM me.)


----------



## Highway Star (Nov 3, 2015)

Ski areas are valued based on 6x to 8x their operating profit as a business.


----------



## VTKilarney (Nov 3, 2015)

HowieT2 said:


> I don't disagree with you.  But "fraud" is already illegal in many ways.  I just dont think there needs to be any additional regulatory oversight to prevent fraud in investments benefit


Except that for some high profile (non-Vermont) projects, there appears to have indeed been investor fraud.  So whatever was in place clearly was not working.  There may not need to be additional oversight, but at a minimum the existing oversight needs to be effective.  It hasn't been.


----------



## Newpylong (Nov 3, 2015)

steamboat1 said:


> Only improvements south needed at the time was snowmaking. Like I said in my previous post the lifts weren't that old. As for real estate now funding operations I agree with you 100%. EB-5 money was a small but significant part in financing the real estate development. It's my understanding that SV has invested nearly $80 million in the base area development with EB-5 money only accounting for $20 million of that. Look no further than Stowe, Stratton & Okemo to see what a significant role real estate plays in today's ski area operations.



I lived in Waitsfield pre and post sale to Otten.

1 HSQ when everyone else was installing them wasn't going to cut it. It doesn't matter how old they were. Also, don't undersell the snowmaking upgrades, capacity was increased by 300% and they didn't have adequate water before that.

http://articles.latimes.com/1995-10-25/business/fi-61030_1_vermont-ski-areas

"Sugarbush, once known as one of the best skiing mountains in the East, had suffered from little or no investment for more than a decade. It was on the brink of closing three years ago."

"Sugarbush, which once had more than 400,000 annual skier visits, was down to roughly 300,000."


----------



## HowieT2 (Nov 3, 2015)

VTKilarney said:


> Except that for some high profile (non-Vermont) projects, there appears to have indeed been investor fraud.  So whatever was in place clearly was not working.  There may not need to be additional oversight, but at a minimum the existing oversight needs to be effective.  It hasn't been.



No, I dont think we do.  Its called capitalism, some investments bear fruit, others dont.  some businesses succeed, others dont.  Banks loan money and sometimes they dont get paid back.  
The eb5 investors are taking on the risk in exchange for a visa which is apparently valuable to them.  From their perspective they need to do the due diligence into where they are putting their money.  If you had asked me 5 years ago, whether to participate in a 20M investment into sugarbush or 500m into Jay peak, I would have told you that the jay peak investment was a lot riskier than sugarbush.  Orders of magnitude more risky.


----------



## VTKilarney (Nov 3, 2015)

HowieT2 said:


> No, I dont think we do.  Its called capitalism, some investments bear fruit, others dont.  some businesses succeed, others dont.  Banks loan money and sometimes they dont get paid back.
> The eb5 investors are taking on the risk in exchange for a visa which is apparently valuable to them.  .


I'm not talking about those instances.  I'm talking about instances where there has been actual fraud - not just risk.  

For example:
http://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnews...enter-anshoo-sethi-massive-fraud-alleged.aspx

To be fair, this is an example of the SEC doing something - but it was WAY too late.


----------



## thetrailboss (Nov 3, 2015)

HowieT2 said:


> That's where we disagree.  I dont think there is any reason for the federal govt. to insure anything to the foreign investors other than theyre getting their visa.  In fact, the law specifically requires that in order to qualify for an eb5 visa, the investment must be "at risk".  If the govt. was to insure this program, then the capital would be available from Banks and other private sources of capital.  The whole purpose of the program is to leverage the visas to entice foreign capital to invest in projects that are too risky for traditional sources of capital.



Hold on a second--I don't think you understand what folks are saying about oversight of the EB-5 program.  Nobody is saying that the government should "insure" or even "ensure" that investments will be successful.  And the term "at risk" investment simply means that the project may or may not succeed--not that your funds can be used inappropriately by the project managers.  

The issue with the oversight is, as VTK said, that there are some who have used it as simply free money to do whatever the hell they want instead of actually creating the project and the jobs.  There is a pretty big scam in Chicago where this happened.  Similarly, there is a risk that companies will use this to cover losses or other unrelated expenses.  The intent is to spur economic development and create new jobs.  

Closer to home, Vermont has been called on the carpet because it WAS marketing to investors that Vermont's EB-5 program was a great investment because the State oversaw projects for compliance.  The problem was as we learned last year that they were not really doing any oversight.  

So sure, I guess we can go back to the pre-Great Depression era where scam artists and Ponzi schemes were left and right but our economic system needs some oversight to ensure that things are legit.


----------



## dlague (Nov 3, 2015)

Here is a tiny point!  Not all EB-5 funded projects will be successful!  So in effect, investors get nothing back.  There are no guarantees except the green card.  Many investors are now expecting returns. Is that because they seem others potentially profiting from their investment?  Then lawsuits follow etc.  welcome to America where we will let you sue even if you should not have expected anything in return.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## thetrailboss (Nov 3, 2015)

Decided to show my Sugarbush love tonight...




Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## skiNEwhere (Nov 3, 2015)

I think the name of this forum should be changed to "EB-5skiareazone.com"


----------



## Jully (Nov 3, 2015)

HowieT2 said:


> No, I dont think we do.  Its called capitalism, some investments bear fruit, others dont.  some businesses succeed, others dont.  Banks loan money and sometimes they dont get paid back.
> The eb5 investors are taking on the risk in exchange for a visa which is apparently valuable to them.  From their perspective they need to do the due diligence into where they are putting their money.  If you had asked me 5 years ago, whether to participate in a 20M investment into sugarbush or 500m into Jay peak, I would have told you that the jay peak investment was a lot riskier than sugarbush.  Orders of magnitude more risky.



Its not really capitalism when you have the project heads just giving themselves enormous payouts when they have the company receiving the investment paying out money to a contractor owned by the same individual receiving the investment. Or even better buying land that you already own with the EB-5 money!


----------



## steamboat1 (Nov 3, 2015)

If anyone has used EB-5 money appropriately & seems to be paying back investors in a timely fashion it's Sugarbush. Isn't that what this thread is about?


----------



## cdskier (Nov 3, 2015)

steamboat1 said:


> If anyone has used EB-5 money appropriately & seems to be paying back investors in a timely fashion it's Sugarbush. Isn't that what this thread is about?



Well said...

While I'm not personally a fan of people being able to simply buy their way into this country, I do see value in the EB-5 program when it is used in moderation. If the information in the article is accurate, then I'd certainly say it was a positive program for SB. They didn't go crazy looking at EB-5 as free money where they could go nuts with grandiose plans that they'd never be able to repay. They kept things relatively modest and built what they needed and what seemed reasonable. Overall I'd say this definitely represents a win for both SB and the entire MRV area.


----------



## xlr8r (Nov 3, 2015)

steamboat1 said:


> If anyone has used EB-5 money appropriately & seems to be paying back investors in a timely fashion it's Sugarbush. Isn't that what this thread is about?



Spot on, I think Sugarbush is the prime example of how EB-5 should be used, where Jay Peak uses it all wrong.  Sugarbush used EB-5 money only because they lacked the money to fully fund something that the ski area desperately needed to stay afloat, new lodging and new base lodge.  They only asked for 20 million and at that it was only a fraction of the total cost of the project.  And they seems to have kept their investors happy with some repayment.  This is what EB-5 is perfect for, help out financing projects that are almost there but just need a bit more funding to get over the goal line.  Sugarbush has done projects since, but since these projects are smaller in scale, and the mountain is in better health they no longer use EB-5.

Jay Peak on the other hand uses EB-5 as the primary funding for projects and only a small fraction of their projects are funded from non EB-5 sources.  Also Jay Peak uses EB-5 money to pay for things it really doesn't need.  It is reasonable to say IMO that Jay Peak needed a new hotel, and an updated or new base lodge.  But did they really need 3 new hotels, an ice skating rink, and a huge indoor waterpark.  It is clear to me Jay has moved on from using EB-5 money for needs onto luxuries.  And in total Jay has used what 10, 20 times the amount of EB-5 money as Sugarbush, and has yet to pay back a single investor.  And it seems there is no end to their ponzi scheme as they keep coming up with new things to build that they do not need at all like the proposed movie theatre.


----------



## steamboat1 (Nov 3, 2015)

Newpylong said:


> I lived in Waitsfield pre and post sale to Otten.
> 
> 1 HSQ when everyone else was installing them wasn't going to cut it. It doesn't matter how old they were. Also, don't undersell the snowmaking upgrades, capacity was increased by 300% and they didn't have adequate water before that.



How many high speed detachable chairlifts did Stratton have when Claneil sold? I'll save you the time, zero. American Express six pack wasn't installed until 1995.

I think I said what south was lacking was snowmaking. So your point is what?


----------



## steamboat1 (Nov 3, 2015)

xlr8r said:


> Jay Peak on the other hand uses EB-5 as the primary funding for projects and only a small fraction of their projects are funded from non EB-5 sources.  Also Jay Peak uses EB-5 money to pay for things it really doesn't need.  It is reasonable to say IMO that Jay Peak needed a new hotel, and an updated or new base lodge.  But did they really need 3 new hotels, an ice skating rink, and a huge indoor waterpark.  It is clear to me Jay has moved on from using EB-5 money for needs onto luxuries.  And in total Jay has used what 10, 20 times the amount of EB-5 money as Sugarbush, and has yet to pay back a single investor.  And it seems there is no end to their ponzi scheme as they keep coming up with new things to build that they do not need at all like the proposed movie theatre.



Personally I think Jay/Burke is using EB-5 money for more than just improvements to the resorts. I think part of it is being used just to coat the pockets of Mr. Stengler(?) & Mr. Q. Just speculation on my part but they don't seem to have any receipts for the money spent. We'll see what the SEC finds.


----------



## thetrailboss (Nov 3, 2015)

steamboat1 said:


> Personally I think Jay/Burke is using EB-5 money for more than just improvements to the resorts. I think part of it is being used just to coat the pockets of Mr. Stengler(?) & Mr. Q. Just speculation on my part but they don't seem to have any receipts for the money spent. We'll see what the SEC finds.



Uh oh....

http://vtdigger.org/2015/11/03/q-burke-contractor-threatens-to-walk-off-job-blames-state/


----------



## xlr8r (Nov 3, 2015)

steamboat1 said:


> Personally I think Jay/Burke is using EB-5 money for more than just improvements to the resorts. I think part of it is being used just to coat the pockets of Mr. Stengler(?) & Mr. Q. Just speculation on my part but they don't seem to have any receipts for the money spent. We'll see what the SEC finds.


 I don't disagree at all.  I cannot trust a word that come from Stenger or the Qs these days IMO


----------



## steamboat1 (Nov 3, 2015)

xlr8r said:


> I don't disagree at all.  I cannot trust a word that come from Stenger or the Qs these days IMO



They'd make perfect presidential candidates.:grin:


----------



## HowieT2 (Nov 3, 2015)

thetrailboss said:


> Hold on a second--I don't think you understand what folks are saying about oversight of the EB-5 program.  Nobody is saying that the government should "insure" or even "ensure" that investments will be successful.  And the term "at risk" investment simply means that the project may or may not succeed--not that your funds can be used inappropriately by the project managers.
> 
> The issue with the oversight is, as VTK said, that there are some who have used it as simply free money to do whatever the hell they want instead of actually creating the project and the jobs.  There is a pretty big scam in Chicago where this happened.  Similarly, there is a risk that companies will use this to cover losses or other unrelated expenses.  The intent is to spur economic development and create new jobs.
> 
> ...



I understand.  I believe however that the only thing the govt. need be demanding and insuring compliance with, are the obligations of the recipients of the eb5 money to actually develop the projects and provide the jobs required.  That would necessarily address those scams.


----------



## HowieT2 (Nov 3, 2015)

dlague said:


> Here is a tiny point!  Not all EB-5 funded projects will be successful!  So in effect, investors get nothing back.  There are no guarantees except the green card.  Many investors are now expecting returns. Is that because they seem others potentially profiting from their investment?  Then lawsuits follow etc.  welcome to America where we will let you sue even if you should not have expected anything in return.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone



well, yeah, we have a judicial system to adjudicate business disputes.  It happens to be quite effective, so much so, that global capital it attracted to do business here.  It's also guaranteed in the constitution.


----------



## HowieT2 (Nov 3, 2015)

xlr8r said:


> Spot on, I think Sugarbush is the prime example of how EB-5 should be used, where Jay Peak uses it all wrong.  Sugarbush used EB-5 money only because they lacked the money to fully fund something that the ski area desperately needed to stay afloat, new lodging and new base lodge.  They only asked for 20 million and at that it was only a fraction of the total cost of the project.  And they seems to have kept their investors happy with some repayment.  This is what EB-5 is perfect for, help out financing projects that are almost there but just need a bit more funding to get over the goal line.  Sugarbush has done projects since, but since these projects are smaller in scale, and the mountain is in better health they no longer use EB-5.
> 
> Jay Peak on the other hand uses EB-5 as the primary funding for projects and only a small fraction of their projects are funded from non EB-5 sources.  Also Jay Peak uses EB-5 money to pay for things it really doesn't need.  It is reasonable to say IMO that Jay Peak needed a new hotel, and an updated or new base lodge.  But did they really need 3 new hotels, an ice skating rink, and a huge indoor waterpark.  It is clear to me Jay has moved on from using EB-5 money for needs onto luxuries.  And in total Jay has used what 10, 20 times the amount of EB-5 money as Sugarbush, and has yet to pay back a single investor.  And it seems there is no end to their ponzi scheme as they keep coming up with new things to build that they do not need at all like the proposed movie theatre.



Well, the market will decide whether those things were luxuries or are a necessary to satisfy demand.  If it's the former, there will need to be a restructuring and the eb5 investors will lose out.  If it's the latter, they'll get their money back.

im fairly confident sugarbush is in a good place right now.


----------



## xlr8r (Nov 4, 2015)

Howie,

I don't see any way how everything Jay has built can be considered a need.  They just come up with things to build there now just to get free money.  No ski are needs a movie theatre.  Would a theatre be nice, yes, but it isn't needed, it just a luxury item for the resort.


----------



## deadheadskier (Nov 4, 2015)

I'm not sure defining a "need" is so cut and dry.  What Jay has done with all of these luxuries is that they've created insurance against bad weather such that guests keep coming back even if they don't experience the great snow Jay is famous for.  The water park, hockey rink and movie theater all help fill rooms just like the skiing product; in some ways more so as they're available 12 months out of the year.  It's the lodging and year jobs it creates that satisfies EB-5 requirements; not base lodges and other skiing specific niceties.  Jay's just been loosey goosey with their reported jobs creation numbers.  They really haven't invested in the skiing product much during all this time.  That's where they'd get in the most trouble.   One chair, a carpet lift and a bit of snowmaking.   No new Bonnie, no West Bowl, none of the sexy stuff a skier only is looking for. 

Maybe they've also committed fraud and pocketed some investor money as some suggest.  We'll find out.  

I don't think one can categorically state that what Sugarbush did was okay, and what Jay did wasn't......yet.  Different scales and a lot different needs because of location, customer base and history of what existed before program participation.   Jury is still out.  Both mountains are clearly more competitive and much larger economic engines in the their communities than what they were.  Hard for me to not view that as a positive for both of them.


----------



## dlague (Nov 4, 2015)

Jay needed to build out.  There is nothing around there apres ski.  Even Newport which is a ways away does not have much.  Jay Peak has been sold over and over again as many ski areas have until more investments were made.  Many do not agree how it was built out and many locals argue that the jobs created are junk.  However, talk to those working there and you will see that many are not locals but moved there for the job.  Why is that job ok for them but considered crap by locals?  I always wondered.  Jay Peak has been trying to build a village and it is working.  Likewise many locals do more at Jay Peak than ever before - that was and is need.  Otherwise the option is to fail.  Who knows how the investors will get treated and what effect that will have on Jay.  As for Sugarbush,  they went for smaller dollars and it seems to have paid off.  However,  there is not a whole lot to do at sugarbush apres ski.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## VTKilarney (Nov 4, 2015)

*VT Digger Reports on EB-5 &quot;Saving&quot; Sugarbush*

From what I've seen at Jay, locals have the low paying jobs and people from outside of Orleans county have the bulk of the higher paying jobs.  I'm not faulting their hiring decisions, but it just is what it is.


----------



## Newpylong (Nov 4, 2015)

steamboat1 said:


> How many high speed detachable chairlifts did Stratton have when Claneil sold? I'll save you the time, zero. American Express six pack wasn't installed until 1995.
> 
> I think I said what south was lacking was snowmaking. So your point is what?



You just made my point for me - Sugarbush was not in a position to gain market share back due to lack of flashy lifts and snowmaking. This was a time when places were investing bigtime - Stratton with the 6 pack, Killington did Skyeship the year before, Ram's Head and Needles the year after, etc. Mount Snow did both of their quads the year after, etc.


----------



## HowieT2 (Nov 4, 2015)

xlr8r said:


> Howie,
> 
> I don't see any way how everything Jay has built can be considered a need.  They just come up with things to build there now just to get free money.  No ski are needs a movie theatre.  Would a theatre be nice, yes, but it isn't needed, it just a luxury item for the resort.



I dont disagree.  My personal opinion is that its crazy what theyre doing up there.  but maybe they'll fill the place up, make money and be able to pay back the eb5 investors.  Who knows.


----------



## VTKilarney (Nov 4, 2015)

HowieT2 said:


> I dont disagree.  My personal opinion is that its crazy what theyre doing up there.  but maybe they'll fill the place up, make money and be able to pay back the eb5 investors.  Who knows.


My anecdotal observation is that summer crowds are WAY below what they need to be in order for the resort to turn a profit during the summer months.


----------



## cdskier (Nov 4, 2015)

dlague said:


> However,  there is not a whole lot to do at sugarbush apres ski.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone



I must be in the minority that thinks a few good bars, restaurants and stores is all you need.


----------



## deadheadskier (Nov 4, 2015)

Works for me.  Sugarloaf has even less Apres spots and I always have a blast there.  I've had plenty of Apres fun in the MRV


----------



## thetrailboss (Nov 4, 2015)

HowieT2 said:


> I understand.  I believe however that the only thing the govt. need be demanding and insuring compliance with, are the obligations of the recipients of the eb5 money to actually develop the projects and provide the jobs required.  That would necessarily address those scams.



Good to see that we agree.


----------



## HowieT2 (Nov 4, 2015)

cdskier said:


> I must be in the minority that thinks a few good bars, restaurants and stores is all you need.



I'm with you.  although I do think updating the "Skatium" would be a good thing.  looks like a prison now.  Saw renderings last summer of a renovation but i dont know what the status is.


----------



## HowieT2 (Nov 4, 2015)

thetrailboss said:


> Good to see that we agree.



for sure, but can we have a ski off nonetheless?


----------



## HowieT2 (Nov 4, 2015)

deadheadskier said:


> Works for me.  Sugarloaf has even less Apres spots and I always have a blast there.  I've had plenty of Apres fun in the MRV



I think, and I might be totally off about this, that the "nightlife" is more a product of the crowd at the mtn, than the actual physical infrastructure.  I'm not sure that killington has that much more in terms of cool bars than say sugarbush, but it has a lot more 20-30 somethings coming up from NYC metro to party.  whereas SB gets more families and the singles from burlington go back there after skiing.


----------



## deadheadskier (Nov 4, 2015)

Also depends on locals.  You need a thriving younger ski bum scene.  Stowe used to have that, but the area isn't drawing the same fresh out of college crowd happy to live in a crappy apartment with five roommates for many years.  It used to be that way in the 90s, then it got too expensive.


----------



## steamboat1 (Nov 4, 2015)

cdskier said:


> I must be in the minority that thinks a few good bars, restaurants and stores is all you need.



You & me both. Don't really go out much after skiing anymore. My Wobbly Barn/Pickle Barrel days ended a long time ago. Mostly either cook in or pick up take out before heading back to the lodge to hunker down for the evening.


----------



## thetrailboss (Nov 4, 2015)

HowieT2 said:


> for sure, but can we have a ski off nonetheless?



:lol:  Yes, I think we need an official EB-5 ski off!


----------



## Tin (Nov 4, 2015)

steamboat1 said:


> My Wobbly Barn/Pickle Barrel days ended a long time ago.



Mine ended an hour in. Most overpriced crap ever. Do people not know what good drinks or food taste like? If they were good I could justify, but Applebees serves better tasting stuff.


----------



## steamboat1 (Nov 4, 2015)

Tin said:


> but Applebees serves better tasting stuff.



The absolute worst meal I ever had in my life was in the Applebees in Rutland.


----------



## dlague (Nov 4, 2015)

steamboat1 said:


> You & me both. Don't really go out much after skiing anymore. My Wobbly Barn/Pickle Barrel days ended a long time ago. Mostly either cook in or pick up take out before heading back to the lodge to hunker down for the evening.



My wife and I went to the Village at Sugarbush and there was one bar with one pool table that was dark and cool to hang at but other than that nada.


----------



## cdskier (Nov 4, 2015)

dlague said:


> My wife and I went to the Village at Sugarbush and there was one bar with one pool table that was dark and cool to hang at but other than that nada.



Castlerock sometimes has bands at night. Away from the base area there's Localfolk (often has music), Hyde Away, Mad River Barn, and Slidebrook Tavern (sometimes has music) for bars. Mad River Barn has quite a few games in the upstairs room if that's what you're looking for.


----------



## thetrailboss (Nov 4, 2015)

cdskier said:


> Castlerock sometimes has bands at night. Away from the base area there's Localfolk (often has music), Hyde Away, Mad River Barn, and Slidebrook Tavern (sometimes has music) for bars. Mad River Barn has quite a few games in the upstairs room if that's what you're looking for.



I think the point is that in the MRV there are night options, but not as many as other areas and you do have to look for them.  When I skied SB I was often too damn tired after skiing to go out at night....


----------



## cdskier (Nov 4, 2015)

thetrailboss said:


> I think the point is that in the MRV there are night options, but not as many as other areas and you do have to look for them.  When I skied SB I was often too damn tired after skiing to go out at night....



I guess it depends what you're looking for. One of the things (other than Sugarbush itself) that originally drew me to the valley was that it wasn't commercialized like Killington for example. There's plenty of options and I never really thought you had to look too much for them in the MRV. I stuck with just mentioning some of the more popular "bar" places. There's plenty of other great restaurants too that are more laid back (Peasant is a great example for an awesome meal at reasonable prices with a well thought out wine selection in a relaxed environment). For me that's all I need after a good day of skiing if I decide to go out somewhere instead of staying in and cooking. I'm not looking for a club to party at all night. I want to get up bright and early in the morning to get back out on the slopes. 

And for the record, I was in my early 20s when I first discovered SB. That might put me in a bit of a unique group as many people my age generally do prefer more of an active night life I think.


----------



## steamboat1 (Nov 4, 2015)

Since the Blue Tooth closed there's nothing much to my knowledge. Maybe the Smoke House at 17 & 100.


----------



## thetrailboss (Nov 4, 2015)

cdskier said:


> I guess it depends what you're looking for. One of the things (other than Sugarbush itself) that originally drew me to the valley was that it wasn't commercialized like Killington for example. There's plenty of options and I never really thought you had to look too much for them in the MRV. I stuck with just mentioning some of the more popular "bar" places. There's plenty of other great restaurants too that are more laid back (Peasant is a great example for an awesome meal at reasonable prices with a well thought out wine selection in a relaxed environment). For me that's all I need after a good day of skiing if I decide to go out somewhere instead of staying in and cooking. I'm not looking for a club to party at all night. I want to get up bright and early in the morning to get back out on the slopes.
> 
> And for the record, I was in my early 20s when I first discovered SB. That might put me in a bit of a unique group as many people my age generally do prefer more of an active night life I think.



Exactly. I figured that the OP was comparing it to Killington. 


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## cdskier (Nov 5, 2015)

thetrailboss said:


> Exactly. I figured that the OP was comparing it to Killington.



I interpreted the one post that I originally replied to as not necessarily a comparison to K but more just a general statement that there's not much going on in the MRV. That's the myth I was trying to dispel. I think some people think everyone in the MRV goes to sleep at 7PM. Certainly not the case! :beer:


----------



## deadheadskier (Nov 5, 2015)

That's how I interpreted it as well.  It's obviously not Killington or Stowe, but the Apres there is better than many destinations.  I'll take MRV for Apres over Smuggs, Jay or Burke as examples


----------



## DoublePlanker (Nov 5, 2015)

I've had some awesome times at the Hyde Away.  It used to be a great place.  It probably still is.

The Killington ski house scene is crazy.  The "B" house has some great parties.  A lot of older people who can still party hard.


----------

