# Cannon Mountain...thoughts



## hrstrat57 (Apr 28, 2011)

State needs cash and it is a easy source of revenue......

Can the $60+ lift ticket be coming to Cannon Mountain?

http://www.unionleader.com/article....rticleId=2ab1da05-4bd1-4202-97b5-916d2320f488

Your thoughts, esp those of NH residents?


----------



## deadheadskier (Apr 28, 2011)

I'm not sure I understand the lift ticket comment.  Cannon's walk up rate was $67 this season.


----------



## drjeff (Apr 28, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> I'm not sure I understand the lift ticket comment.  Cannon's walk up rate was $67 this season.



Come on now DHS, you actually expect a reporter these days to do his/her due dilligence and fully fact check the story their working on  :lol:


----------



## hammer (Apr 28, 2011)

drjeff said:


> Come on now DHS, you actually expect a reporter these days to do his/her due dilligence and fully fact check the story their working on  :lol:


Seems like journalists get a lot of credibility on topics that they know little to nothing about just because they publish stories on those topics.

When I was in the military I used to get a chuckle about the articles that I'd see involving Hanscom AFB.  One basic fact that I remember being overlooked was that the base hasn't had a flying mission for decades.

Going back on topic, since I've only been to Cannon once...no comment.


----------



## St. Bear (Apr 28, 2011)

hammer said:


> Seems like journalists get a lot of credibility on topics that they know little to nothing about just because they publish stories on those topics.



Nowhere in the article did the author mention $60 tickets.  It was about the proposed bill to lease Cannon to a private company, like the state already does with Sunapee.


----------



## hammer (Apr 28, 2011)

St. Bear said:


> Nowhere in the article did the author mention $60 tickets.  It was about the proposed bill to lease Cannon to a private company, like the state already does with Sunapee.


Fair enough...but I stand by my original comment.


----------



## thetrailboss (Apr 28, 2011)

I think it is unlikely that Cannon will be leased. There is an influential group of folks who don't want to see that happen.


----------



## snowmonster (Apr 28, 2011)

^ Please tell us more. Inquiring minds want to know.=)


----------



## thetrailboss (Apr 28, 2011)

snowmonster said:


> ^ Please tell us more. Inquiring minds want to know.=)


 
Don't want to get political....but Gov. Lynch has said no. Plus IIRC *this guy*, who is on the Executive Council, which is a quirk in NH's political structure, is against it as well and he and the Council have say as to what the state does...more so than the legislature in some ways.  Burton and his supporters are against leasing Cannon. FWIW Burton has been on the Council for 34 years now so he has some clout.


----------



## Puck it (Apr 28, 2011)

I think he is also the one and along with Lynch that is not allowing the Sunapee expansion.  It never makes it out of the executive council.


----------



## threecy (Apr 28, 2011)

thetrailboss said:


> Don't want to get political....but Gov. Lynch has said no.



Gov. Lynch has limited power in the current New Hampshire government.  The House, Senate, and Executive Council are all of the opposing party and, in non-gobenatorial matters, can control much of what happens in state government for the next year plus.

The state is in dire straits; everything is on the table.


----------



## Cannonball (Apr 28, 2011)

hrstrat57 said:


> Can the $60+ lift ticket be coming to Cannon Mountain?



Someone fell asleep in the hot tub time machine.


----------



## AdironRider (Apr 28, 2011)

As a former NH resident and former multi-year passholder at Cannon Im pretty torn about the private lease issue. 

From an economics standpoint it seems like a no brainer. Lease it out, take the revenue and reduced operating costs, have the private sector pay for the lifts, snowmaking etc. 

From a personal standpoint I enjoy Cannon for what it is. A low key, local vibe, kinda place that has always delivered. 

That being said, going private would probably do worlds for Cannon in terms of the on snow experience, at least in form of more snowmaking, etc. 

Id bet those sweet NH resident discounts would dissappear though. Bummer.


----------



## Cannonball (Apr 28, 2011)

AdironRider said:


> As a former NH resident and former multi-year passholder at Cannon Im pretty torn about the private lease issue.
> 
> From an economics standpoint it seems like a no brainer. Lease it out, take the revenue and reduced operating costs, have the private sector pay for the lifts, snowmaking etc.
> 
> ...



I'd generally agree with you.  But I disagree with this part: "That being said, going private would probably do worlds for Cannon in terms of the on snow experience, at least in form of more snowmaking, etc"  Not long ago that was very true.  However, over the last few years the newer Cannon management has stepped it up to the point that it IS being run as well as a private operation would do.  The snowmaking, lift ops, food services, lessons, etc have come up to a level that is way above what it used to be and is quite comparable with other similar mountains.  (Some of this is to the chagrin of those who liked it the old way).  By being successful in these areas they've taken away that part of the argument in the public-private debate.


----------



## Puck it (Apr 28, 2011)

Cannonball said:


> I'd generally agree with you. But I disagree with this part: "That being said, going private would probably do worlds for Cannon in terms of the on snow experience, at least in form of more snowmaking, etc" Bot long ago that very true. However, over the last few years the newer Cannon management has stepped it up to the point that it IS being run as well as a private operation would do. The snowmaking, lift ops, food services, lessons, etc have come up to a level that is way above what it used to be and is quite comparable with other similar mountains. (Some of this is to the chagrin of those who liked it the old way). By being successful in these areas they've taken away that part of the argument in the public-private debate.


 
Totally agre with you. They need a little infrastructure invested in guns though. The water pumping was a problem this year and the gun technology needs to be brought into the 21st century.


----------



## SIKSKIER (Apr 28, 2011)

*No way for me*

Agree totally with Cannonball and Puck it here.As a 35+ year passholder I have very strong and biased opinions on leasing.A huge*NO* from me,mostly for selfish reasons.I would hate to see Cannon turned into the way most resorts are now.It has been a very unique place.Having said that,the reason it is making money now besides the obvious good snow fortune,is because it has changed to become more like most ski area by upgrading the infrastructure.Its a love/hate idea for most of us regulars and locals.We like the newer lifts and snowmaking but dread the increase in skiers.You can't have it both ways but we sure want to.They are making a good profit right now so I don'y really see the point.


----------



## St. Bear (Apr 28, 2011)

From what I hear, there's also a proposal to put some condos in.


----------



## St. Bear (Apr 28, 2011)

SIKSKIER said:


> They are making a good profit right now so I don'y really see the point.



Also, the Lynch quote about Cannon being profitable may have been a bit of a stretch on his part to support his cause.


----------



## riverc0il (Apr 28, 2011)

Cannonball said:


> I'd generally agree with you.  But I disagree with this part: "That being said, going private would probably do worlds for Cannon in terms of the on snow experience, at least in form of more snowmaking, etc"  Not long ago that was very true.  However, over the last few years the newer Cannon management has stepped it up to the point that it IS being run as well as a private operation would do.  The snowmaking, lift ops, food services, lessons, etc have come up to a level that is way above what it used to be and is quite comparable with other similar mountains.  (Some of this is to the chagrin of those who liked it the old way).  By being successful in these areas they've taken away that part of the argument in the public-private debate.


This! Snow making and grooming have really been stepped up. JD brought his SR experience with him and it shows.... that said.... if one of the reasons to lease Cannon is to make it operate better and it already is being run "more like a resort", it begs the question: should Cannon be leased since it already is run like a big private resort? Is there anything left to take away from the mountain if it was leased.

I have always been 100% against leasing. But the issue tears at me. Cannon is no longer a value. Its day tickets are on par with many other resorts such as Jay (I think Cannon has a more expensive season pass than Jay, out of state). Mittersill has already been sacked and actually needs snowmaking now that a lift is running. It is not like they can widen the trails further, with a few exceptions, Cannon's trails are already pretty wide for its topography. And operations more and more is run more resort like. Could we get an early opening and later closing with a lease? Cheaper tickets maybe? More deals? Snowmaking on Barron's, Liftline, and Skylight on Mittersill without any additional cutting as a clause? 

I really don't know any more. I am not for a lease but I am definitely coming back away from 100% against.

Regardless of how I feel, I think it is inevitable. If not under the current governor than eventually. There are too many other funding issues getting axed for this not to keep coming up.


----------



## riverc0il (Apr 28, 2011)

SIKSKIER said:


> I would hate to see Cannon turned into the way most resorts are now.


Let's explore this. What would _really_ change at Cannon under a lease (that hasn't changed already)? And there are a lot of private resorts that are very pro freedom and heritage of skiers (Jay, Bush, Smuggs, etc), even more so than Cannon. The Meullers scare me, though. But on the flip side, Okemo has a few established bump runs. I mean, hell, Cannon friggin grooms Paulie's now!


----------



## bigbob (Apr 28, 2011)

Plus this councillor may have part ownership of Waterville Valley:  http://www.nh.gov/council/district3/index.html


----------



## AdironRider (Apr 28, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> Let's explore this. What would _really_ change at Cannon under a lease (that hasn't changed already)? And there are a lot of private resorts that are very pro freedom and heritage of skiers (Jay, Bush, Smuggs, etc), even more so than Cannon. The Meullers scare me, though. But on the flip side, Okemo has a few established bump runs. I mean, hell, Cannon friggin grooms Paulie's now!



While I havent been a passholder for 4 years now at Cannon, I have a tough time believing that Cannon is offering a similar product to the Okemo, Snow, Sunapees etc. 

Now a similar offering to Jay or the Bush now? I can see the comparisons to Jay, but the Bush seemed to be more of the destination type place the last couple times I was there with the condos etc theyve built at the base. Jay seems to be going this route as well. 

On snow product? Maybe Cannon is there already, but I have a tough time believing they are giving the larger private resorts in NE a run for their money either in this regard. 

If it went private I see a large investment in a complete overhaul of the snowmaking system. They have it pretty good with allllll that water right at the base, but I seem to recall the pipe/guns/etc being pretty old and dated when I was a passholder, and havent seen or heard much in the way of upgrades there. 

Cannon, under private ownership, could be the gem of the Northeast in terms of pure skiing product with a commitment to snowmaking like some of the big dogs.


----------



## threecy (Apr 28, 2011)

AdironRider said:


> Cannon, under private ownership, could be the gem of the Northeast in terms of pure skiing product with a commitment to snowmaking like some of the big dogs.



Just to be clear, the proposal would be for Cannon to be privately operated, not privately owned.


----------



## Puck it (Apr 28, 2011)

Why would they right now with it turning a profit? They could get a higher lease price, but Lynch will never do this.  Look what he isndoing do the Mueller's at Sunapee.


----------



## tjf67 (Apr 28, 2011)

threecy said:


> Just to be clear, the proposal would be for Cannon to be privately operated, not privately owned.



Hey, how r those cuts you made skiing?  Its that time of the year.  Did they blow out yet?  The dacks are going down faster than a whore at a Navy port.


----------



## riverc0il (Apr 28, 2011)

AdironRider said:


> While I havent been a passholder for 4 years now at Cannon, I have a tough time believing that Cannon is offering a similar product to the Okemo, Snow, Sunapees etc.
> 
> Now a similar offering to Jay or the Bush now? I can see the comparisons to Jay, but the Bush seemed to be more of the destination type place the last couple times I was there with the condos etc theyve built at the base. Jay seems to be going this route as well.


I never made any such comparisons regarding the product. My comparisons to Jay, Bush, etc. were in regards to the spirit of the operations. Not many other places in the country offer the type of snow making and grooming of the Meullers and Mount Snow. I'd still compare Cannon a superior mountain to them all but their improvements in snow making and grooming are not in the same league as the big players in the man made categories.


----------



## threecy (Apr 28, 2011)

Puck it said:


> Why would they right now with it turning a profit?


If you look at the past half century of media coverage, it's a similar model - in the good snow years, Cannon is a 'moneymaker'...when fickle New England winters return, it quickly builds up losses.  It's not nearly as hard to show a 'profit' at a ski area that doesn't have private sector debt or real estate taxes.




Puck it said:


> They could get a higher lease price, but Lynch will never do this.  Look what he isndoing do the Mueller's at Sunapee.


Lynch has never had as little power as he will have from 2011 to 2013.



tjf67 said:


> Hey, how r those cuts you made skiing?  Its that time of the year.  Did they blow out yet?  The dacks are going down faster than a whore at a Navy port.


?


----------



## hrstrat57 (Apr 28, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> I'm not sure I understand the lift ticket comment.  Cannon's walk up rate was $67 this season.



Ooops quick post meant to type $80+:dunce:

.


----------



## AdironRider (Apr 28, 2011)

threecy said:


> Just to be clear, the proposal would be for Cannon to be privately operated, not privately owned.



Yeah just mistyped ... whatever. When a decades long lease is in question, there really isnt much difference.


----------



## UVSHTSTRM (Apr 28, 2011)

SIKSKIER said:


> would hate to see Cannon turned into the way most resorts are now..



What way is that?  It's got lifts, lodges, a tram, wide trails, groomed to death, the interstate (which most don't have)?   Trying to figure out what you mean, maybe you mean culture?  of course you can go to Stowe, Sugarbush, Sugarloaf, Saddleback, Jay, Whiteface, Killington, etc and find a through and through skiing/local culture.


----------



## thetrailboss (Apr 28, 2011)

I saw this on a truck at Bretton Woods a couple weeks ago...kind of weird seeing he was at Bretton Woods:


----------



## riverc0il (Apr 28, 2011)

Ummmm... Whiskey Tango Foxtrot???


----------



## Johnskiismore (Apr 29, 2011)

thetrailboss said:


> I saw this on a truck at Bretton Woods a couple weeks ago...kind of weird seeing he was at Bretton Woods:



That is friggin great!


----------



## ski_resort_observer (Apr 29, 2011)

Puck it said:


> I think he is also the one and along with Lynch that is not allowing the Sunapee expansion.  It never makes it out of the executive council.



While Gov Lynch was against Sunapee's expansion it was the local community that was dead set against.the land swap so IMHO it was a good thing it didn't happen.


----------



## threecy (Apr 29, 2011)

ski_resort_observer said:


> While Gov Lynch was against Sunapee's expansion it was the local community that was dead set against.the land swap



Had family in the area whilst that was all going down...the local community was definitely *not* all against it.  Many welcomed the new jobs, tax revenue, and potential increases in property value.


----------



## St. Bear (Apr 29, 2011)

I think most of you are thinking too much like skiiers.

According to my contact in the Statehouse, Cannon is viewed as unprofitable, not modern, not a friendly ski destination for families, and a massive hole in the state park system.

They're not concerned with what the quality of ski will be like after they lease it out, or if there will be more snowmaking or groomed trails.


----------



## ski_resort_observer (Apr 29, 2011)

threecy said:


> Had family in the area whilst that was all going down...the local community was definitely *not* all against it.  Many welcomed the new jobs, tax revenue, and potential increases in property value.



Many didn't want the increased traffic and increased property taxes, which were already pretty high. The Town of Goshen voted down the expansion. My best friend who has been a builder in Newbury for 40 years was all for it but when I worked with him on his projects many people I talked to wanted it to stay the same size. Many locals felt that they had lost access when it went from your standard state park to a private lease. Building a bunch of condos will increase traffic but won't add very many jobs. 

Like most other resort developements, those who will benefit financially are for it, those that don't are against it. This time, the latter won out. 

If they voted to go for a private lease, I wonder if the Muellers will be interested. Personally, I don't see how someone could make any money unless you expand the real estate at the bottom of the Mitt and seemlessly connect the two ski hills. That's going to take a bunch of capital up front. Is nearby Loon or WV profitable? Is there some financial benefits to leasing from the state of NH vs normal private ownership?


----------



## thetrailboss (Apr 29, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> Ummmm... Whiskey Tango Foxtrot???


 
Yeah I know!  :lol:  I wanted to remind the guy that he was skiing at BRETTON WOODS!  :lol:


----------



## St. Bear (Apr 29, 2011)

ski_resort_observer said:


> Personally, I don't see how someone could make any money unless you expand the real estate at the bottom of the Mitt and seemlessly connect the two ski hills. That's going to take a bunch of capital up front.



There's a proposal in the State house to put in condos.


----------



## deadheadskier (Apr 29, 2011)

St. Bear said:


> I think most of you are thinking too much like skiiers.
> 
> According to my contact in the Statehouse, Cannon is viewed as unprofitable, not modern, not a friendly ski destination for families, and a massive hole in the state park system.
> 
> They're not concerned with what the quality of ski will be like after they lease it out, or if there will be more snowmaking or groomed trails.



I guess I'd like to see the true numbers over the past 5 years.  Your contact says Cannon is a money pit.  Sikskier says it's been profitable.  

I've always been emphatically against the lease as a 'skier'.  The deals at Cannon for state residents are far better than those at Sunapee.  

However, I guess I can't make a true informed opinion without seeing the balance sheets.


----------



## St. Bear (Apr 29, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> I guess I'd like to see the true numbers over the past 5 years.  Your contact says Cannon is a money pit.  Sikskier says it's been profitable.
> 
> I've always been emphatically against the lease as a 'skier'.  The deals at Cannon for state residents are far better than those at Sunapee.
> 
> However, I guess I can't make a true informed opinion without seeing the balance sheets.



It could be something as simple as timeframe, as riverc0il said.  Maybe it was profitable this year and last, but lost money previously that offsets that.


----------



## Puck it (Apr 29, 2011)

St. Bear said:


> It could be something as simple as timeframe, as riverc0il said. Maybe it was profitable this year and last, but lost money previously that offsets that.


 
If I remember right, it has been profitable for the last three if not four.  The last four years have been decent snow years though.


----------



## Cannonball (Apr 29, 2011)

St. Bear said:


> I think most of you are thinking too much like skiiers.



Isn't that the point?  This isn't the Alpine Zone Real Estate, Business Development, and State Finances Forum.


----------



## Puck it (Apr 29, 2011)

Cannonball said:


> Isn't that the point? This isn't the Alpine Zone Real Estate, Business Development, and State Finances Forum.


 

I would like to see how the Mittersill real estate prices have changed with the new lift running.


----------



## Angus (Apr 29, 2011)

what's coverage look like at the bottom thinking about hiking and skiing early sunday AM


----------



## thetrailboss (Apr 29, 2011)

I think that Cannon is rivaling Killington when it comes to the number of long passionate threads!  Yeah, nobody loves Cannon...let's get rid of it! :lol:


----------



## Puck it (Apr 29, 2011)

thetrailboss said:


> I think that Cannon is rivaling Killington when it comes to the number of long passionate threads! Yeah, nobody loves Cannon...let's get rid of it! :lol:


 

It sucks. Go to Loon. Better terrian. And closer.


----------



## SIKSKIER (Apr 29, 2011)

I just don't see how attractive Cannon would be to lease financially.In its few profitable years of late,a lot of that was a direct result of favorable weather along with better management.I believe Sunapee pays $600,000 to lease plus a % of sales?.Based on that,I would think Cannon would be in the neighborhood of 1 million.What potential return would remain after these significant increases in costs to the operater?There is zero potential for real estate.The only way I see the numbers making sense are with a large increase in skier visits.I guess ultimately that is why I am selfishly against leasing.


----------



## deadheadskier (Apr 29, 2011)

Without increasing the bed base at Cannon, I'm not sure what they could do to increase their skier visits much.  I wonder how many more people skied Cannon this year because of Mittersill.


----------



## Angus (Apr 29, 2011)

Along with the real estate issue, think of all the family centric ski areas you have to drive by on 93 before you even get to Cannon. Plus Cannon has that reputation for being a tough mountain to ski and by opening Mittersill they've done nothing to dis-spell that notion btw: weather can be touch and go in the notch for the average skier, I just think it would be a tough go for a private operator to expand visits significantly without massive advertising outlays. I agree the new management has done a tremendous job of improving the quality of snow, etc.


----------



## bobbutts (Apr 29, 2011)

Loon and Cannon are very close to each other, share many of the same lodging properties and at least from my unscientific skier counts when visiting both regularly, Loon has far more skiers/visitors (all paying more) vs Cannon.  

Better at Loon:
Lifts, grooming, snowmaking, parks, lodging, intermediate terrain, easier drive in bad weather, able to expand

Better at Cannon:
expert/natural terrain, natural snow, price, history/vibe, views

I guess the question to me is how can they grab some more of Loon's visits.


----------



## Cannonball (Apr 29, 2011)

bobbutts said:


> Loon and Cannon are very close to each other, share many of the same lodging properties and at least from my unscientific skier counts when visiting both regularly, Loon has far more skiers/visitors (all paying more) vs Cannon.
> 
> Better at Loon:
> Lifts, grooming, snowmaking, parks, lodging, intermediate terrain, easier drive in bad weather, able to expand
> ...



Over the holidays I had an interesting conversation with my cousin.  He and his family own a condo at Loon and go nowhere else.  I am, of course, true-blue Cannon.  We were having a candid conversation about the merits of each.  I said I didn't like the crowds at Loon...he said "but it's like a party everyone knows everyone, it's fun."  He said Cannon was too hard for beginners....I told him all about Tuckerbrook.  We went back and forth until he finally made the statement that summed it all up for me and made me realize why Cannon will never draw the typical Loon skier.  With a straight face he said "Yeah well, I guess if you like being outside and enjoying the trails and nature and all that stuff then Cannon might be a good place.  But that's not what we're looking for at Loon."

I'm not criticizing him, or anyone, for holding a view like that.  But it's such a disparity in terms of desires that I don't know how Cannon would try to tap that demographic.


----------



## thetrailboss (Apr 29, 2011)

Cannonball said:


> Over the holidays I had an interesting conversation with my cousin. He and his family own a condo at Loon and go nowhere else. I am, of course, true-blue Cannon. We were having a candid conversation about the merits of each. I said I didn't like the crowds at Loon...he said "but it's like a party everyone knows everyone, it's fun." He said Cannon was too hard for beginners....I told him all about Tuckerbrook. We went back and forth until he finally made the statement that summed it all up for me and made me realize why Cannon will never draw the typical Loon skier. With a straight face he said "Yeah well, I guess if you like being outside and enjoying the trails and nature and all that stuff then Cannon might be a good place. But that's not what we're looking for at Loon."
> 
> I'm not criticizing him, or anyone, for holding a view like that. But it's such a disparity in terms of desires that I don't know how Cannon would try to tap that demographic.


 
I don't think that Cannon will EVER be that kind of party mountain.  It is the State Park.  That said, many folks over the past few years seem to be craving the "real" experience that places like Cannon, Saddleback, and Burke still offer.


----------



## Puck it (Apr 29, 2011)

Cannonball said:


> Over the holidays I had an interesting conversation with my cousin. He and his family own a condo at Loon and go nowhere else. I am, of course, true-blue Cannon. We were having a candid conversation about the merits of each. I said I didn't like the crowds at Loon...he said "but it's like a party everyone knows everyone, it's fun." He said Cannon was too hard for beginners....I told him all about Tuckerbrook. We went back and forth until he finally made the statement that summed it all up for me and made me realize why Cannon will never draw the typical Loon skier. With a straight face he said "Yeah well, I guess if you like being outside and enjoying the trails and nature and all that stuff then Cannon might be a good place. But that's not what we're looking for at Loon."
> 
> I'm not criticizing him, or anyone, for holding a view like that. But it's such a disparity in terms of desires that I don't know how Cannon would try to tap that demographic.


 
Just like the "Loon"atic that was worried about getting core shots in his skis at Mittersill on Super Bowl Sunday.  My buddy and I both lifted a ski up and showed him 3 or 4 fresh core shots. We told him he should stay at Loon.


----------



## Angus (Apr 29, 2011)

I hadn't skied at Loon in 30+ years until earlier this month - the day before, I spent an outstanding day at Wildcat and then we - the family - decided to give Loon a shot b/c they'd never been and it would give us a jump start on the commute home. It ended up being a bad day to ski - it never warmed up enough even with brilliant sun to soften the trails up. Icy, too many people, groomed flat, didn't like trail layout, etc. Worse day in memory.

We were sitting down in the ski lodge eating lunch when this guy came in and plopped down at the table next to us and announced to his family, "This is the best day of skiing ever." My 14 year old looked up at me from across the table and in a dead pan, quiet voice said, "Must be skiing a different mountain than we are." Long story, but I realized - this guy and I were probably about the same age and similar demographic - he and I were looking for an entirely different recreating, entertainment experience.

btw: my son did go over to the new area- south peak - and said that was fun and I did enjoy the east basin lift terrain - essentially all I skied even though it was icy.


----------



## threecy (Apr 29, 2011)

SIKSKIER said:


> I just don't see how attractive Cannon would be to lease financially.In its few profitable years of late,a lot of that was a direct result of favorable weather along with better management.


Peak Resorts paid $5M to essentially lease Wildcat from the USFS with no real estate potential.



Angus said:


> what's coverage look like at the bottom thinking about hiking and skiing early sunday AM


On Sunday, the snow making trails were well covered top to bottom.  Profile was still a few feet deep, pretty much wall to wall.  Mittersill looked pretty bare.


----------



## riverc0il (Apr 29, 2011)

ski_resort_observer said:


> If they voted to go for a private lease, I wonder if the Muellers will be interested. Personally, I don't see how someone could make any money unless you expand the real estate at the bottom of the Mitt and seemlessly connect the two ski hills. That's going to take a bunch of capital up front. Is nearby Loon or WV profitable? Is there some financial benefits to leasing from the state of NH vs normal private ownership?


This is a good observation. Muellers are already feeling slapped with the Sunapee deal (or lack thereof). Personally, I am glad they got slapped. The whole thing seemed suspect to me. But would they be interested in taking on another NH state park with even more restrictions and even less chance of a real estate pot of gold at the end of the road? Doubtful. Any other potential leaser might look at what happened to the Muellers and be concerned.

Mittersill is the only private landing connecting to the ski area/state park. I don't know what the status of the hotel and resort is. Maybe sikskier can comment on how that setup works and if there is any possibility of a buy out. There are a lot of owners, I have a hard time believing anything other than the hotel proper could be flipped. Mittersill can't expand it's boundaries so there really isn't any other potential for anything near the slopes for real estate.


----------



## threecy (Apr 29, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> This is a good observation. Muellers are already feeling slapped with the Sunapee deal (or lack thereof). Personally, I am glad they got slapped. The whole thing seemed suspect to me. But would they be interested in taking on another NH state park with even more restrictions and even less chance of a real estate pot of gold at the end of the road?



I don't think the Muellers were given a fair chance at their plans.  New Hampshire's loss.

In regard to them taking on another operation, I think they showed their hand when they acquired Crested Butte (which I believe came to fruition when they were denied access to their privately held property at Sunapee).  They don't spend much time out here anymore relatively from what I've heard through the grapevine.


----------



## AdironRider (Apr 29, 2011)

For icing on the cake, the Muellers and Crested Butte got burned recently on their expansion plans as well in similar fashion to Sunapee. Wanted to expand their intermediate and green terrain but the Forest Service said no dice after a bunch of local opposition. I actually feel bad for them as I dont think either development was that bad.


----------



## ski_resort_observer (Apr 29, 2011)

Keep in mind that soon after Sunapee's expansion was off the table, the Muellers sold Okemo and the Butte to CNL, they are now the contracted operators. Like Boyne manages the Loaf and SR for CNL


----------



## deadheadskier (Apr 29, 2011)

threecy said:


> I don't think the Muellers were given a fair chance at their plans.  New Hampshire's loss.
> 
> In regard to them taking on another operation, I think they showed their hand when they acquired Crested Butte (which I believe came to fruition when they were denied access to their privately held property at Sunapee).  They don't spend much time out here anymore relatively from what I've heard through the grapevine.



Muellers bought the Butte in 2004.  I didn't think the condo project denial at Sunapee happened that long ago, but perhaps I'm wrong.

As for why they don't spend much time out here; their son Ethan works at Crested.  I know he was Director of Mountain Ops at one point.  Maybe he's now the GM.  We graduated the same year from UVM in the Recreation Management Program, which is the University's closest program to resembling Resort Management.  Class was 90% ski bums.  Lots of jealousy towards Ethan in the class as he clearly was going to have a great job someday. :lol:  

I agree with your thoughts that it's New Hampshire and the local economy around Sunapee's loss that the Muellers plan wasn't allowed to go through.  I grew up an Okemo skier. Skied 40 days or more a season there from 1984 through 1994. The big transformation years for the mountain and local community.  My folks had a home there from 88 through 2003 and still rent a place every summer as retirees.  Ludlow would be Londonderry VT and Okemo, Magic Mountain without what the Muellers did there.  Before I get lynched, I like the type of terrain and experience Magic offers more than Okemo.  But from an economic perspective, Okemo is a far better business for Ludlow's economy than Magic is for Londonderry's.  If what they were proposing went through at Sunapee, it would have the potential to increase the area from a 300K skier visit mountain to perhaps 400K.  I'd imagine most of the increased skier visits would be stolen from VT.  That would be a good thing for the NH economy.


----------



## MadPadraic (Apr 29, 2011)

ski_resort_observer said:


> That's going to take a bunch of capital up front. Is nearby Loon or WV profitable? Is there some financial benefits to leasing from the state of NH vs normal private ownership?



There is a 2007 report from Dartmouth's B-school that makes the following 2 claims:

* Loon has been profitable 38 out of the last 40 years (through 2007)
* Loon's real estate actually loses money but on hill operations make up for it.

(By the way, anyone who claims that ski resorts can only make money through condo sales should go read Vail's 10-K).

Boyne seems pretty with it, so I suspect that Loon's trend has continued.

As per Cannon: I love it the way it is. I love the Mittersill lift. I don't care that some people are more hardcore and did Mittersill before me.. I don't like the new bar as much as the old one, but I REALLY don't want it leased out.


----------



## MadPadraic (Apr 29, 2011)

bobbutts said:


> Loon and Cannon are very close to each other, share many of the same lodging properties and at least from my unscientific skier counts when visiting both regularly, Loon has far more skiers/visitors (all paying more) vs Cannon.
> 
> Better at Loon:
> Lifts, grooming, snowmaking, parks, lodging, intermediate terrain, easier drive in bad weather, able to expand
> ...



Better at Loon: on mountain food: wild game stew or that Jamaican place at the top.

Cannon has better (if fewer) intermediate runs. Name me a single better blue run at Loon than Upper Cannon? (Hint, you can't b/c upper cannon is the single most awesome blue run in existence ).  Also, Gary's is better than that whole blue ox pod at Loon.  This isn't to hate on Loon, but just to point out what intermediate stuff Cannon has is superb.

As for Loon, ripsaw or ripcord or ripwhatever doesn't get enough respect.


----------



## Cannonball (Apr 30, 2011)

MadPadraic said:


> (Hint, you can't b/c upper cannon is the single most awesome blue run in existence ).



Gospel.  although Ravine.....




MadPadraic said:


> Also, Gary's is better than that whole blue ox pod at Loon.  This isn't to hate on Loon, but just to point out what intermediate stuff Cannon has is superb.



Amen


----------



## threecy (Apr 30, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> Muellers bought the Butte in 2004.  I didn't think the condo project denial at Sunapee happened that long ago, but perhaps I'm wrong.



They had run into major roadblocks before then...they abandoned the East Bowl plans circa 2000 and were making the move west by late 2001 (their P&S on Steamboat was in January 2002).  While they had met opposition well before then, they ran into a brick wall in Concord after the 2004 election.


----------



## riverc0il (Apr 30, 2011)

MadPadraic said:


> Name me a single better blue run at Loon than Upper Cannon? (Hint, you can't b/c upper cannon is the single most awesome blue run in existence ).


All of them. Upper Cannon with man made snow, grooming, and a ton of traffic suuuuucks. Sorry, I am as old school as they come, but a good trail cut without good conditions does not make for a good trail. Upper Ravine handles the traffic better and thus skis much better despite being twice as wide and having half as many curves. Upper Cannon is one of the few trails at Cannon I honestly avoid unless I am skiing with someone that drags me down it.

Now... bring on the lynching from the rest of the Cannon faithful. :beer:


----------



## Cannonball (Apr 30, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> All of them. Upper Cannon with man made snow, grooming, and a ton of traffic suuuuucks. Sorry, I am as old school as they come, but a good trail cut without good conditions does not make for a good trail. Upper Ravine handles the traffic better and thus skis much better despite being twice as wide and having half as many curves. Upper Cannon is one of the few trails at Cannon I honestly avoid unless I am skiing with someone that drags me down it.
> 
> Now... bring on the lynching from the rest of the Cannon faithful. :beer:


----------



## ski_resort_observer (Apr 30, 2011)

MadPadraic said:


> There is a 2007 report from Dartmouth's B-school that makes the following 2 claims:
> 
> * Loon has been profitable 38 out of the last 40 years (through 2007)
> * Loon's real estate actually loses money but on hill operations make up for it.
> ...



Thanks for sharing but being profitable could be they made $10 tho being profitable is better than losing money. Is being profitable in Tuck's report you cite after all costs and expenses or just the EBIDTA, basically gross profit?. 2007 is just before the "big recession" hit, it's a diferent world now especially in regards to real estate. 

If you build 100 condos in 2005 and sell out by 2006, that rev is not showing up in 2009, it's history. I don't think you can make any ski industry-wide claims just by what Loon did or Vail Resorts. Remember Vail Resorts, the publically traded company(MTN) includes several ski resorts. The devil is in the details. I read this little gem recently. Big companies spend alot of time and effort to put a positive spin on things. 

Broomfield-based Vail Resorts says skier visits at its six resorts are up from last season.
"The owner of Vail and Beaver Creek resorts said Thursday that skier visits this winter were up 3.9 percent from last season, if the numbers are adjusted as if it had owned recently acquired Northstar-at-Tahoe resort last season as well as this season".

I think everyone knows that the real estate is flat, not much is selling. If your not getting strong rev from your mountain Opps your probably on pretty shaky ground right now. If you have condos built but not selling even worse. On the plus side having a good snow year definately helps and from what I see every region in the US got good snow this year. 

When it comes to real estate it's all about location, location. Alot of resorts are bumping up the summer/fall activities, not a new concept but I think the recession has put extra importance on developing this revenue source. Ziplines are popping up everywhere, more resorts are putting together summer camp programs.

I think Cannon and the rest of the White Mtn region has always been busy in the summer. All the resorts there work hard on getting people to come to their place. lots come for the shopping in NC. On a nice weekend the whole area is hopping with people.  I think an expanded Cannon can do well much to the chagrin of the hardcore folks who like it just the way it is.


----------



## MadPadraic (Apr 30, 2011)

ski_resort_observer said:


> Thanks for sharing but being profitable could be they made $10 tho being profitable is better than losing money. Is being profitable in Tuck's report you cite after all costs and expenses or just the EBIDTA, basically gross profit?. 2007 is just before the "big recession" hit, it's a diferent world now especially in regards to real estate.



The report didn't say, and I couldn't find anymore data, but 40 years is a large sample size. The question was whether or not Loon was profitable, and I did the best I could to answer it based on a simple google.



ski_resort_observer said:


> If you build 100 condos in 2005 and sell out by 2006, that rev is not showing up in 2009, it's history. I don't think you can make any ski industry-wide claims just by what Loon did or Vail Resorts. Remember Vail Resorts, the publically traded company(MTN) includes several ski resorts. The devil is in the details. I read this little gem recently. Big companies spend alot of time and effort to put a positive spin on things.
> 
> Broomfield-based Vail Resorts says skier visits at its six resorts are up from last season.
> "The owner of Vail and Beaver Creek resorts said Thursday that skier visits this winter were up 3.9 percent from last season, if the numbers are adjusted as if it had owned recently acquired Northstar-at-Tahoe resort last season as well as this season".
> ...



Here's my larger point. The ski resort industry has consistently claimed they only make money from real estate. IIIRC, Vail has also made this claim. However, even a cursory investigation into the few income statements that we have access to shows that this simply isn't true. The point here is related to Cannon (or any other non-condo mountain): people on this forum claim that Cannon can't ever be a huge roaring success without a real estate development. Available data doesn't support this. 

Now to take this in a different direction....Cannon is a treasure for New Hampshire's residents (and visitors). It provides access to big mountain skiing at a greatly reduced price to NH residents and state employees. It also provides a different experience than the other I-93 resorts.  In general it's existence should be to maximize fun for it's patrons rather than maximize profits. Note, I'm not saying that it should be intentionally run at a loss, but it shouldn't be run with the sole intent of maximizing state revenue.


----------



## MadPadraic (Apr 30, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> All of them. Upper Cannon with man made snow, grooming, and a ton of traffic suuuuucks. Sorry, I am as old school as they come, but a good trail cut without good conditions does not make for a good trail. Upper Ravine handles the traffic better and thus skis much better despite being twice as wide and having half as many curves. Upper Cannon is one of the few trails at Cannon I honestly avoid unless I am skiing with someone that drags me down it.
> 
> Now... bring on the lynching from the rest of the Cannon faithful. :beer:



I think you just made my point for me, but I'm not entirely sure....


----------



## riverc0il (Apr 30, 2011)

MadPadraic said:


> I think you just made my point for me, but I'm not entirely sure....


Huh? I suggested that every blue run at Loon was better than Upper Cannon and suggested it is one of the worst blues around and one that I have to be dragged down. Unless I missed some irony in your post about it being the best trail in existence???


----------



## MadPadraic (Apr 30, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> Huh? I suggested that every blue run at Loon was better than Upper Cannon and suggested it is one of the worst blues around and one that I have to be dragged down. Unless I missed some irony in your post about it being the best trail in existence???



You said "all of them" in what appeared to be a rhetorical manner. You then complained about grooming and snow making on Upper Cannon, but no one can seriously think that you meant to say that Loon avoids snow making and grooming, can they? Furthermore, you implied that the very things (other than slope) which make Upper Cannon a blue rather than black are not to your liking. This indicates that you don't appreciate blue trails. Hence, you supported my point.

By the way, I've never found UC to be very crowded, and I frequent the trail on weekends. I also contend that it holds snow very well b/c it is narrow enough that you get huge piles on the sides and in the turn banks.  I also suspect that you tolerate New England hard pack more than me, so we may experience a very different trial. (I rarely go if there isn't lots of fresh snow or spring conditions.)


----------



## AdironRider (Apr 30, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> Huh? I suggested that every blue run at Loon was better than Upper Cannon and suggested it is one of the worst blues around and one that I have to be dragged down. Unless I missed some irony in your post about it being the best trail in existence???




I think you went a little overboard with the Upper Cannon comment though as well. You ski the east, icy manmade, crowded slopes are the norm pretty much everywhere at some point during the year. 

Its a sweet trail, and when conditions are good I would argue its one of the best blues in the East no question.


----------



## riverc0il (Apr 30, 2011)

Your Question: Name me a single better blue run at Loon than Upper Cannon?
My Answer: All of them.

My point about the man mad snow, grooming, and crowds is that the trail would be better without any of these features (which it lacked when the trail was originally cut--there is a reason modern trails that handle snow making, grooming, and high traffic are all a lot wider). You might not read all of my posts on AZ, so I can understand your thinking I don't like blue trails. But I went on to compliment Upper Ravine as being a better run than Upper Cannon......

Fact is, I love a great blue cruiser just as much as the next guy and I can appreciate them for what they are. Here is the problem with Upper Cannon though: even on a light traffic day, 2/3 of the trail is scraped to the groomer tracks and it becomes a total luge run. So I ski that trail by skiing the edges where the loose snow gets pushed... which is normally great but everytime you start building up a rhythm, the trail turns and you need to cross the scraped snow to get to the loose stuff again. It is a giant tease. Great trail if you are the first one down. I think it would be epic as a bump trail.

@AR: While I may ski New England hard pack on icy manmade crowded slopes at some time during the year, I hardly seek out that type of punishment when other trails on the same mountain on the same day ski packed powder.


----------



## MadPadraic (Apr 30, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> Your Question: Name me a single better blue run at Loon than Upper Cannon?
> My Answer: All of them.



That's why I can't take your post seriously. Though maybe you do hate it that much.



riverc0il said:


> Here is the problem with Upper Cannon though: even on a light traffic day, 2/3 of the trail is scraped to the groomer tracks and it becomes a total luge run. So I ski that trail by skiing the edges where the loose snow gets pushed... which is normally great but everytime you start building up a rhythm, the trail turns and you need to cross the scraped snow to get to the loose stuff again.



This may just be a difference in style. You are an expert skier, but I'm an average snowboarder (above average in soft snow, and well below in hard conditions).  One of the reasons I love upper cannon is because after the middle has been skied off, the snow piles on the side are deep enough to turn on. The turns are so frequent that you can ride the entire trail and only turn with the trail's natural turns! In this case, you never have to cross the cardboard middle. However, if you do want to switch sides, it holds a nice edge.


----------



## ski_resort_observer (Apr 30, 2011)

AdironRider said:


> You ski the east, icy manmade, crowded slopes are the norm pretty much everywhere at some point during the year.
> .



If you ski the west all it takes is a couple of weeks of no new snow, no snowmaking, crowded slopes and your skiing boilplate. Icy slopes can happen anywhere, not just in the east. I broke my shoulder at JH when it was dust on an icy crust on pretty much the entire mountain.


----------



## threecy (Apr 30, 2011)

MadPadraic said:


> It provides access to big mountain skiing at a greatly reduced price to NH residents and state employees.



Really.  I am a NH resident/taxpayer.  How do I take advantage of this "greatly reduced price" without taking a day off work?


----------



## mediamogul (Apr 30, 2011)

ski_resort_observer said:


> If you ski the west all it takes is a couple of weeks of no new snow, no snowmaking, crowded slopes and your skiing boilplate. Icy slopes can happen anywhere, not just in the east. I broke my shoulder at JH when it was dust on an icy crust on pretty much the entire mountain.



Just goes to show that any trail is crappy under crappy conditions.


----------



## AdironRider (Apr 30, 2011)

ski_resort_observer said:


> If you ski the west all it takes is a couple of weeks of no new snow, no snowmaking, crowded slopes and your skiing boilplate. Icy slopes can happen anywhere, not just in the east. I broke my shoulder at JH when it was dust on an icy crust on pretty much the entire mountain.



You lived out here. You know where these conditions happen more.


----------



## bobbutts (May 1, 2011)

Cannon has a few intermediate trails with personality.. Loon has a whole mountain with wall to wall intermediate trails.  Point given for Cannon's best being better in ways vs. Loon's, but I still standby Loon being the better blue hill.  Maybe one of the problems for intermediates (also may save these runs from complete scrapage) is that the access to them is not all that good (no HSQ laps)


----------



## deadheadskier (May 1, 2011)

threecy said:


> Really.  I am a NH resident/taxpayer.  How do I take advantage of this "greatly reduced price" without taking a day off work?



not everyone works M-F

Only reason why I don't take advantage of the reduced pricing for Cannon is that my job requires 3 weeks notice for a day off.  So, I can't play hooky for mid week pow days.

Only reason I don't get a pass to Cannon is I spend 6 hours a day in my car for work.  When the weekends arrive, I really don't want a long commute to skiing.  #1 reason I switched from Ragged the past couple years to Gunstock for next year.

Just because 'I' can't take advantage of the NH resident discounts doesn't mean I don't think it's a GREAT thing for those who can.  Look at the NH resident benefits at Sunapee in comparison.  They SUCK.  $40 Sunday afternoon ticket is it (up from $32 two years ago).  Skiing is a very expensive sport and NH is a low income state.  I think it's great that the state offers affordable options to get people on the snow at Cannon.  

I really like Cannon and would ski there often if they had an affordable weekend product.  Not that their walk up rate is that steep, but I typically find vouchers to other mountains for $40 or less.  It's probably a good thing for their bottom line that Cannon doesn't offer weekend deals.  As a taxpayer, I'm okay with that.


----------



## AdironRider (May 1, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> not everyone works M-F
> 
> Only reason why I don't take advantage of the reduced pricing for Cannon is that my job requires 3 weeks notice for a day off.  So, I can't play hooky for mid week pow days.
> 
> ...




Threecy just has beef with Cannon. The NH resident deals extend to season passes which he could take advantage of as well, regardless of his work schedule.


----------



## deadheadskier (May 1, 2011)

I don't think threecy's primary beef is with Cannon per se.  It's more the bloated state gov't in a time of economic uncertainty


----------



## Angus (May 1, 2011)

hiked up and skied down today. profile to spookie, a little bit of walking to paulie's extension to Avalanche (with a little a few side steps to cross a bare spot) all the way to the bottom

talked to a couple of locals who said the warm weather, rain and wind fried the place this week. real natural snow started at the top of the peabody quad. hiked upper canyon which had 5'+ of snow in places but was pretty unskiable due to streams in middle and then cut over to profile - snow was 2+' in woods. a local said the mountain would be unskiable next weekend. I hiked up Paulie's - god, I need to get in shape!

I realized I'd only gotten to canyon once this year - pretty sure it was the first day of the season between XMAS and New Years.


----------



## threecy (May 1, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> not everyone works M-F


Would you say that most NH taxpayers have Wednesday off?  I'd argue that most NH taxpayers get Saturdays, Sundays, and NYSE holidays off - none of which have a NH resident discount.



AdironRider said:


> The NH resident deals extend to season passes which he could take advantage of as well, regardless of his work schedule.



Full, Unrestricted 2011-2012 Season Pass:
Cannon NH Resident "Discount":  $546
Wildcat+Attitash+Crotched:  $599

Is that "big mountain skiing at a greatly reduced price to NH residents?"


----------



## riverc0il (May 1, 2011)

threecy said:


> Full, Unrestricted 2011-2012 Season Pass:
> Cannon NH Resident "Discount":  $546
> Wildcat+Attitash+Crotched:  $599
> 
> Is that "big mountain skiing at a greatly reduced price to NH residents?"


$546 is an incredible deal for any major mountain. I had no idea Peak Resorts was offering that type of deal, but before that deal was offered, Cannon definitely was the best value in NH for a resident. And honestly? Cannon > Wildcat+Attitash+Crotched regardless of the price. Let's be realistic though, compare NH Resident pass to WV, Loon, BW and Boyne in ME and pretty much every single resort in VT. You can pick your argument against the lack of discounting on the weekend (I would submit that Cannon is not really a "Value" any more, resident or not, for weekend day tickets). But arguing that $546 for a major ski area season pass is not a phenomenal deal is kinda whacked.


----------



## threecy (May 1, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> And honestly? Cannon > Wildcat+Attitash+Crotched regardless of the price.



What if we end up with a classic New England bad snow year?  We're certainly due.



riverc0il said:


> But arguing that $546 for a major ski area season pass is not a phenomenal deal is kinda whacked.


You'll note my comments are in regard to the comparison.  It's a catch-22 - if state-run Cannon doesn't offer a deep discount, one can argue the operation is not of value to taxpayers; if state-run Cannon does offer a deep discount, one can argue they're using tax dollars to unfairly compete against privately owned and operated ski areas.

Regardless of that, a mandate can be put into the lease agreement requiring a certain % or $ discount.

Due to the fiscal crisis, Cannon is closer to being leased today than perhaps ever in its history.


----------



## Cannonball (May 1, 2011)

threecy said:


> Due to the fiscal crisis, Cannon is closer to being leased today than perhaps ever in its history.



Why not lease out the Flume as well...It'd be a hell of a water park.  But somehow I don't think the NH (or Federal) financial crisis will be solved by any amount of public land leasing.


----------



## deadheadskier (May 1, 2011)

threecy said:


> Would you say that most NH taxpayers have Wednesday off?  I'd argue that most NH taxpayers get Saturdays, Sundays, and NYSE holidays off - none of which have a NH resident discount.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



There are plenty of service industry workers who have mid week days off.  Pretty much EVERY single person who works in a restaurant in the state.  Same goes for retail.  Do I think it represents the majority?  No and I also didn't suggest that.

The vast majority of the members of this site, take last minute days off for Powder days.  I can't.  Apparently you can't either.  Doesn't mean it's not a good deal for them.

Out of State pass: $729, In State, is $546.  That is a helluva discount.  As this thread can attest, many Cannon skiers aren't Loon or Attitash skiers.  So, even if the Attitash/Wildcat deal is better, it doesn't matter to them.  Also consider, that Attitash and Wildcat are NO WHERE near as convenient to get to as Cannon from the State's major population center.  

It's apparent with how you are arguing against the discount that you are somewhat selfish and only care about which discounts apply to you.  Ultimately,  your argument that Cannon doesn't offer great discounts to NH residents is piss poor.  

If you want to argue that the State needs the revenue leasing would bring, fine.  But don't go about it by suggesting that Cannon isn't a great deal for residents.  It most certainly is and I don't want to see that go away.  Heck, even if Cannon loses a million a year, I'm fine with paying the state an extra dollar in taxes.


----------



## threecy (May 1, 2011)

Cannonball said:


> Why not lease out the Flume as well.


New Hampshire doesn't have millions of dollars of debt due to the Flume at the moment, nor does it have the risk of the Flume losing hundreds of thousands of dollars this year.



Cannonball said:


> But somehow I don't think the NH (or Federal) financial crisis will be solved by any amount of public land leasing.


If one were to look at any/all budget line items this way, the crisis would never be fixed.



deadheadskier said:


> It's apparent with how you are arguing against the discount that you are somewhat selfish and only care about which discounts apply to you.  Ultimately,  your argument that Cannon doesn't offer great discounts to NH residents is piss poor.


A NH resident has one chance per week (non-vacation week) to take the day off in order to get a discount.  Otherwise, the resident has to drop over half a grand in order to get a discount.

How does the average hard working NH family take advantage of that?  Take the day off work and take the kids out of school?  Or drop a thousand+ dollars and get a season pass?




> Heck, even if Cannon loses a million a year, I'm fine with paying the state an extra dollar in taxes.


Cannon has cost New Hampshire millions of dollars.  Last I knew, the State of New Hampshire will gladly accept your offer of sending extra dollars:

Collection Division
PO Box 454
Concord, NH 03302-0454


----------



## deadheadskier (May 1, 2011)

threecy said:


> A NH resident has one chance per week (non-vacation week) to take the day off in order to get a discount.  Otherwise, the resident has to drop over half a grand in order to get a discount.
> 
> How does the average hard working NH family take advantage of that?  Take the day off work and take the kids out of school?  Or drop a thousand+ dollars and get a season pass?



:lol:

really?  You're going to call $546 "Over half a grand"  :lol:  

Well, if they were out of stater skiers, they'd have to pay almost THREE QUARTERS OF A GRAND.  Can you believe it? THREE QUARTERS OF A GRAND

:lol:

either way, out of state skiers pay significantly more for Cannon's product than residents do.  Sunapee doesn't come close to offering the same resident deals as Cannon does.  I don't know how you can argue that the resident deals are not fantastic.  The numbers back it up.

I don't know why I bother.  You are completely blind on this subject to anyone else's opinion, but yours.  Think we turned this discussion into a 20 pager the last time.  

moving on


----------



## threecy (May 2, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> really?  You're going to call $546 "Over half a grand"  :lol:



Is $546 not over half a grand?

Again, in order to take advantage of these discounts, a hard working family has two choices - 1) take the day off work and take the kids out of school or 2) purchase $1,630+ in season passes.  Do you not see how exclusive that actually is?




deadheadskier said:


> Sunapee doesn't come close to offering the same resident deals as Cannon does.



A requirement can be written into a Cannon lease for resident deals.

The now has almost a decade and a half of experience with the Sunapee lease - most concerns raised by that agreement can be written into a new Cannon lease.


----------



## riverc0il (May 2, 2011)

threecy said:


> Again, in order to take advantage of these discounts, a hard working family has two choices - 1) take the day off work and take the kids out of school or 2) purchase $1,630+ in season passes.  Do you not see how exclusive that actually is?.


So you are advocating that Cannon discounts their highest margin day ticket while at the same time being concerned about the potential for Cannon not running in the black? I am all for Cannon being a better value, especially for NH residents. But I think they are running in the black right now not just due to good snow years, but because they stopped offering weekend discounts and increased their ticket rates to be on par with similar mountains.


----------



## deadheadskier (May 2, 2011)

threecy said:


> Is $546 not over half a grand?
> 
> Again, in order to take advantage of these discounts, a hard working family has two choices - 1) take the day off work and take the kids out of school or 2) purchase $1,630+ in season passes.  Do you not see how exclusive that actually is?
> 
> ...



Newsflash 1 - not everyone has kids. In fact less than half of US households have kids under 18 living at home.

Newsflash 2 - I know my father took several days off of work throughout his career to go golfing, ski, whatever, without pulling me out of school

Newsflash 3 - I know at least once a season growing up, my dad took me out of school to enjoy a day of midweek skiing.

Newsflash 4 - The same out of state family of 4 pays $2176+ for season passes.  A FULL HALF A GRAND more than residents :lol:


If they wrote it into the lease that the resident discounts should be extended that's fine.  Again, your argument that the resident deals at Cannon aren't fantastic is piss poor.

Personally, I don't think this is even about the state government fiscal situation for you.  I think it's more a personal beef you have with ski areas.  Maybe you lost a job, a contract, don't like someone in management at Cannon, I don't know.  In our last discussion on the matter you seemed to completely write off other massive expenditures at State Parks that I presented, only to focus on this one.  Because of that, it's pointless for anyone to even bother discussing this with you.  

Anyways, nice day today. Maybe I'll head down to Hampton Beach State Park.  See how the state's $14M project is coming along there. I know I'll enjoy it this summer.  Too bad I don't get a resident discount on parking.


----------



## threecy (May 2, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> Personally,


This seems to be a recurring theme with your posts.  You'll note that I try to stay on the topic of Cannon and the state, whereas you seem to always want to make the conversation about me and fill it with false assumptions.


----------



## Cannonball (May 2, 2011)

There seems to be no consensus on whether Cannon operates in the black or the red, and by how much.  I certainly don't know all the history and detail in regards to Cannon's profit/loss.  But the economics of it seem very simple to me.  There are two options:

A) It *can't* be a profitable operation (due to restrictions of development etc).  If that's the case no private entity would want to lease it and the state is stuck with doing the best it can.

B) It *can *be a profitable operation.  From a lease standpoint the private entity would have to bring in enough to cover all operations PLUS the cost of the lease.  If this is the case, then the state can operate it themselves as a revenue generator.  Presumably making a whole lot more than the private entity since they won't be paying a lease.


----------



## threecy (May 2, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> So you are advocating that Cannon discounts their highest margin day ticket while at the same time being concerned about the potential for Cannon not running in the black? I am all for Cannon being a better value, especially for NH residents. But I think they are running in the black right now not just due to good snow years, but because they stopped offering weekend discounts and increased their ticket rates to be on par with similar mountains.



You're noting the Catch-22 - do the vast majority of NH taxpayers subsidize skiing for others, or do NH taxpayers subsidize a ski area that doesn't even offer a majority of the NH skiers there a discount, or do NH taxpayers subsidize a ski area that competes with taxpaying businesses?


The only main concern of anti-lease folks that cannot be addressed in a lease agreement is their desire to have the state run this recreational business.  Virtually everything else can be addressed in the lease agreement - preventing the further destruction of historic trails, providing NH discounts, requiring full time, year round jobs with benefits, preventing real estate development, ensuring tram operations 7 days a week, etc.


----------



## threecy (May 2, 2011)

Cannonball said:


> But the economics of it seem very simple to me.  There are two options:
> 
> A) It *can't* be a profitable operation (due to restrictions of development etc).  If that's the case no private entity would want to lease it and the state is stuck with doing the best it can.
> 
> B) It *can *be a profitable operation.  From a lease standpoint the private entity would have to bring in enough to cover all operations PLUS the cost of the lease.  If this is the case, then the state can operate it themselves as a revenue generator.  Presumably making a whole lot more than the private entity since they won't be paying a lease.



There are hundreds of defunct ski areas throughout New England in part because folks thought it was a simple economic model.  The ski industry is not this simple.  It's been noted that, prior to the recent few good snow years, Cannon tended have a trend of a having one or two bad seasons that wiped out the gains of many good seasons.

Leasing it to a private operator removes the *risk* from the state's budget.

There are also many things the private sector can do that the state can't.  Look back at the Mittersill chairlift - the main reason that chairlift was purchased as such a ridiculously high price was because of the nature of having it as a state-bid-in-current-year type of project.  Putting aside the refurbish options just for sake of discussion, one of the reasons the lift was so expensive was that they went to bid in May!


----------



## thetrailboss (May 2, 2011)

threecy said:


> There are also many things the private sector can do that the state can't. Look back at the Mittersill chairlift - the main reason that chairlift was purchased as such a ridiculously high price was because of the nature of having it as a state-bid-in-current-year type of project. Putting aside the refurbish options just for sake of discussion, one of the reasons the lift was so expensive was that they went to bid in May!


 
:roll:


----------



## Cannonball (May 2, 2011)

threecy said:


> There are hundreds of defunct ski areas throughout New England in part because folks thought it was a simple economic model.  The ski industry is not this simple.  It's been noted that, prior to the recent few good snow years, Cannon tended have a trend of a having one or two bad seasons that wiped out the gains of many good seasons.
> 
> Leasing it to a private operator removes the *risk* from the state's budget.



So what happens when the private operator/leasee goes bust?  I have been involved in a few debacles at the local/state/and federal level where leasee's have thought they could operate a profitable business on public lands.  As their businesses fall apart they tend to start doing anything possible to stay afloat. This is frequently at a huge detriment to the property.  And results in an enormous cost for the public land holder (NH in this case).  And this can happen in just about any industry.

Leasing can ADD as much (or more) risk as it removes.


----------



## threecy (May 2, 2011)

Cannonball said:


> So what happens when the private operator/leasee goes bust?  I have been involved in a few debacles at the local/state/and federal level where leasee's have thought they could operate a profitable business on public lands.  As their businesses fall apart they tend to start doing anything possible to stay afloat. This is frequently at a huge detriment to the property.  And results in an enormous cost for the public land holder (NH in this case).  And this can happen in just about any industry.
> 
> Leasing can ADD as much (or more) risk as it removes.



The following private NH ski area operations are leased from the state or federal government:
- Attitash
- Loon
- Sunapee
- Waterville
- Wildcat

The ski area lease is seen as an asset and is sold to another operator.

If the provisions of a Cannon lease agreement are not met, there would probably be a clause to drop the operator from the agreement.


----------



## deadheadskier (May 2, 2011)

threecy said:


> or do NH taxpayers subsidize a ski area that doesn't even offer a majority of the NH skiers there a discount



you continue to spew BS to try and strengthen your argument.  You point out a family 4 would cost $1600+ to get passes to support your argument, but neglect to except the more than $500 savings for a family of four or the $150+ savings for an adult individual.

That's not just available to the majority of NH residents, it's available to ALL NH residents.  

As for the state resident Wednesday, it's also available to ALL NH residents.  Why do you assume everyone works M-F and only takes vacations during school breaks when the deal is not available?

What ski area public or private offers 50% off skiing on weekends?  NOT ONE


----------



## Puck it (May 2, 2011)

I am one of those people that spend 3/4 of a $1K to ski.  Wish I could get the ~1/2 of $1K deal.


----------



## threecy (May 2, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> you continue to spew BS to try and strengthen your argument.  You point out a family 4 would cost $1600+ to get passes to support your argument, but neglect to except the more than $500 savings for a family of four or the $150+ savings for an adult individual.
> 
> That's not just available to the majority of NH residents, it's available to ALL NH residents.





threecy said:


> or do NH taxpayers subsidize a ski area that doesn't even offer a majority of the NH skiers there a discount



So you're suggesting that the majority of NH skiers at Cannon either purchase season passes or ski on Wednesday?


----------



## deadheadskier (May 2, 2011)

threecy said:


> So you're suggesting that the majority of NH skiers at Cannon either purchase season passes or ski on Wednesday?



No, I'm saying the discounts are available to ALL NH residents.  That is a fact.

Your argument that it's a bad deal because it's a Wednesday is pointless for two reasons.

1. NO ski area, public or private offers 50% off lift ticket deals on the weekends.

2. Not everyone skis weekends exclusively.  For ten years I didn't ski on Saturdays or Sundays because I worked those days.  

The only way your argument works is if Cannon offered a 50% discount to NH residents 7 days a week.  That would never happen at any publicly or privately held ski area, so it's a pointless argument. 

Seeing how you apparently believe that you are the Grand Authority on Cannon's skier demographics as well Cannon's fiscal liability to the state why don't you present the numbers.  I said very early in this thread that I can't offer an informed opinion on whether the mountain should be leased or not without seeing the economic data.

So, let's hear it Threecy.

1. How much money did Cannon make or lose each season over the past ten years?

2. How many NH residents buy passes to Cannon?  How many out of state passes are sold?

3. What percentage of lift tickets sold on Wednesdays are to NH residents 

Again, I said I'd consider a lease if I saw all the data and felt that it was in the best interest of NH skiers,  

You're very strong with your opinion that it should be leased, but haven't presented hard data.  Just a blanket statement that Cannon costs residents millions and a selfish opinion on the resident discounts because you personally can't ski on Wednesdays and don't want to buy a season pass there.


----------



## Puck it (May 2, 2011)

Do not forget that they get 50% on Tuesday and Thursday for NH residents and others. So you are up to 3 out 7 days a resident can ski for 50%.


----------



## bobbutts (May 2, 2011)

Governor Lynch said:
			
		

> It is a real jewel owned by the state in a beautiful part of New  Hampshire. It is now turning a profit under *outstanding management*, and I  think we ought to continue the way it is. As you know, we have worked  hard to eventually develop Mittersill to make it the *best ski area in  the Northeast*


I'd replace the bolded with:
Record snowfall, Top 15 ski areas in NE


----------



## threecy (May 2, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> No, I'm saying the discounts are available to ALL NH residents.  That is a fact.


The discounts are available to all NH residents who are able to take Wednesday off from work, or can afford to spend hundreds or thousands of dollars on a season pass.  That is a small subset of the skiing population, which is already a small subset of the population of New Hampshire.




deadheadskier said:


> The only way your argument works is if Cannon offered a 50% discount to NH residents 7 days a week.  That would never happen at any publicly or privately held ski area, so it's a pointless argument.


It is a pointless argument, and you're the only one making a case for it.  Nowhere have I suggested Cannon should offer a 50% discount.



deadheadskier said:


> Seeing how you apparently believe that you are the Grand Authority on Cannon's skier demographics as well Cannon's fiscal liability to the state why don't you present the numbers.  I said very early in this thread that I can't offer an informed opinion on whether the mountain should be leased or not without seeing the economic data.



I suggest you contact your State Reps and State Senator and ask them to push to make these records available online.



Puck it said:


> Do not forget that they get 50% on Tuesday and Thursday for NH residents and others. So you are up to 3 out 7 days a resident can ski for 50%.


And NH resident college students and NH resident children and NH resident seniors all get discounts too.  However, all of those deals, as well as the two you listed, also apply to anyone from anywhere else.  So, you're back down to 1 out of 7 days a resident can get a discount in exchange for owning the ski area.


----------



## deadheadskier (May 2, 2011)

threecy said:


> I suggest you contact your State Reps and State Senator and ask them to push to make these records available online.



Why go through the trouble of contacting my State Reps, when I've got you right here in front of me with all the answers?  You must know all the data if you have such a strong opinion correct?


----------



## ski_resort_observer (May 2, 2011)

threecy said:


> The following private NH ski area operations are leased from the state or federal government:
> - Attitash
> - Loon
> - Sunapee
> ...



Sunapee and Cannon are the only ones owned by the state, the others on your list might be on leased land like many many other ski resorts around the country but have nothing to do with this thread. If the state leases out Cannon, it's not probably, but definately there would be provisions in the contract if the lease turns sour.


----------



## Puck it (May 2, 2011)

Cannon Mountain is not only healthy, we are thriving," ski area manager John DeVivo testified at a committee hearing. He said Cannon has wiped out its nearly $1.5 million operating deficit and will finish with nearly $1 million in profit for fiscal year 2011.

And what does this have to do with the lease?????

Morse wants to attach the Cannon lease to a House-approved bill that makes certain home-school students who live in state could qualify for discount season ticket passes at the mountain.


----------



## EPB (May 2, 2011)

Puck it said:


> Cannon Mountain is not only healthy, we are thriving," ski area manager John DeVivo testified at a committee hearing. He said Cannon has wiped out its nearly $1.5 million operating deficit and will finish with nearly $1 million in profit for fiscal year 2011.
> 
> And what does this have to do with the lease?????




It means that the state could jump on this opportunity to jack the asking price up for a lease agreement.  That is, if they could convince a buyer that this sort of growth/profitability is at all sustainable.


----------



## threecy (May 2, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> Why go through the trouble of contacting my State Reps, when I've got you right here in front of me with all the answers?  You must know all the data if you have such a strong opinion correct?


It wouldn't matter what I provided you with - you'd likely shrug and say I have some sort of personal issue with Cannon.  I suggest you contact your State Reps and State Senator and push to have this data published online so that all can view it.



Puck it said:


> Cannon Mountain is not only healthy, we are thriving," ski area manager John DeVivo testified at a committee hearing. He said Cannon has wiped out its nearly $1.5 million operating deficit and will finish with nearly $1 million in profit for fiscal year 2011


I believe this was already covered earlier in the thread.  Cannon has shown an operating profit during the recent snow years.  You'll note, however, that he said 'deficit' and not 'debt' - the operating 'deficit' I believe he's referring to is carried over from recent operating losses (prior to the recent good snow years).



ski_resort_observer said:


> Sunapee and Cannon are the only ones owned by the state, the others on your list might be on leased land like many many other ski resorts around the country but have nothing to do with this thread.


My post was in on the context of the post quoted - "I have been involved in a few debacles at the local/state/and federal level where leasee's have thought they could operate a profitable business on public lands."  All of the areas I listed are located in New Hampshire and lease part or all of their ski facilities and/or terrain from the state or federal government.


----------



## Puck it (May 2, 2011)

eastern powder baby said:


> It means that the state could jump on this opportunity to jack the asking price up for a lease agreement. That is, if they could convince a buyer that this sort of growth/profitability is at all sustainable.


 
I meant the comment about attaching it to the bill for home schooled kids.

WTF???


----------



## threecy (May 2, 2011)

Puck it said:


> I meant the comment about attaching it to the bill for home schooled kids.
> 
> WTF???



The original bill (HB74) is in regard to proving residency for the season pass discount - there is no actual mention of home schooling in it.


----------



## Cannonball (May 2, 2011)

threecy said:


> The original bill (HB74) is in regard to proving residency for the season pass discount - there is no actual mention of home schooling in it.



There is also nothing in it about leasing.  This is a typical case of a simple bill being hijacked.


----------



## DoublePlanker (May 2, 2011)

I'm a NH tax payer and a long time Cannon skier.  I kinda prefer to keep the state operating it.  Any private operator will likely have to raise prices significantly and alter the character too much to attempt to grow the business.  Also, I don't think it costs the state that much even in losing years to run Cannon.  The people do a good job with the resources they have.

I'd rather the state of NH focus on licensing a few casinos which will bring in much more tax revenue than destroying what Cannon is.

I guess I have to contact my rep.


----------



## riverc0il (May 2, 2011)

Puck it said:


> Cannon Mountain is not only healthy, we are thriving," ski area manager John DeVivo testified at a committee hearing. He said Cannon has wiped out its nearly $1.5 million operating deficit and will finish with nearly $1 million in profit for fiscal year 2011.


That is pretty cool. Do you have a link to that statement so we can read the full commentary?

When did Cannon finish paying off debts for the expansion such as the Peabody Quad and Tuckerbrook Quad. Were those parts of the debt from prior to JD? If so, then saying Cannon operated at a loss those years might be somewhat disingenuous if profits were going to pay for new lifts and expansion. Or was the expansion paid out of state coffers through Bonds and not connected with Cannon's finances at all?

JD has had several great snow years since becoming GM of Cannon. I think the lease argument really should be put to bed until we can see how Cannon comes through under JD in poor snow years. If Cannon doesn't cost the state anything during a bad year, I think that would end the lease argument right there.

One thing I notice is those that are pro or con regarding the lease usually only cite information that backs up their on point of view. I guess that is to be expected but I certainly discount arguments made with an agenda in mind rather than an open point of view.

So that said, as someone that has historically been anti-lease, I will say that the best reason to go with a lease is the guarantee to make money and the guarantee not to loose any money. Which in a volitile industry that often lives and dies by natural snowfall, there is something to be said about that from the financial perspective. I think that is really the only valid argument for a pro-lease perspective. 

Which is why I suggested a wait and see approach to see how Cannon does under JD in a bad year. Given the new management and the new direction of Cannon that caters to all abilities and the increased snow making and better grooming, it could be the past history of not making money is no longer applicable given the changes.


----------



## riverc0il (May 2, 2011)

DoublePlanker said:


> I'm a NH tax payer and a long time Cannon skier.  I kinda prefer to keep the state operating it.  Any private operator will likely have to raise prices significantly and alter the character too much to attempt to grow the business.  .


I think the point here regarding a leaser potentially raising prices to be profitable is legit. Look at Sunapee's pricing structure. Ick. Way too expensive for a modest mountain of mid-sized proportions. A leaser would need to pay the state a guaranteed minimum plus a percent of sales and make profits for themselves. That could result in higher prices.

On the other point, no one has taken up my challenge regarding addressing what changes might be made to Cannon that might alter the character. Compare Cannon to other mountains and suggest what changes you've seen at other mountains might be made at Cannon to destroy its character. I am kinda on the fence about this one as I have seen a lot of changes at Cannon these past ten years that I have also seen at bigger resorts but they have not destroyed the character but rather made it better. These changes include the new bar, better food service, more food service options, better snow making, upgraded Point of Sale equipment, etc. 

This has all come at a cost and as I noted above, I no longer see Cannon as the great Value it once was, so perhaps that is an issue. Some say new lifts and new terrain are other great things to happen, you all know my take on the Mittersill lift  but I gotta say I tremendously enjoyed the Tuckerbrook lift when it was installed.

And again I reference other mountains like Jay and Smuggs that are privately run but still foster a particular culture and character. Cannon's trails really can't be widened much further, most are already pretty wide. And its not like the place doesn't get groomed flat a ton). 

I don't think a leaser would make the culture or character any better for sure. But I also wonder what could be done to lessen the character or culture?


----------



## deadheadskier (May 2, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> One thing I notice is those that are pro or con regarding the lease usually only cite information that backs up their on point of view. I guess that is to be expected but I certainly discount arguments made with an agenda in mind rather than an open point of view.



Very true.  As I said earlier in the thread, I'd like to see hard data to back up Cannon being a state asset that is costing NH residents millions.  I'm against a lease mostly because I look at the deals for residents at Sunapee and they are PITIFUL in comparison to Cannon.  Don't know why threecy continues to argue that the deals for NH residents aren't very good.  They're the best I know of of any mountain in Northern New England.  



riverc0il said:


> Which is why I suggested a wait and see approach to see how Cannon does under JD in a bad year. Given the new management and the new direction of Cannon that caters to all abilities and the increased snow making and better grooming, it could be the past history of not making money is no longer applicable given the changes.



There's the saying "past performance doesn't guarantee future returns."  This could go either way.  Just because Cannon lost a lot of money in the years prior to current management, doesn't mean it always will.  Likewise, just because it has turned a profit the past few years, doesn't mean it will continue to do so.

The sample size under recent management is just too small to make a judgment call that is 100% reflective of what can be expected financially down the road.


----------



## threecy (May 2, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> When did Cannon finish paying off debts for the expansion such as the Peabody Quad and Tuckerbrook Quad. Were those parts of the debt from prior to JD? If so, then saying Cannon operated at a loss those years might be somewhat disingenuous if profits were going to pay for new lifts and expansion. Or was the expansion paid out of state coffers through Bonds and not connected with Cannon's finances at all?


You'll note that he said they paid off the deficit, not the debt.  Last I knew, the division is not legally allowed to lose money.  Thus, they carry annual losses over into the next budget.  I believe his comment was that in the recent good snow years, they've covered the deficits carried over from past bad snow years.

I believe the Mittersill chair was bonded.  The tram replacement was bonded.  The HSQ as well if I'm not mistaken.  Some of the smaller fixed grip chairs were paid with the Sunapee lease money.




deadheadskier said:


> I'm against a lease mostly because I look at the deals for residents at Sunapee and they are PITIFUL in comparison to Cannon.  Don't know why threecy continues to argue that the deals for NH residents aren't very good.  They're the best I know of of any mountain in Northern New England.


Again, it is likely that NH resident discounts will be written into the lease agreement, likely at the current level.


----------



## AdironRider (May 2, 2011)

What no credit for Mitt this season for profitability?

I didnt make it back myself, but all the folks that I met out here from NH seemed stoked. Even the gapers were talking about it. Thats saying something. 

I feel no need to troll Threecy this year on this topic. After thinking it through, Id rather just see it not be leased, regardless of the snowmaking improvement that would inevitably result. 

Condos would blow no matter what. And the whole no real estate thing works fine, I think alot of resorts just got used to rolling in revenue as condos flew off the shelves 10 years ago and just forgot how to run the ski business itself.


----------



## deadheadskier (May 2, 2011)

threecy said:


> Again, it is likely that NH resident discounts will be written into the lease agreement, likely at the current level.



Is there documentation backing that up? 

Just curious how you know it is 'likely' that resident deals will be written into the lease agreement at the current level.


----------



## MadPadraic (May 2, 2011)

threecy said:


> Would you say that most NH taxpayers have Wednesday off?  I'd argue that most NH taxpayers get Saturdays, Sundays, and NYSE holidays off - none of which have a NH resident discount.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I would say that most NH residents can take a Wednesday off if they want. What's with the term "taxpayer?" Does paying a meal, gas, property, or income (err..NH) somehow entitles one to more perks at a ski area than other residents? I pay tons of taxes in NH, but I'm not a resident...

Cannon full price ticket is 12% cheaper than those of Loon or Bretton Woods. That's a nice discount. It is also 4% cheaper than leased Mt. Sunapee, 

Besides the Wildcat+2 others pass is only responding to market pressure from Cannon, so pass holders there are benefiting anyway!


----------



## MadPadraic (May 2, 2011)

Cannonball said:


> There seems to be no consensus on whether Cannon operates in the black or the red, and by how much.  I certainly don't know all the history and detail in regards to Cannon's profit/loss.



This is a quote from the November 19th, 2010 Cannon Mountain Advisory Commission meeting:

" Cannon’s management team believes that with its aggressive 10/11 marketing plan, the improvements made and marketed since September 2008, and an ever-increasing season pass holder base, the ski area will post a fourth consecutive net profit while continuing to improve upon its products, services, and infrastructure"


----------



## SIKSKIER (May 3, 2011)

MadPadraic said:


> " Cannon’s management team believes that with its aggressive 10/11 marketing plan, the improvements made and marketed since September 2008, and an ever-increasing season pass holder base, the ski area will post a fourth consecutive net profit while continuing to improve upon its products, services, and infrastructure"



Sounds like a GREAT reason to give up operating it huh?I don't pretend to know all the facts on how Cannon shows their profit numbers from year to year.I do know that they appear to be running the area much better and it shows on the mountain.

Why dump the operation for leasing?I can actually see threecy's point of known profit from the lease.However,I as a NH taxpayer for 50+ years don't have the problem with the State running it as does he.I really don't see the why it is such a lightning rod for him.

Again,for mostly selfish reasons I don't want a lease and while the mt is profitable I see much less reason for that.I know that whoever would run Cannon would have to increase two things to cover the higher overhead than what is in place now,ticket prices and skier visits.The money has to come from somewhere.Do I want that?Of course not

By the way riv,the main building at Mittersill is mainly and may be wholly owned by time share/condo arrangement.Here's what I got off of their website:
Mittersill Resort offers a right to use, lifetime ownership of vacation property sold in weekly intervals. Our prices are the lowest and the most cost effective because we are a non-profit cooperative. Mittersill Resort is a homeowners association, controlled by the unit owners so the interest of all guests and their comfort is always a priority.


----------



## witch hobble (May 4, 2011)

Bump:dunce:

New Hampshire resident, taxpayer, and this year Cannon passholder. (can't spell passholder without asshole!) Can we call out of state passholders "Massholders"?

As with my time in NY, I take a smidgeon of pride in the fact that I am a fractional owner of a really awesome ski area.  I understand that a balance needs to be struck between providing services at reasonable prices, not totally undercutting private industry, and showing the bean counters that we can keep the place close to profitability.

But consider me among the (likely) few who is willing to pay a few more of my tax dollars toward the state promoting skiing, winter sports, and the natural history of Franconia Notch to residents, children, and outta staters alike.  I do not feel that a leaseholder would have my family's best interest in mind.

Other thoughts:

Tucker Brook family area- Really Cool and useful!
Upper Cannon- great cruiser
All the off map cuts- thank you for all the hard work.  there is some sweet stuff.
Mittersill annex- jury still out.  Holy mogul fields!

I had a great season there, and I even missed out on several of the mid season powder events.  Looking forward to next year.

Peace!


----------



## St. Bear (May 4, 2011)

witch hobble said:


> But consider me among the (likely) few who is willing to pay a few more of my tax dollars toward the state promoting skiing, winter sports, and the natural history of Franconia Notch to residents, children, and outta staters alike.



I'm sure the State of NH would accept a donation.


----------



## witch hobble (May 5, 2011)

St. Bear said:


> I'm sure the State of NH would accept a donation.



They will be getting two additional season's passes out of us.  So that is a start.  

If it came down to relying on charitable giving to run the operation......well I guess thats what skins are for.


----------



## threecy (May 5, 2011)

witch hobble said:


> If it came down to relying on charitable giving to run the operation......well I guess thats what skins are for.



If there are really that many people who care about Cannon and are willing to put their money where their mouths are, they could form a co-op and take the lease.


----------



## thetrailboss (May 5, 2011)

threecy said:


> If there are really that many people who care about Cannon and are willing to put their money where their mouths are, they could form a co-op and take the lease.


 
Assuming that there is a "lease."  I don't think it will get that far, at least for now.  It is a revenue generating asset so they won't give that up.


----------



## witch hobble (May 5, 2011)

threecy said:


> the lease.



You post as though a lease is a forgone conclusion.


----------



## witch hobble (May 5, 2011)

thetrailboss said:


> Assuming that there is a "lease."  I don't think it will get that far, at least for now.  It is a revenue generating asset so they won't give that up.



You beat me to it.  Didn't see this post.


----------



## witch hobble (May 5, 2011)

Additional thought I forgot to mention:

what I feel Cannon lacks is lower intermediate terrain.  They have a very nice beginner area.  Obviously have great terrain for high intermediates to experts.  But lack a big mountain transition from green to blue.


----------



## MadPadraic (May 5, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> On the other point, no one has taken up my challenge regarding addressing what changes might be made to Cannon that might alter the character. Compare Cannon to other mountains and suggest what changes you've seen at other mountains might be made at Cannon to destroy its character.
> 
> ... (lot's of good insight deleted for space) ..
> 
> ...



One is price. I know that you say it's not the great value it was, but it is still 12% cheaper than Sunapee, despite running a Tram and having better terrain.Sunapee undoubtedly spends more on grooming, but let's be honest: Sunapee and Loon can charge $76 because the market will bear it. They are run in an attempt to maximize profit. Cannon should be run with an attempt to break even over the medium/long run and as a result shouldn't need to extract huge profits from their ticket pricing. 

Back to grooming: yes Cannon grooms more than they did, but they still leave the powder alone and they usually leave it alone a day or two after a dump (which is awesome considering the overnight wind they sometimes get). This may or may not change depending on the operator's outlook.

Speaking of tuckerbrook, as I recall a beginners ticket is cheap and one lift is even free.

I'm not a fan of the new bar, but beers still cost less than they do at my neighborhood local. I would expect this to change with a lease.

Finally, the places you mentioned, Jay and Smuggs, are very far from civilization. I'm not aware of any decently sized areas that close to Boston which go for the traditional feel/vibe. (Maybe Magic for NYC, but I've never skied there) There's a chance that a given operator would try to change the vibe. Then again, they might see it as a competitive advantage and make Cannon into a crowded mess. I'd rather not run the risk of losing such a treasure.


----------



## deadheadskier (May 6, 2011)

MadPadraic said:


> One is price. I know that you say it's not the great value it was, but it is still 12% cheaper than Sunapee, despite running a Tram and having better terrain.Sunapee undoubtedly spends more on grooming, but let's be honest: Sunapee and Loon can charge $76 because the market will bear it. They are run in an attempt to maximize profit. Cannon should be run with an attempt to break even over the medium/long run and as a result shouldn't need to extract huge profits from their ticket pricing.
> 
> Back to grooming: yes Cannon grooms more than they did, but they still leave the powder alone and they usually leave it alone a day or two after a dump (which is awesome considering the overnight wind they sometimes get). This may or may not change depending on the operator's outlook.
> 
> ...



post of the thread.  I translate what you're saying Padraic as:

Cannon is awesome as is

Cannon's a NH treasure.  

Let's keep it that way instead of letting it become a Corporations profit center.


----------



## threecy (May 6, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> Let's keep it that way instead of letting it become a Corporations profit center.



Good point.  Can't have evil private sector people profit.  Much better to let government employees profit.


----------



## thetrailboss (May 6, 2011)

threecy said:


> Good point. Can't have evil private sector people profit. Much better to let government employees profit.


 

Huh?  :blink:  The public benefits.


----------



## deadheadskier (May 6, 2011)

threecy said:


> Good point.  Can't have evil private sector people profit.  Much better to let government employees profit.



Do you feel that NH should lease out all of it's State Parks?

Should the federal government lease out all National Parks?


----------



## Cannonball (May 6, 2011)

threecy said:


> Good point.  Can't have evil private sector people profit.  Much better to let government employees profit.



Huh?  Which government employees?  The lifties?


----------



## threecy (May 6, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> Do you feel that NH should lease out all of it's State Parks?
> 
> Should the federal government lease out all National Parks?



The Federal government technically leases out some campgrounds to the AMC in the WMNF.  Private companies already log in the WMNF.

For the state parks, not much else to lease other than the campgrounds, apart from the remaining unleased multi-million dollar alpine ski area.


----------



## thetrailboss (May 6, 2011)

threecy said:


> The Federal government technically leases out some campgrounds to the AMC in the WMNF. Private companies already log in the WMNF.


 
True, but the land is managed in the public interest and for the public benefit.  



> For the state parks, not much else to lease other than the campgrounds, apart from the remaining unleased multi-million dollar alpine ski area.


 
Gunstock is county owned and operated. Are you saying that needs to be leased as well? 

And NY owns and operates a few ski areas. Are you saying that those should be dumped as well? 

I think you are looking at this from a very short term perspective and a narrow point of view of dollars and cents. Even then the latter does not support your argument. You are ignoring the value of Cannon to the public and its role historically and culturally. Cannon was built in the Great Depression to put people to work and is an icon for the state. It has been operating for almost 80 years through many good and bad times. It is the public's mountain and is accessible for all. It is not an exclusive Bear Creek or Yellowstone Club. And yet there has been a recession, albeit a bad one, and it is turning a profit and you say that the state should just get rid of it? You need to understand the larger context.


----------



## deadheadskier (May 6, 2011)

threecy said:


> The Federal government technically leases out some campgrounds to the AMC in the WMNF.  Private companies already log in the WMNF.
> 
> For the state parks, not much else to lease other than the campgrounds, apart from the remaining unleased multi-million dollar alpine ski area.



You didn't answer my question.

Do you feel the State of NH should lease out all of it's parks?

Do you feel the Federal Government should lease out all National parks?


----------



## threecy (May 6, 2011)

thetrailboss said:


> Gunstock is county owned and operated. Are you saying that needs to be leased as well?


I don't live in Belknap County.  Interestingly enough, Gunstock is trying to move forward with developing a hotel, etc.



thetrailboss said:


> And NY owns and operates a few ski areas. Are you saying that those should be dumped as well?


It's ridiculous that Hunter has to pay for Belleayre, yet has it undercut it, while the state prevents expansion projects whilst allowing Belleayre to expand.



thetrailboss said:


> I think you are looking at this from a very short term perspective and a narrow point of view of dollars and cents. Even then the latter does not support your argument. You are ignoring the value of Cannon to the public and its role historically and culturally. Cannon was built in the Great Depression to put people to work and is an icon for the state. It has been operating for almost 80 years through many good and bad times. It is the public's mountain and is accessible for all. It is not an exclusive Bear Creek or Yellowstone Club. And yet there has been a recession, albeit a bad one, and it is turning a profit and you say that the state should just get rid of it? You need to understand the larger context.


Firstly, Cannon is not accessible for all.  The state run operation only allows paying alpine skiers and snowboarders on the ski area.  If you try to set foot on the trails without a lift ticket, they can and will throw you out (including snowshoers, skinners, and hikers).

Secondly, I did not say the state needs to get rid of Cannon.  Leasing Cannon will not make it Bear Creek ro the Yellowstone Club.  In fact, leasing it will make it MORE accessible to the public.

Look at Sunapee - 110,000 skier visits during its last year of state control.  3 years later?  258,000 skier visits.




deadheadskier said:


> You didn't answer my question.
> 
> Do you feel the State of NH should lease out all of it's parks?
> 
> Do you feel the Federal Government should lease out all National parks?


Please re-read my answer.


----------



## deadheadskier (May 6, 2011)

threecy said:


> The Federal government technically leases out some campgrounds to the AMC in the WMNF.  Private companies already log in the WMNF.
> 
> For the state parks, not much else to lease other than the campgrounds, apart from the remaining unleased multi-million dollar alpine ski area.



I did read it, and you didn't answer my question.

Hampton Beach State Park.  Beach needs to be cleaned correct?  State employees do it.  Should we lease out the Park and have private companies care for the beach?

What about the trails at Pawtuckaway?  Should we lease it and have a private company take care of the trails?

What about Acadia National Park?  Should we lease it out?  Have a private company take care of it?


----------



## thetrailboss (May 6, 2011)

threecy said:


> I don't live in Belknap County. Interestingly enough, Gunstock is trying to move forward with developing a hotel, etc.


 
That undercuts your argument. 



> It's ridiculous that Hunter has to pay for Belleayre, yet has it undercut it, while the state prevents expansion projects whilst allowing Belleayre to expand.


 
This seems to reveal more about your own ideology than anything else. Hunter does fairly well in the marketplace and has expanded a lot. 



> Firstly, Cannon is not accessible for all. The state run operation only allows paying alpine skiers and snowboarders on the ski area. If you try to set foot on the trails without a lift ticket, they can and will throw you out (including snowshoers, skinners, and hikers).


 
That is true for about any private ski area as well. Folks can access the hiking trails though 24/7 for free. Folks can also ride the tram as a foot passenger for a relatively nominal fee. Much like the WMNF parking passes, it is reasonable to expect people to pay something to help with overhead. The argument is not that Cannon is free, but that it is kept at a rate that makes it affordable for many people. 



> Look at Sunapee - 110,000 skier visits during its last year of state control. 3 years later? 258,000 skier visits.


 
The increase is indeed due to Triple Peak's improvements, which they paid for themselves, and their increased marketing. However, it has come at a cost with increased season pass rates (a dramatic increase), expensive weekend and holiday pass prices, and increases in prices. Many complained when I skied there in 2005-2006. Many of the locals complained. And before you say that they offer NH deals, remember that they are few and far between when they were offered and in fact they do not have them anymore.

The bottom line is that you are getting upset about one ski area in New Hampshire that is publicly owned and operated. If the industry was as bad as you suggest than places would be closing left and right. Instead it is one option in a marketplace that has seen the rise of at least 2 if not 3 ski areas from the NELSAP list and the expansion of several other areas. The marketplace seems to be doing just fine.


----------



## threecy (May 6, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> I did read it, and you didn't answer my question.


Your question was if all state parks should be leased.  How in the world would Wade State Forest be leased?  It's a ridiculous question.



deadheadskier said:


> What about the trails at Pawtuckaway?  Should we lease it and have a private company take care of the trails?


I'm not sure about Pawtuckaway specifically, but many of the hiking trails in New Hampshire are taken care of by volunteer trail adopters.



thetrailboss said:


> That undercuts your argument.


How so?  One of the false arguments against a Cannon lease is that condos and/or a hotel could be developed.  Interestingly enough, the county wants to do that at Gunstock.




thetrailboss said:


> This seems to reveal more about your own ideology than anything else. Hunter does fairly well in the marketplace and has expanded a lot.


I invite you to talk to the Slutskys or perhaps the former owners of now-defunct Scotch Valley and see what they think about having to compete with areas they're paying for.




thetrailboss said:


> That is true for about any private ski area as well.


No, it is not.  Aside from some quasi-urban, small scale ski areas with fences and security, Cannon has perhaps the most aggressive anti-use policy on their ski trails, on or off season, in all of New England.




thetrailboss said:


> The increase is indeed due to Peak's improvements, which they paid for themselves, and their increased marketing.


I don't believe Peak had any involvement in the Sunapee improvements.



thetrailboss said:


> Instead it is one option in a marketplace that has seen the rise of at least 2 if not 3 ski areas from the NELSAP list and the expansion of several other areas.  The marketplace seems to be doing just fine.


The most advanced NELSAP ski areas fell within the government run ski area triangle market in New Hampshire.

The marketplace appears to be doing fine right now, but we're coming off a string of decent snow years.  If you look a bit more closely, you'll see there's been a lot of reshuffling of debt, etc. going on behind the scenes.  If energy prices continue the trend they've been on the past few months, a number of private ski areas may be in jeopardy.


----------



## deadheadskier (May 6, 2011)

My question is not ridiculous.

You want to lease Cannon, which would result in all expenses related to it being passed on to a private company.  Logically I assume you would want to lease all State Parks such as all of the expenses related to the other State Parks gets passed onto a private company.

If you only want this to happen at Cannon and not at other parks around the state, explain why.


----------



## threecy (May 6, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> My question is not ridiculous.
> 
> You want to lease Cannon, which would result in all expenses related to it being passed on to a private company.  Logically I assume you would want to lease all State Parks such as all of the expenses related to the other State Parks gets passed onto a private company.
> 
> If you only want this to happen at Cannon and not at other parks around the state, explain why.



Most state parks in the state are free to use and cost the state little to no money.  Many state parks are wooded lots with no facilities.

Cannon Mountain is a major ski area with millions of dollars in assets and millions of dollars in annual expenses.


----------



## deadheadskier (May 6, 2011)

but if it continues to turn a profit, that's a good thing yes?  Then it can help pay for all the other free parks.

or is it inconceivable that Cannon could ever bring in more profit to the state than a lease could?

I have a feeling that even if Cannon was wildly more profitable being state run than being leased, you'd still be for a lease.


----------



## thetrailboss (May 6, 2011)

threecy said:


> How so? One of the false arguments against a Cannon lease is that condos and/or a hotel could be developed. Interestingly enough, the county wants to do that at Gunstock.


 
Gunstock proves that a government ski area can make money and in fact is an asset to the community while IIRC your point is that Cannon is losing money.  



> I invite you to talk to the Slutskys or perhaps the former owners of now-defunct Scotch Valley and see what they think about having to compete with areas they're paying for.


 
Again, Hunter is doing well.  I looked on NELSAP for info on Scotch Valley and I don't know the story with that mountain.  And all residents of a state pay for services and facilities.  That is a political/public policy decision that was made long ago.  



> No, it is not. Aside from some quasi-urban, small scale ski areas with fences and security, Cannon has perhaps the most aggressive anti-use policy on their ski trails, on or off season, in all of New England.


 
Sugarbush as well as other areas do not allow people to earn turns after they are closed.   IIRC Cannon's concern is erosion.  



> I don't believe Peak had any involvement in the Sunapee improvements.


 
Correct.  It was Muellers/Triple Peaks.  I have corrected my statement.  



> The most advanced NELSAP ski areas fell within the government run ski area triangle market in New Hampshire.


 
Whatever that means.


----------



## threecy (May 6, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> but if it continues to turn a profit, that's a good thing yes?  Then it can help pay for all the other free parks.
> 
> or is it inconceivable that Cannon could ever bring in more profit to the state than a lease could?
> 
> I have a feeling that even if Cannon was wildly more profitable being state run than being leased, you'd still be for a lease.



It appears to be a recurring theme in Cannon's past - after investment and a few good snow years, the ski area has 'turned the corner' - only to run into a deficit shortly thereafter.  Again, it's taken how many good snow years in a row now to cover previous deficits?



thetrailboss said:


> Gunstock proves that a government ski area can make money and in fact is an asset to the community while IIRC your point is that Cannon is losing money.


Gunstock actually was a drain on the county as well and there were some serious debates before a recent round of bond investments.  The good snow years have helped, however their skier visits still appear to be down from the early 1990s.




thetrailboss said:


> I looked on NELSAP for info on Scotch Valley and I don't know the story with that mountain.


Not sure what I can sharre in regard to Scotch due to NDA at the moment.



thetrailboss said:


> IIRC Cannon's concern is erosion.


That's the party line, but it's ridiculous.  Wildcat has traditionally mowed the Polecat for foot traffic.  Waterville has an active hiking trail that empties on to the ski area (as do Cranmore and Loon).




thetrailboss said:


> It was Muellers/Triple Peaks.


Most of the investments were made prior to the assets moving to Triple Peaks.  




thetrailboss said:


> Whatever that means.



King Ridge, Temple, Highlands, Tenney, Crotched...


----------



## riverc0il (May 6, 2011)

threecy said:


> If there are really that many people who care about Cannon and are willing to put their money where their mouths are, they could form a co-op and take the lease.


It is already owned by us through the state, my money is going where my mouth is. I see no reason to pay a few thousand in coop ownership if the ski area is self sustaining. Even if it were to cost the state in the future, I am okay with a few of my tax dollars going to keeping Cannon in the State Park system. You are obviously not okay with it, what is with beating the dead horse?

:beer:

While we are at it... you are quite the hiker and take advantage of trails on public land (you even seem to hold a grudge against this right being taken away from you in regards to certain specific lands). Would you like to see all public land sold off? Certainly many high value mountains with good hiking trails could end up closed. Are you pro-leasing simply for that matter, that you enjoy public lands but do not enjoy the thought of paying for them? I have a hard time seeing someone pro-hiking on public land being anti-public land. :-?


----------



## deadheadskier (May 6, 2011)

threecy said:


> It appears to be a recurring theme in Cannon's past - after investment and a few good snow years, the ski area has 'turned the corner' - only to run into a deficit shortly thereafter.  Again, it's taken how many good snow years in a row now to cover previous deficits?



last year was a below average snow year for NH actually.  Not only that, but we were right in the middle of a deep recession.  Did they lose money last year?


----------



## riverc0il (May 6, 2011)

MadPadraic said:


> One is price. I know that you say it's not the great value it was, but it is still 12% cheaper than Sunapee,


Really? You are comparing pricing to Okemo run Sunapee? The fact that Cannon is cheaper than Sunapee says a LOT more about Sunapee than Cannon. Cannon is on the second tier right under the top big resorts and except for resident and twofer days, discounts are really crumby compared to VT resorts that offer a lot of deals.



MadPadraic said:


> Back to grooming: yes Cannon grooms more than they did, but they still leave the powder alone and they usually leave it alone a day or two after a dump (which is awesome considering the overnight wind they sometimes get). This may or may not change depending on the operator's outlook.


Cannon doesn't groom any more or less than they used to. They groom better though. Leave the powder alone for two days? Really? C'mon. I've been skiing Cannon pretty regularly for ten years now. Anything not designated as bumps gets the groom day after the powder day. Day after powder day is all about the trees. Hell, day of powder day is all about the trees. It ain't like they are leaving a ton ungroomed even on a powder day (compared to Jay, for example).



MadPadraic said:


> Finally, the places you mentioned, Jay and Smuggs, are very far from civilization.


A potential leaser is going to treat Cannon differently than Smuggs or Jay because of how far they are from civilization? Really? Have you been to Smuggs or Jay? Both very large resorts. Smuggs especially caters to families and non-core skiers. I use them specifically as examples because they are large resorts with substantial bed base and a large non-core customer base and both private owners that still keep it real with the die hards. Distance to civilization ain't got anything to do with how those two places operate. Keep in mind Smuggs is the closest big mountain to Burlington and Jay is just as close as Stowe to folks coming up I-91.


----------



## riverc0il (May 6, 2011)

threecy said:


> If you try to set foot on the trails without a lift ticket, they can and will throw you out (including snowshoers, skinners, and hikers).


100% incorrect in regards to skinners. I have ever talked to ski area employees at the base before skinning up regarding hazards on the trails. Signs are posted not to hike the mountain and I think you would get resistance and in trouble if you tried hiking when the mountain is free of snow or skinning or shoeshoeing while the ski area is open. But it is not the case during the winter when the resort is closed. I frequently skin Cannon and consider it one of the more friendly mountains to skin.


----------



## riverc0il (May 6, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> last year was a below average snow year for NH actually.  Not only that, but we were right in the middle of a deep recession.  Did they lose money last year?


Cannon was above average last year. Quite a bit, as I recall. Cannon has had several great years in a row under the direction of JD. As I suggested before, it will be interesting to see what happens financially when JD has to helm a below average season.


----------



## riverc0il (May 6, 2011)

threecy said:


> King Ridge, Temple, Highlands, Tenney, Crotched...


All put out of business by state run ski areas. 

How about all those NELSAP areas in VT and Maine? Those Cannon's fault, too? 

I think a point made above was really good. DHS had already posed the question before I jumped on it this evening. Why not lease all public parks and management of forests. Why have any public land at all. Threecy's response is that it is ridiculous to lease certain public segments (likely many of those that he enjoys as a hiker, no less). The pretense there seems to be why lease lands when they don't cost anything to run. So DHS's comment stands that if Cannon doesn't loose money, what is the difference.

Leading back to my point.... so how Cannon does with the new management and new area structure in a long enough time line, including a few bad years, before jumping ship.


----------



## deadheadskier (May 6, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> Cannon was above average last year. Quite a bit, as I recall. Cannon has had several great years in a row under the direction of JD. As I suggested before, it will be interesting to see what happens financially when JD has to helm a below average season.



I tried finding the data, but I know Ragged got about 80 last year, when they average a bit over 100.  This year it was probably 150+.  

IIRC, last year was the winter that ended in February.  There was basically no meaningful snow at all until the freak storm at the end of April.


----------



## ski_resort_observer (May 6, 2011)

Permit me to summarize....everyone wants Cannon, as a state park, at least pay it's own expenses or maybe make some profit for future improvements whether it's state run or leased out to someone.

Here's a suggestion....how about offering naming rights to Cannon and other state parks, like stadiums have done. LL Bean pays NH 2m bucks to name it LL Bean /Cannon Mountain. You get coupons for 10% off at the Bean retail stores when you buy a season pass or maybe a free pair of wicked awesome slippers. Who else would be a corporate sponsor of Cannon? Maybe Cannon the towel company....lol


----------



## thetrailboss (May 6, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> All put out of business by state run ski areas.
> 
> How about all those NELSAP areas in VT and Maine? Those Cannon's fault, too?


 
My thoughts exactly!

King Ridge: over leveraged by the owners when they installed the last lift.  

Temple:  too far south to get snow and odd set up.  Plus it was getting old.  It is almost three hours from Cannon and in a completely different market.  Not a fair comparison.  

Crotched:  moot.  It reopened 8 years ago, remember?  

Highlands:  It has actually come back as a biking area.  The ownership was an older family that just got tired of running it.  It also is a ways from Cannon and different market.  

Tenney:  you may have a point here, but it has had problems for a long time.


----------



## threecy (May 6, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> You are obviously not okay with it, what is with beating the dead horse?


It's not a dead horse.  As of last week, it's under consideration in Concord.



riverc0il said:


> Would you like to see all public land sold off?


Where again am I advocating selling public land?  One of the reasons a Cannon lease is being explored is so that DRED *doesn't* have to consider selling public land (selling land was proposed as recently as 2009).



riverc0il said:


> 100% incorrect in regards to skinners. I have ever talked to ski area employees at the base before skinning up regarding hazards on the trails. Signs are posted not to hike the mountain and I think you would get resistance and in trouble if you tried hiking when the mountain is free of snow or skinning or shoeshoeing while the ski area is open.


There are ways to get up there without getting harassed year round, but people have been turned back in summer and in winter, open or closed, on foot or otherwise.




riverc0il said:


> How about all those NELSAP areas in VT and Maine? Those Cannon's fault, too?


There is no concentration of lost multi-chair, triple/quad/etc. NELSAP areas in such a short time period as there has been in the Gunstock/Sunapee/Cannon market.



riverc0il said:


> So DHS's comment stands that if Cannon doesn't loose money, what is the difference.


Cannon has millions of dollars of assets and hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars of annual capital investments.  The Sunapee lease dollars, for instance, are apparently pumped into Cannon.  I'm not sure how they're showing that on the ski area income statement, but will hopefully find out soon.  Other significant investments are bonded, so they also don't show on the income statement the way they would for any other ski area having to get a loan (*cough* Peak Resorts).  It certainly tells you something when it takes half a decade of good snow years to pay off rolled over deficits.




thetrailboss said:


> My thoughts exactly!
> 
> King Ridge: over leveraged by the owners when they installed the last lift.
> 
> ...



King Ridge is almost literally in the shadow of Sunapee.  The lift you reference was installed within a year of Sunapee and Gunstock installing a combined *6* brand new lifts.

Temple had been around since the 1930s and had a quad.  Peak Resorts looked at it after Sunapee was privatized/before they jumped on Crotched West.

Crotched didn't come back until after Sunapee was privatized, and even then only 1/2 came back.  Crotched was once the largest ski area in Southern New Hampshire.

Highlands was almost literally in the shadow of Gunstock.  The ownership I was aware of ran out of money and wasn't an older family.  They had a nice triple chairlift there.

Tenney's undoing was probably in the 1980s...they've had so many PR nightmares that it would be hard for any non-heavily-capitalized group to make a go of it.


----------



## thetrailboss (May 7, 2011)

threecy said:


> King Ridge is almost literally in the shadow of Sunapee. The lift you reference was installed within a year of Sunapee and Gunstock installing a combined *6* brand new lifts.


 
If you do some research you will find reference to a business school paper that states how much risk the resort was taking in financing that one lift and how the change in business plan was risky. And yes I am well aware of where it is in relation to Sunapee. 



> Temple had been around since the 1930s and had a quad. Peak Resorts looked at it after Sunapee was privatized/before they jumped on Crotched West.


 
What does that have to do with your argument or with regards to Cannon? Nothing. Temple had old infrastructure. If you saw their old Borvig center pole quad you'd understand. It also is near Wachusett, Nashoba, and many other privately run ski areas in the greater Boston area. You make no connection to how Cannon led to its demise. Its failure is nothing more than coincidence. 



> Crotched didn't come back until after Sunapee was privatized, and even then only 1/2 came back. Crotched was once the largest ski area in Southern New Hampshire.


 
OK....so what does this have to do with Cannon? It still is a viable contender and Peaks is rumored to have plans to eventually expand. The fact that they didn't is more of a reflection of their resources and their conservative approach to operating their business. 



> Highlands was almost literally in the shadow of Gunstock. The ownership I was aware of ran out of money and wasn't an older family. They had a nice triple chairlift there.


 
I know where Highlands is. And I don't see any clear connection other than coincidence. It is closer to 93 than Gunstock. How they ran the mountain is a reflection of them and not Cannon. 



> Tenney's undoing was probably in the 1980s...they've had so many PR nightmares that it would be hard for any non-heavily-capitalized group to make a go of it.


 
The PR problems are their own doing and this again does nothing to advance your argument!


----------



## riverc0il (May 7, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> I tried finding the data, but I know Ragged got about 80 last year, when they average a bit over 100.  This year it was probably 150+.
> 
> IIRC, last year was the winter that ended in February.  There was basically no meaningful snow at all until the freak storm at the end of April.


Yea, last year we got no March. But Cannon did not suffer Ragged's below average fate. Perhaps NoNH did better than SoNH. January 1-3 in 2010, Cannon got three feet alone which may have been a significant contribution to Cannon being above its average even without March snows.


----------



## threecy (May 7, 2011)

Trailboss - my hypothesis about those NELSAP areas is in regard to the triangle of government run areas they were in/near during their demise.

Also, you're incorrect about the Temple quad.  That was a modern lift with a modern overhead drive and modern line equipment.  The centerpole chairs were antiquated, but that's about all.  Nashoba jumped on that one.


----------



## bobbutts (May 8, 2011)

I'm feeling like the argument that Cannon Ski Area is any more for the people of NH because the State runs it is thin.  It doesn't seem any different to me than any of the ski areas in the State.  The resident discount pass is a good deal, but not spectacular.  I think the vocal opposition here at az is mainly due to the fact that we're expert skiers who would prefer it not to be more crowded and somehow mangled to be more of a cruiser's hill, which seems likely under lease.


----------



## riverc0il (May 8, 2011)

bobbutts said:


> I think the vocal opposition here at az is mainly due to the fact that we're expert skiers who would prefer it not to be more crowded and somehow mangled to be more of a cruiser's hill, which seems likely under lease.


This is the argument I don't buy and no one has yet to step up to my previous challenge of describing what would change. Cannon already IS a cruiser's hill. When both mountains are fully open, Wildcat leaves more bumps ungroomed as a percent of available terrain. Cannon grooms the snot out of the place, already. And I think with Mittersill now open, they are more likely to continue grooming the snot out of the place. They love that friggin' winch cat and they sounded only too excited when they wrote about grooming Paulie's earlier this season.


----------



## deadheadskier (May 8, 2011)

threecy said:


> Trailboss - my hypothesis about those NELSAP areas is in regard to the triangle of government run areas they were in/near during their demise.



Few questions regarding your hypothesis

King Ridge 1961 - 1995
Crotched 1964 - 1989
Temple 1937 - 2001
Highlands 1968 - 1995
Tenney 1960 - 1990 then several closures and re-openings through 2009

1. How did those areas all survive for 30 - 60 years competing against the Big Bad state areas?

2. Why didn't Pat's Peak and Ragged shut down as well?  Wouldn't they have been the 1st to go?  Pat's is easily the smallest of the group.  Ragged the most remote.   

3. You often talk of the virtues of private ownership at Sunapee and how the State did a terrible job with Sunapee only bringing in 110K skier visits per year and now Sunapee does 250K+ under the Meullers management.  Don't you think if Sunapee was under private ownership for decades and that successful that it would have crushed those small ski areas far sooner than the State did as you hypothesize?   

4. How is it that a reopened Crotched has been able to thrive against a well run privatized Mount Sunapee, yet a poorly state run Mt. Sunapee put it out of business?


----------



## jack97 (May 8, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> This is the argument I don't buy and no one has yet to step up to my previous challenge of describing what would change. Cannon already IS a cruiser's hill. When both mountains are fully open, Wildcat leaves more bumps ungroomed as a percent of available terrain. Cannon grooms the snot out of the place, already. And I think with Mittersill now open, they are more likely to continue grooming the snot out of the place. They love that friggin' winch cat and they sounded only too excited when they wrote about grooming Paulie's earlier this season.



Got to disagree about Cannon being a cruiser's hill. Yes they have groomed it but the pitch of ~ 80% of those trails still intimidates the majority of the skiers... meaning the intermediates. Try taking a terminal intermediate on any of the groomed front trails ... they will get psych out by the pitch alone.

IMO.... Loon is the cruiser hill, its groomed and the pitch for the most part hits the comfort zone of the majority.

IMO2.... That's why current Cannon privatization will fail. They need more trails that will hit the sweep spot of the market. Prolly have to get most of the old Mittersill trails open and widen.


----------



## bobbutts (May 8, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> This is the argument I don't buy and no one has yet to step up to my previous challenge of describing what would change. Cannon already IS a cruiser's hill. When both mountains are fully open, Wildcat leaves more bumps ungroomed as a percent of available terrain. Cannon grooms the snot out of the place, already. And I think with Mittersill now open, they are more likely to continue grooming the snot out of the place. They love that friggin' winch cat and they sounded only too excited when they wrote about grooming Paulie's earlier this season.



It might help to note that I'm intimate with several places that groom like maniacs. In the last  years I've had passes at:
Stratton, Okemo, Sunapee, Cannon, Bretton Woods, Pat's Peak, Loon, Sunday River (never made it to Loaf that season).. I like to buy passes at nearby places with reliable snowmaking and get around to other, more distant natural, places when the snow is good.  So anyway roundabout point is that from this perspective Cannon (and SR but didn't spend much time there) stick out as places that groom less to me. 
I know that you spend far more days than I do in the snowbelt of N. VT, and among that list of resorts Cannon may stick out more on the other end of the grooming spectrum.


----------



## bobbutts (May 8, 2011)

I think the subj of Sunapee from 110k to 250k visits is worth talking about some more
Things Sunapee did:
1. Improved lifts drastically
2. Improved snowmaking and grooming
3. Better customer service and marketing? (hardly went there before mueller's)
These are kind of no brainer things to do, is it completely unrealistic for the State to accomplish these kinds of things and a given that a lessee will?


Things that happened outside their control.
1. Gas costs made more people favor their location vs. more distant resorts more than they did previously
2. Market has shifted to favor mellow pitch and milder weather.
3. ??

Anyway what I'm getting at is that the results at Sunapee were not a vacuum and may not be repeatable at Cannon anyway.


----------



## riverc0il (May 8, 2011)

jack97 said:


> Got to disagree about Cannon being a cruiser's hill. Yes they have groomed it but the pitch of ~ 80% of those trails still intimidates the majority of the skiers... meaning the intermediates. Try taking a terminal intermediate on any of the groomed front trails ... they will get psych out by the pitch alone.
> 
> IMO.... Loon is the cruiser hill, its groomed and the pitch for the most part hits the comfort zone of the majority.
> 
> IMO2.... That's why current Cannon privatization will fail. They need more trails that will hit the sweep spot of the market. Prolly have to get most of the old Mittersill trails open and widen.


Reread the post I was replying to and put my comment in context. Cruising in that context means that Cannon grooms a ton. I never said Cannon was a great cruising hill compared to the likes of Loon and Burke, et al. But even if Cannon is not the best cruising mountain around, the vast majority of Cannon skiers never leave the groomers, so it is all the same. Cannon is just responding to skier/rider demand for groomed trails whether it suits Cannon's character or not. It doesn't have the topography to be the best cruising mountain around, it is a steeper than average mountain. But it still gets the snot groomed out of it even as a state managed area.


----------



## riverc0il (May 8, 2011)

bobbutts said:


> It might help to note that I'm intimate with several places that groom like maniacs. In the last  years I've had passes at:
> Stratton, Okemo, Sunapee, Cannon, Bretton Woods, Pat's Peak, Loon, Sunday River (never made it to Loaf that season).. I like to buy passes at nearby places with reliable snowmaking and get around to other, more distant natural, places when the snow is good.  So anyway roundabout point is that from this perspective Cannon (and SR but didn't spend much time there) stick out as places that groom less to me.
> I know that you spend far more days than I do in the snowbelt of N. VT, and among that list of resorts Cannon may stick out more on the other end of the grooming spectrum.


It is less about location than it is about type of area. Cannon has been known as a Skier's Mountain, not a resort. So my comparisons have been to other skier's mountains whereas you compared Cannon to resorts especially noted for a lot of snow making and grooming (very much so for grooming). Most recently I compared it to Wildcat which has more natural terrain. Bear in mind, I am excluded Mittersill in my commentary. Compare to Jay, Smuggs, Stowe, Bush, Saddleback, and Killington and the comparison of over grooming is even more appropriate. I won't even bother comparing to MRG or Magic.


----------



## deadheadskier (May 8, 2011)

bobbutts said:


> I think the subj of Sunapee from 110k to 250k visits is worth talking about some more
> Things Sunapee did:
> 1. Improved lifts drastically
> 2. Improved snowmaking and grooming
> ...



I agree.  

Threecy likes to throw the rise in skier visits accomplished at Sunapee to strengthen his argument for private operations at Cannon.  There is NO WAY Cannon would ever see an increase in skier visits of 250% like Sunapee without massive real estate development and widening Mittersill trails, adding snowmaking to all of them and a high speed lift to service the area.


Look at what the Meullers did

1. Added a summit HSQ
(HSQ is already in place at Cannon.  Doesn't appear to be a need for one at Cannonball)

2. Replaced Sunbowl triple with a Quad

3. Built a new lodge
(Cannon's lodge was expanded and renovated last summer)

4. Increased Snowmaking.  
(This is an area that Cannon could be improved to get to the level of Loon or Sunapee)

but overall, there really isn't much that can be done at Cannon.  I don't really see the benefit of private ownership for the Cannon skier.  All they might expect is better snowmaking, slightly increased skier traffic and significant rise in pricing.


----------



## Cannonball (May 8, 2011)

Anyone interested in carrying on this conversation over a hike and turns on Cannon tomorrow?  There is enough snow to make it worthwhile and it's supposed to be a nice day.  I plan to start the up around 7am, but am flexible if there's company....


----------



## threecy (May 8, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> Threecy likes to throw the rise in skier visits accomplished at Sunapee to strengthen his argument for private operations at Cannon.  There is NO WAY Cannon would ever see an increase in skier visits of 250% like Sunapee without massive real estate development and widening Mittersill trails, adding snowmaking to all of them and a high speed lift to service the area.



Why not?  As it stands today, Cannon already has a larger uphill capacity than Sunapee, but for half the skiers.  There is plenty of potential at Cannon - removing the shackles of government budgets, etc. could go a long way.

Like with Sunapee, most of the Cannon employees would probably remain at Cannon and be able to perform better with the flexibility and common sense that private sector operations can provide.


----------



## deadheadskier (May 8, 2011)

threecy said:


> Why not?  As it stands today, Cannon already has a larger uphill capacity than Sunapee, but for half the skiers.  There is plenty of potential at Cannon - removing the shackles of government budgets, etc. could go a long way.
> 
> Like with Sunapee, most of the Cannon employees would probably remain at Cannon and be able to perform better with the flexibility and common sense that private sector operations can provide.



Why don't you explain for us what you think a private owner can do to Cannon to bring it to 250K skier visits.

Sunapee had to undergo massive investment to get to that number.  Sunapee also has terrain far better suited for the average skier than Cannon does.

I don't think there's much of comparison to be made like you're trying to do.  

But please, I'm all ears.  What could Cannon do and why would it be better for the people who ski there?


----------



## Northernflight (May 8, 2011)

> As it stands today, Cannon already has a larger uphill capacity than Sunapee, but for half the skiers


Thats one of my favorite things about Cannon, the lack of crowds and great terrain. I love the mountain the way it is and with the mittersill lift open now, there is even more terrain to explore. Its the classic feel of the place that gets me every time which I cant see any company keeping if they take the mountain over. My view on cannon is that it is a gem and if its making money than why bother leasing it? If it is loosing money, it is worth paying that small sum to keep it the way it is because there is no other mountain that I have experienced that skis like cannon does. Wildcat has a similar vibe, but cannon just has that special feel to it.


----------



## threecy (May 8, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> Why don't you explain for us what you think a private owner can do to Cannon to bring it to 250K skier visits.
> 
> Sunapee had to undergo massive investment to get to that number.  Sunapee also has terrain far better suited for the average skier than Cannon does.



I disagree in regard to terrain.

I think one of the first things you'd see a private operator invest in would be snowmaking.


----------



## deadheadskier (May 8, 2011)

so, improved snowmaking will increase skier visits by 100%?


----------



## UVSHTSTRM (May 8, 2011)

Northernflight said:


> Thats one of my favorite things about Cannon, the lack of crowds and great terrain. I love the mountain the way it is and with the mittersill lift open now, there is even more terrain to explore. Its the classic feel of the place that gets me every time which I cant see any company keeping if they take the mountain over. My view on cannon is that it is a gem and if its making money than why bother leasing it? If it is loosing money, it is worth paying that small sum to keep it the way it is because there is no other mountain that I have experienced that skis like cannon does. Wildcat has a similar vibe, but cannon just has that special feel to it.



While I could care less whether Cannon is leased out or not, I still don't get the whole vibe, classic feel, nothing skis like Cannon, etc.  I don't mean to pick on you, others have said it prior and will say it going forward, but what makes Cannon more old school, classic, vibe, etc?  I mean depending on where your from the mountain that you call home tends to have "the vibe".  Classic?  In what way does it differ from every other privately run resort?  It's got lifts, lots of them, it's got a base lodge or two, it's got snowmaking, it's got wide trails, it's got housing at the bottom of it, and it's got really wide trails just like every other resort.....oh and it's got lots of trails.  So I am not sure what makes it more or less classic then every other resort in the Northeast.  As far as how it skis, it's fine, it's what Northeast skiing is, it pretty much offers every trail type, fall lines, etc that every other resort does....just doesn't have tons of intermediate terrain.  I guess I just don't see the big deal if the state were to lease it out in regards to terrain, classic feel, vibe.  Pricing of the passes and tickets that might change, but I am not sure they could get away with it....I mean they are already close to average for a typical day ticket for a flatlander.


----------



## threecy (May 9, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> so, improved snowmaking will increase skier visits by 100%?



Do you expect me to post a business plan or something?  Come on.


----------



## deadheadskier (May 9, 2011)

You're the one who insists that Cannon would increase skier visits 250% under private management just like Sunapee.

I pointed out that Sunapee got there with massive investment and that outside of snowmaking and perhaps grooming equipment, Cannon already has all of the things the Meullers did in place - HSQ for main lift, updated base lodge etc.  

If you're so strong in your feelings about the growth private management would bring to the area, you clearly must have a vision of how it gets there no?  I ask the question, you respond 'snowmaking'.  Not a very convincing argument.


----------



## threecy (May 9, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> You're the one who *insists* that Cannon would increase skier visits 250% under private management just like Sunapee.


Really?  Where did I *insist* that Cannon would increase skier visits by 250%?  I merely said it's not impossible, contrary to your insisting that there was "NO WAY."


----------



## deadheadskier (May 9, 2011)

your constant use of the Meuller's success at Sunapee indicates that that's what you believe would happen at Cannon under private ownership.

yet, you refuse to explain how it would other than 'improve snowmaking'.   

I stand by my statement that there is NO WAY you'd see the same increases at Cannon short of massive real estate development and turning Mittersill into an low intermediate trail pod serviced by a HSQ.  If you believe they should do the latter, I'm guessing you're one to fart in church.


----------



## thetrailboss (May 9, 2011)

Actually, what I find interesting is that Threecy makes the argument that the state runs Cannon so well that it put other places out of business but then turns around and argues the opposite saying that the state does a bad job and having a private operator would make it better.  Seems to want to argue both ways.  

As to the argument that the state put places out of business, the ownership factor is outweighed by other considerations that factored in such as the size of the area (vertical AND acreage), the locations of the operations, and other factors such as insurance and energy costs.


----------



## threecy (May 9, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> I stand by my statement that there is NO WAY you'd see the same increases at Cannon short of massive real estate development and turning Mittersill into an low intermediate trail pod serviced by a HSQ.



Alright, you're on the record.


----------



## deadheadskier (May 9, 2011)

thetrailboss said:


> Actually, what I find interesting is that Threecy makes the argument that the state runs Cannon so well that it put other places out of business but then turns around and argues the opposite saying that the state does a bad job and having a private operator would make it better.  Seems to want to argue both ways.
> 
> As to the argument that the state put places out of business, the ownership factor is outweighed by other considerations that factored in such as the size of the area (vertical AND acreage), the locations of the operations, and other factors such as insurance and energy costs.



agree 100%

http://forums.alpinezone.com/showpost.php?p=625995&postcount=168

wanting the cake and eating it to


----------



## Northernflight (May 9, 2011)

> While I could care less whether Cannon is leased out or not, I still don't get the whole vibe, classic feel, nothing skis like Cannon, etc. I don't mean to pick on you, others have said it prior and will say it going forward, but what makes Cannon more old school, classic, vibe, etc? I mean depending on where your from the mountain that you call home tends to have "the vibe". Classic? In what way does it differ from every other privately run resort? It's got lifts, lots of them, it's got a base lodge or two, it's got snowmaking, it's got wide trails, it's got housing at the bottom of it, and it's got really wide trails just like every other resort.....oh and it's got lots of trails. So I am not sure what makes it more or less classic then every other resort in the Northeast. As far as how it skis, it's fine, it's what Northeast skiing is, it pretty much offers every trail type, fall lines, etc that every other resort does....just doesn't have tons of intermediate terrain. I guess I just don't see the big deal if the state were to lease it out in regards to terrain, classic feel, vibe. Pricing of the passes and tickets that might change, but I am not sure they could get away with it....I mean they are already close to average for a typical day ticket for a flatlander.



Its the combination of all the parts. Its Franconia notch, the tram, the rustic feel of the lodge, the way the trails flow and the way they are set up, the history of the place, the employees. I am the first to admit I have a limited scope of skiing. Ive grown up in New Hampshire so most of my skiing has been in the White Mountains. I have been to Vermont and Main of course but have only spent two days out West. I'm sure there are places out there that are better than Cannon, but for me its the feel I get whenever I go there. Every resort is different but Cannon is special for me. Its just all the bits and pieces put together that make it great. Sure it lacks intermediate terrain, there are some nice blue trails but for the average skier they can pose challenging although Ive never found Cannon to be as tough as I hear everyone say it is. Whenever I think of a corporate ski area I think of Loon, I know that's not always the case, take Wildcat as a example, but my fear would be a private operating trying to compete toe to toe with Loon which would require a build up of amenities and turning mittersill into something smiler to the Kang Quad at Loon. I like Cannon the way it is and I don't want it to change. We all fear change, just look at the discussions when they where putting the Mitt lift in. Hopefully if it does change it is for the better, I just don't see any benefits from leasing the mountain for anyone.


----------



## threecy (May 9, 2011)

thetrailboss said:


> Actually, what I find interesting is that Threecy makes the argument that the state runs Cannon so well that it put other places out of business but then turns around and argues the opposite saying that the state does a bad job and having a private operator would make it better.  Seems to want to argue both ways.



No, that is not what I was saying.  You're missing the part about government pouring millions of dollars in investments into Cannon (as well as Sunapee years ago and Gunstock).

Cannon doesn't have any loan or property tax payments, amongst many other costs.  Debt and taxes absolutely cripple private sector ski areas in bad times.


----------



## bobbutts (May 9, 2011)

threecy said:


> No, that is not what I was saying.  You're missing the part about government pouring millions of dollars in investments into Cannon (as well as Sunapee years ago and Gunstock).
> 
> Cannon doesn't have any loan or property tax payments, amongst many other costs.  Debt and taxes absolutely cripple private sector ski areas in bad times.



And during bad times at Cannon the State has to cover it, so they're essentially NELSAP-proof.  I have no trouble giving you this point.  

But wouldn't a State subsidized, but privately leased area be even more of an unfair competitor?  For instance the Mueller's seem to be able do things more aggressively and cheaply than Cannon with their special state arrangement and private combo.  Like install a second hand chairlift at lower cost.  Also if they go belly up the State would likely be there to take it back over.  I'm wondering if a leased area like Sunapee is an even more unfair vs. Cannon?

Threecy are you saying the State should get out of the ski area business altogether because it hurts private business here?  Or just that they should lease Cannon?  Or??


----------



## SIKSKIER (May 9, 2011)

Holy cow!I leave for a few days and then more of this?Leave Cannon alone.Do you know what happened when leasing Cannon was first discussed?The Old Man fell from his perch in horror!:grin:Cannon and the wonderland that is Franconia Notch exist in its current beauty today because the state had the foresite to purchase the lands from private hands.Can you even imagine what Franconia Notch would look like if it had been in private ownership until now?The state has done one incredible job keeping a balance access for tourists and leaving it mostly undeveloped.I'm sure they would remain in control in that sense with a lease but for gods sake,they have been a great caretaker and also have prospered.Leave it alone already.


----------



## threecy (May 9, 2011)

bobbutts said:


> But wouldn't a State subsidized, but privately leased area be even more of an unfair competitor?


I don't see how a leased Cannon would be state subsidized?

In regard to assets, investments at Sunapee starting with the lease agreement were made with private dollars (and I believe are thus taxed by local towns).  Assets owned by the government would in theory be priced into the lease and thus be similar to how Bretton Woods, Loon, etc. rent theirs from CNL.

In regard to land, Attitash, Loon, Waterville, and Wildcat all lease much of their ski terrain from the Federal government.



bobbutts said:


> Like install a second hand chairlift at lower cost.


The Sun Bowl Quad at Sunapee was already owned by the Muellers (they had purchased it new for Okemo).



bobbutts said:


> Threecy are you saying the State should get out of the ski area business altogether because it hurts private business here?  Or just that they should lease Cannon?  Or??



The Phone Book Rule: "If it's being done by something already listed in the phone book, the government shouldn't be doing it."


----------



## Cannonball (May 9, 2011)

threecy said:


> The Phone Book Rule: "If it's being done by something already listed in the phone book, the government shouldn't be doing it."



No more public: defenders, health services, road repair, security, armed forces, teachers, broadcasting, research, elementary schools, middle schools, high schools, colleges, oil reserves, parks, campgrounds, ski areas, golf courses, utilities, ........

I think I finally see where you are coming from.


----------



## Puck it (May 10, 2011)

Cannonball said:


> No more public: defenders, health services, road repair, security, armed forces, teachers, broadcasting, research, elementary schools, middle schools, high schools, colleges, oil reserves, parks, campgrounds, ski areas, golf courses, utilities, ........
> 
> I think I finally see where you are coming from.



He has been held up in a large compound outside of Concord with no internet.  He uses couriers to post these rants.


----------



## MadPadraic (May 11, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> Really? You are comparing pricing to Okemo run Sunapee? The fact that Cannon is cheaper than Sunapee says a LOT more about Sunapee than Cannon. Cannon is on the second tier right under the top big resorts and except for resident and twofer days, discounts are really crumby compared to VT resorts that offer a lot of deals.


1) You put out a challenge on how it might change, and now your rejecting the most direct comparisons in terms of geography and size (Loon) and changing business structure (Sunapee)?  
2) Name me two better deals within a 2.5 hour drive from Boston.



riverc0il said:


> Cannon doesn't groom any more or less than they used to. They groom better though. Leave the powder alone for two days? Really? C'mon. I've been skiing Cannon pretty regularly for ten years now. Anything not designated as bumps gets the groom day after the powder day. Day after powder day is all about the trees. Hell, day of powder day is all about the trees. It ain't like they are leaving a ton ungroomed even on a powder day (compared to Jay, for example).


 1) Jay is far away. 2) As clear from earlier in the thread, we seem to have different experiences on the same mountain.




riverc0il said:


> A potential leaser is going to treat Cannon differently than Smuggs or Jay because of how far they are from civilization?



Um, yes. 



riverc0il said:


> Keep in mind Smuggs is the closest big mountain to Burlington and Jay is just as close as Stowe to folks coming up I-91.


 Stowe, Jay, and Smuggs are far away. Stratton and Mt Snow aren't. You view Jay as a nice drive, would you like Jay to become Stratton?


----------



## MadPadraic (May 11, 2011)

threecy said:


> It certainly tells you something when it takes half a decade of good snow years to pay off rolled over deficits.



Yes it does. What does it tell us? Well it tells us that if just "half a decade" of good snow years can pay off decades of losses, then the entire argument of "Cannon only makes small amounts of money in the years it turns a profit, but looses lots in the bad years," has to be false.


----------



## threecy (May 11, 2011)

MadPadraic said:


> What does it tell us? Well it tells us that if just "half a decade" of good snow years can pay off decades of losses, then the entire argument of "Cannon only makes small amounts of money in the years it turns a profit, but looses lots in the bad years," has to be false.



Time value of money.  I bet a single day of lift ticket sales can offset deficits incurred during the late 1930s at Cannon - does that actually mean anything?

The bottom line is the entire parks division is required by law to balance its budget every year.  Another year in the red from Cannon may force the division to start *selling* property (as it almost did a few years ago).


----------



## deadheadskier (May 11, 2011)

threecy said:


> Time value of money.  I bet a single day of lift ticket sales can offset deficits incurred during the late 1930s at Cannon - does that actually mean anything?
> 
> The bottom line is the entire parks division is required by law to balance its budget every year.  Another year in the red from Cannon may force the division to start *selling* property (as it almost did a few years ago).



The NH State Park system is the only State Park system in the country that is self funded.  I suppose that can be interpreted as being required by law to balance it's budget each year.

It sounds to me that a balanced budget is not what you'd like to see from the State Parks.  You'd rather see the State Parks as a profit center with surpluses going towards reducing the overall State Budget deficit.

Who specifically discussed selling property?  Which lawmakers?  Why didn't it happen?


----------



## threecy (May 11, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> It sounds to me that a balanced budget is not what you'd like to see from the State Parks.  You'd rather see the State Parks as a profit center with surpluses going towards reducing the overall State Budget deficit.


Where did I say that?



deadheadskier said:


> Who specifically discussed selling property?  Which lawmakers?  Why didn't it happen?


The NH legislature commissioned a study and grouped each of the parks, with group "C" being recommended for decommissioning, transferring, leasing, selling, or being given away.  DRED walked that one back at the end of 2009, however it still gets whispered when the budget woes draw attention.


----------



## deadheadskier (May 11, 2011)

threecy said:


> Where did I say that?



You didn't say it, but I assume you feel that way.  ALL you talk about in regards to Cannon is money.  That's all you care about.  

No where in the State Parks Mission Statement does it suggest that the parks are supposed to be profit centers for the state.


----------



## Cannonball (May 11, 2011)

threecy said:


> The NH legislature commissioned a study and grouped each of the parks, with group "C" being recommended for decommissioning, transferring, leasing, selling, or being given away. DRED walked that one back at the end of 2009, however it still gets whispered when the budget woes draw attention.


 
NH legislature commissions lots of studies so I'm not sure which one you are reffering to but it might be this one: http://nhstateparks.org/uploads/pdf/Appendix%201%20-%20SB5%20Legislation%20and%20Report.pdf Which includes the following figures:












You throw out a lot of 'facts' in your arguments but you usually fail to put them in context. There is no doubt that Cannon has operated in the red some years...and in the black in other years. But the facts are that it is a huge revenue source for the state, it doesn't operate at nearly the losses other NH areas do, and serves a larger economic role that is not reflected in a simple balance sheet of Cannon's direct operating budget. To quote the NH's 2010, 10-yr Parks Plan:
"_The State Parks represent the face of New Hampshire to millions of visitors each year. They are also a cornerstone of the state’s tourism economy, the second most important _
_state industry, contributing $45 million to the state through fees and taxes and over $500 million to the state’s economy through direct spending._"

Do you think a privately run ski area (e.g. Sunnapee) is an appealing "face of New Hampshire" and something that can be marketed as a "cornerstone of the state's tourism economy"? I was at Cannon on Monday. Even during peak mud season (i.e. a tourist low point) I talked to families of German and Japanese tourists in the parking lot who where there for the park. I doubt they planned to pull into Loon next.


----------



## deadheadskier (May 11, 2011)

crap, better lease Mt. Washington out to Exxon Mobile.  5 years in the red.  What do you say Threecy?


----------



## threecy (May 11, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> You didn't say it, but I assume you feel that way.  ALL you talk about in regards to Cannon is money.  That's all you care about.



You make a lot of assumptions about me and air them in public.  Kudos to you.  I'm a heartless person who only cares about money.



Cannonball said:


> NH legislature commissions lots of studies so I'm not sure which one you are reffering to but it might be this one: http://nhstateparks.org/uploads/pdf/Appendix%201%20-%20SB5%20Legislation%20and%20Report.pdf  Which includes the following figures:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


In regard to context, the charts you posted are for all of Franconia Notch State Park and thus include the surplus the Flume brings in that offsets the losses from the ski area in the cited years.





Cannonball said:


> Do you think a privately run ski area (e.g. Sunnapee) is an appealing "face of New Hampshire" and something that can be marketed as a "cornerstone of the state's tourism economy"?


Considering Sunapee skis more than twice as many people now as when it was government run...and, considering the advertising dollars for leased Cannon would come out of private funds and thus state funds could be focussed on other marketing...



Cannonball said:


> I was at Cannon on Monday.  Even during peak mud season (i.e. a tourist low point) I talked to families of German and Japanese tourists in the parking lot who where there for the park.  I doubt they planned to pull into Loon next.


So, if the Cannon ski area operations were privately leased, said German and Japanese tourists wouldn't visit New Hampshire anymore?


----------



## Puck it (May 11, 2011)

threecy said:


> In regard to context, the charts you posted are for all of Franconia Notch State Park and thus include the surplus the Flume brings in that offsets the losses from the ski area in the cited years.


 

The Flume offsets Cannon losses.  Provide the supporting data for that statement.


----------



## deadheadskier (May 11, 2011)

Puck it said:


> The Flume offsets Cannon losses.  Provide the supporting data for that statement.



+1


----------



## thetrailboss (May 11, 2011)

Puck it said:


> The Flume offsets Cannon losses. Provide the supporting data for that statement.


 
Forget that.  Cannon/FNSP is in the black for all of the periods in that chart while MWSP is in the red for all of periods of time.  Why am I not hearing threecy shouting to privatize that?


----------



## Puck it (May 11, 2011)

thetrailboss said:


> Forget that. Cannon/FNSP is in the black for all of the periods in that chart while MWSP is in the red for all of periods of time. Why am I not hearing threecy shouting to privatize that?


 

I think the last three or four years for Cannon have in the black.  So, that leaves '06 and '07 out.   If these are red then that leaves 2 out of ~10 years in the red.  Not the doom and gloom that he is portraying.


----------



## threecy (May 11, 2011)

Puck it said:


> I think the last three or four years for Cannon have in the black.  So, that leaves '06 and '07 out.   If these are red then that leaves 2 out of ~10 years in the red.  Not the doom and gloom that he is portraying.


What?  3 out of the 5 years in the charts above showed FNSP/Cannon losing money.  In addition, Cannon reportedly lost money in fiscal 2006 (not in the above charts).


----------



## threecy (May 11, 2011)

thetrailboss said:


> Forget that.  Cannon/FNSP is in the black for all of the periods in that chart while MWSP is in the red for all of periods of time.  Why am I not hearing threecy shouting to privatize that?



No, it isn't.  Cannon is in the red in 3 of those 5 years.


----------



## deadheadskier (May 11, 2011)

What are you talking about?  Look at the numbers.  There's not a single year in ( ) indicating that Cannon/NSP is operating in the red.


----------



## threecy (May 11, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> What are you talking about?  Look at the numbers.  There's not a single year in ( ) indicating that Cannon/NSP is operating in the red.



Did you actually open the link or are you just looking at the colorful graphs?


----------



## deadheadskier (May 11, 2011)

threecy said:


> Did you actually open the link or are you just looking at the colorful graphs?



I was going off of the #s on those charts, which are all in the Black.  

I had asked for data showing the difference between the Flume and Cannon.  You are right, the Flume does offset Cannon.   The report is ridiculously long, but the information supports your argument.

When I asked for data supporting your claim, why not say just look at pages such and such and you will see what I am referring to?  Instead you have to be a dick about it.

Now, back to Trailboss's and my questions.

Should the state lease Mt. Washington State Park?


----------



## threecy (May 11, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> When I asked for data supporting your claim, why not say just look at pages such and such and you will see what I am referring to?  Instead you have to be a dick about it.


I apologize for not treating you in the classy manner you've been treating me.


----------



## threecy (May 11, 2011)

thetrailboss said:


> Forget that.  Cannon/FNSP is in the black for all of the periods in that chart while MWSP is in the red for all of periods of time.  Why am I not hearing threecy shouting to privatize that?



I believe some, if not most, of Mount Washington State Park, is already leased.


----------



## Puck it (May 11, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> I was going off of the #s on those charts, which are all in the Black.


 

I was too.

I would like to see the latest five years as comparison.  Is there a documetn for the most recent years.


----------



## thetrailboss (May 11, 2011)

threecy said:


> No, it isn't. Cannon is in the red in 3 of those 5 years.


 
The second chart does not support you.  The "Cannon/FNSP" Unit does not show a single year in the red or with (these numbers). While it is true that they did not make as much profit, Cannon/FSP is in the black, above the $0 line as you can clearly see.


----------



## deadheadskier (May 11, 2011)

Trailboss

If you go into the link and scroll way down, it breaks out the FSP revenue and expenses by segment; Flume, Tramway and Cannon Ski Area.  It shows Cannon as being in the red, in some cases significantly for three of the five years.  

That's what threecy is referring to, not the overall data on the charts that Cannonball posted.


----------



## thetrailboss (May 11, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> Trailboss
> 
> If you go into the link and scroll way down, it breaks out the FSP revenue and expenses by segment; Flume, Tramway and Cannon Ski Area. It shows Cannon as being in the red, in some cases significantly for three of the five years.
> 
> That's what threecy is referring to, not the overall data on the charts that Cannonball posted.


 
I just saw Page 79 of the report, and have three points. 

First, the information is now six-eight years old and obsolete. Second, the lease for Cannon, as I understood it, was for all the FNSP operations, not just Cannon since they are all integrated. When you factor in the Tram revenue with Cannon revenue from Page 79, it takes care of some of the red ink. I imagine if you factored in the campground operation at Echo Lake it would help eliminate more. Third, the revenue projections that we are all pointing to here suggest that they are all integrated businesses. That is not to say that they aren't seperable, but in the eyes of the state, they are the same.


----------



## threecy (May 11, 2011)

thetrailboss said:


> Second, the lease for Cannon, as I understood it, was for all the FNSP operations, not just Cannon since they are all integrated.



I'm pretty sure the discussions for this biennial budget are around leasing the Cannon Mountain ski area, not the entire Franconia Notch State Park.


----------



## thetrailboss (May 11, 2011)

threecy said:


> I'm pretty sure the discussions for this biennial budget are around leasing the Cannon Mountain ski area, not the entire Franconia Notch State Park.


 
As I understood it, the specific "business units" were to include the Tram, Cannon proper, and Echo Lake Beach/Campground. If you took those assets out of the FNSP unit I think you would see that they (as in Cannon, Tram, Beach/CG) made money if not broke even each year in this report from now almost ten years ago.


----------



## Puck it (May 11, 2011)

thetrailboss said:


> As I understood it, the specific "business units" were to include the Tram, Cannon proper, and Echo Lake Beach/Campground. If you took those assets out of the FNSP unit I think you would see that the made money if not broke even each year in this report from now almost ten years ago.


 
The Tram is broken out too in the pdf.  It must be Summer Ops only.  It made money by itself.


----------



## threecy (May 11, 2011)

thetrailboss said:


> As I understood it, the specific "business units" were to include the Tram, Cannon proper, and Echo Lake Beach/Campground.  If you took those assets out of the FNSP unit I think you would see that the made money if not broke even each year in this report from now almost ten years ago.





Puck it said:


> The Tram is broken out too in the pdf.  It must be Summer Ops only.  It made money by itself.



Indeed...with just this information, it's tough to pinpoint (the FNSP operations expenses decline while the Flume expenses go up), but one can expect some of the FNSP operations expenses to be pushed out of the ski area line item if it were leased.  It should also be noted that these numbers are before more recent energy price spikes.

Regardless, Notch operations would net the parks department pretty close to a million a year based upon the limited information in these charts.


----------



## jack97 (May 11, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> Why don't you explain for us what you think a private owner can do to Cannon to bring it to 250K skier visits.
> 
> Sunapee had to undergo massive investment to get to that number.  Sunapee also has terrain far better suited for the average skier than Cannon does.





threecy said:


> I disagree in regard to terrain.
> 
> I think one of the first things you'd see a private operator invest in would be snowmaking.



If the disagreement in regard to terrain is in the context of best suited for the average skier, I recall the rumor that when Peak Resort wanted to expand their business toward NE, they decided against the old Temple ski area and opted for the Onset/Bobcat/Crotched area. According to the rumor, the reasoning was that most of Temple's pitch was consider to steep for the crowd they wanted to attract. The second reason was a lack of a water supply. I think the guys over at Snow Journal could shed some light into this.


----------



## riverc0il (May 11, 2011)

Puck it said:


> The Tram is broken out too in the pdf.  It must be Summer Ops only.  It made money by itself.


As I recall, when the tram was originally built, it was primarily built for summer tourism and was understood that it could/would take a loss in the winter.

This past days posts on the subject speak to folks bashing Threecy without doing their own research. FSN/Cannon includes Flume and Summer operations. The entire thing can be in the black with skiing operations in the red. It has already been noted but I just want to point out that a lot of folks are snapping at threecy while also throwing around assumptions and questionalbe numbers.

Let's face it folks, this discussion has gotten circular based on preferences of what the function of government is. Time to give it up.


----------



## threecy (May 11, 2011)

jack97 said:


> If the disagreement in regard to terrain is in the context of best suited for the average skier, I recall the rumor that when Peak Resort wanted to expand their business toward NE, they decided against the old Temple ski area and opted for the Onset/Bobcat/Crotched area.


Peak looked at a variety of areas, open and closed, before choosing Crotched.  Frankly, it remains to be seen if it was the best choice out of the areas they looked at.



jack97 said:


> According to the rumor, the reasoning was that most of Temple's pitch was consider to steep for the crowd they wanted to attract.


I don't think that's accurate - the current quad lift line at Crotched is steeper than the quad lift line at Temple.


----------



## deadheadskier (May 11, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> As I recall, when the tram was originally built, it was primarily built for summer tourism and was understood that it could/would take a loss in the winter.
> 
> This past days posts on the subject speak to folks bashing Threecy without doing their own research. FSN/Cannon includes Flume and Summer operations. The entire thing can be in the black with skiing operations in the red. It has already been noted but I just want to point out that a lot of folks are snapping at threecy while also throwing around assumptions and questionalbe numbers.
> 
> Let's face it folks, this discussion has gotten circular based on preferences of what the function of government is. Time to give it up.



I'm not going to deny I've taken issue with threecy's stance and could be perceived as bashing him.  At the same time, he comes across as a 'know it all'.  Today's posts proved that he's right on a lot of the financial aspects of Cannon.  That said, I've asked plenty of times for data on certain claims he makes.  I am not as familiar with the gov't process as he is. He'd receive far less 'bashing', if he was more direct in presenting the true numbers that he knows instead of of having a history of being very vague on the subject.

18 pages of this thread it's him stumping, "Cannon loses money, Cannon losses money, Public ski areas put private ski areas out of business, etc."  Then FINALLY today, he points me towards the true financials.  Mind you, I said in the first few pages that I need to see hard numbers before I truly make up my opinion. 

It took until today to get those numbers.  And they do give me pause.  For a guy who has such a hardcore opinion on Cannon being leased out, he could've built a lot more credibility and received a lot less bashing if he presented the hard numbers from the document Cannonball posted today at the very beginning of the thread.

He finally backed up his stance and it took another member taking him to task to get there.  A lot of the BS in this thread would've never happened had he presented hard facts early on when he was asked for them. 

I'll apologize to threecy for 'bashing' him, but it's not like he hasn't been smug in his own arguments to.


----------



## threecy (May 12, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> I'm not going to deny I've taken issue with threecy's stance and could be perceived as bashing him.  At the same time, he comes across as a 'know it all'.  Today's posts proved that he's right on a lot of the financial aspects of Cannon.  That said, I've asked plenty of times for data on certain claims he makes.





deadheadskier said:


> I'll apologize to threecy for 'bashing' him, but it's not like he hasn't been smug in his own arguments to.



These are internet forums open to the public.  I cannot post every piece of data I have, or every piece of information I've been told.

I'd invite you to read through the posts in the thread...you'll note that I've been trying to focus on the ski industry related issues, whereas you've been trying to make this personal (suggesting that I have a grudge, was denied a job, etc. etc.).  I don't see the need for that.  Call me smug or a know it all...if people want to avoid know it alls, they tend to avoid internet forums 




deadheadskier said:


> 18 pages of this thread it's him stumping, "Cannon loses money, Cannon losses money, Public ski areas put private ski areas out of business, etc."  Then FINALLY today, he points me towards the true financials.  Mind you, I said in the first few pages that I need to see hard numbers before I truly make up my opinion.
> 
> It took until today to get those numbers.  And they do give me pause.  For a guy who has such a hardcore opinion on Cannon being leased out, he could've built a lot more credibility and received a lot less bashing if he presented the hard numbers from the document Cannonball posted today at the very beginning of the thread.


Cannon has a long history of losing money outside of good snow years.  I don't think there was any doubt that Cannon has lost money in bad years - I believe the discussion here was more along the lines of 'Cannon has made money in the past few years and has thus turned a corner.'


----------



## Puck it (May 12, 2011)

threecy said:


> Cannon has a long history of losing money outside of good snow years. I don't think there was any doubt that Cannon has lost money in bad years - I believe the discussion here was more along the lines of 'Cannon has made money in the past few years and has thus turned a corner.'


 
Private areas can lose money also in bad snow years.  Right?


----------



## witch hobble (May 12, 2011)

Dudes, don't start the kiss and make up bullshit now.  Dig those heels in!!!  We have a little more than six months until those lifts turn for skiing again. :argue:

I suspect if you seperated out ski area operations as a line item in many large resorts' budgets, they would be loss leaders. No?


----------



## deadheadskier (May 12, 2011)

threecy said:


> These are internet forums open to the public.  I cannot post every piece of data I have, or every piece of information I've been told.
> 
> I/QUOTE]
> 
> why not?


----------



## Puck it (May 12, 2011)

deadheadskier said:
			
		

> why not?


----------



## threecy (May 12, 2011)

Puck it said:


> Private areas can lose money also in bad snow years.  Right?


Indeed...when Cannon shows a loss, taxpayers are on the hook for hundreds of thousands of dollars.  If Sunapee loses money, the State still gets something like $150,000 + 3% of gross.



deadheadskier said:


> why not?





Puck it said:


>



Exactly   I learned my lesson almost 10 years ago when I posted something ski related that shouldn't have been posted.  Some of these ski forums are closely monitored.  Even amongst those not closely monitored, certain threads show up at the top of Google search results.


----------



## from_the_NEK (May 12, 2011)

threecy said:


> Exactly   I learned my lesson almost 10 years ago when I posted something ski related that shouldn't have been posted.  Some of these ski forums are closely monitored.  Even amongst those not closely monitored, certain threads show up at the top of Google search results.


----------



## Puck it (May 12, 2011)

from_the_NEK said:


>


----------



## deadheadskier (May 12, 2011)

threecy said:


> Exactly   I learned my lesson almost 10 years ago when I posted something ski related that shouldn't have been posted.  Some of these ski forums are closely monitored.  Even amongst those not closely monitored, certain threads show up at the top of Google search results.



See I understand this full well.  My brother lost a job once for discussing sensitive information on a public forum.

However, none of the questions asked of you have been 'inside secret info'.  It's all public information.  I don't see the harm in pointing someone towards facts that actually help to support your argument.

If you knew of the Flume/Tram/Ski Area data, you should have just said look at these numbers.


----------



## threecy (May 12, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> See I understand this full well.  My brother lost a job once for discussing sensitive information on a public forum.
> 
> However, none of the questions asked of you have been 'inside secret info'.  It's all public information.  I don't see the harm in pointing someone towards facts that actually help to support your argument.



Not necessarily, in regard to Cannon.  My slap on the wrist wasn't sensitive information per se, but nonetheless something that didn't need to be posted online.  Was surprised to see who was reading those forums at the time though 



deadheadskier said:


> If you knew of the Flume/Tram/Ski Area data, you should have just said look at these numbers.


I hadn't seen the cited charts before.  There have been news stories and various releases over the years citing the losses at Cannon in bad snow years - I didn't know that was actually being questioned here.


----------



## Black Phantom (May 12, 2011)

threecy said:


> Not necessarily, in regard to Cannon.  My slap on the wrist wasn't sensitive information per se, but nonetheless something that didn't need to be posted online.  Was surprised to see who was reading those forums at the time though
> 
> 
> I hadn't seen the cited charts before.  There have been news stories and various releases over the years citing the losses at Cannon in bad snow years - I didn't know that was actually being questioned here.



Excellent work, councilor. :flag::beer:


----------



## Cannonball (May 12, 2011)

threecy said:


> I hadn't seen the cited charts before.  There have been news stories and various releases over the years citing the losses at Cannon in bad snow years - I didn't know that was actually being questioned here.



It's odd to me that you have been posting "facts" about Cannon's profitability ad nauseum for many months over several threads, yet you haven't seen this data before?  I found all of these NH reports by copying and pasting one of your quotes into a google search!


----------



## Puck it (May 12, 2011)

Last Meeting Minutes that were posted also.

​*Cannon Mountain Advisory Commission meeting *​*
November 19, 2010 / Cannon Mountain​Minutes prepared by John DeVivo​Members present:​*​[FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]Chairman Dennis Murphy, Representative Kathy Taylor, Representative David Russell, 
Treasurer Catherine Provencher, Rich McLeod, Martha McLeod, Gerry Coogan ​
[/FONT][/FONT]*Members absent:​*​[FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]Senator John Gallus, Senator Deborah Reynolds, Jay Polimeno ​
[/FONT][/FONT]*Others present:​*​[FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]John DeVivo, Kevin Johnson ​
[/FONT][/FONT]*Call to order:​*[FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]Chairman Murphy called the meeting to order at 10:15 AM, with a round of introductions made.​[/FONT][/FONT]*Approval of 11/16/09 meeting minutes:​*[FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]Martha McLeod moved that minutes be accepted, Rich McLeod seconded, and the minutes were approved.​[/FONT][/FONT]*Financial update FY10:​*[FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]John DeVivo reported the following: 
Cannon recorded a net profit of $426K on its Quickbooks report, DRED reported a FY10 closure of $417K on its State report for Cannon; Season Pass revenues exceeded $1M for the first time; Sunapee contribution to the Cannon Mountain Capital Improvement Fund was $365K; Kevin Johnson asked if this was the first year that the entirety of Cannon’s financials were reported in the State report, rather than having only the ski-specific appropriations pulled out; John DeVivo did not have that answer available; Treasurer Provencher detailed the Cannon Mountain Capital Improvement Fund​[/FONT]​[/FONT]*(CMCIF) *[FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]report, and offered to have it updated for the CMAC membership; Since July 1, 2007, Cannon has eliminated nearly $1.2M of its $1.494M operating deficit (approx.80%), with a remaining deficit of $301K. ​
[/FONT][/FONT]*Outlook for winter 10/11 season:​*[FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]John DeVivo reported the following: 
Cannon’s current FY11 net positive is $172K, some $159K ahead of FY10 YTD; revenue is running 8% ahead of FY10, while expense is running 5% under FY10; Season Pass revenue is running 25% ahead of FY10; Snowmaking began on 11/18, with a plan to open at 8:30 AM on 11/26; Capital and maintenance projects are wrapping up; Cannon is awaiting the arrival of the new drive unit for the Zoomer Triple, and approval on its lease-to-buy backhoe unit (12/08 G&C); Summer projects/improvements list – 4 top 10 Eastern rankings in SKI Magazine; Mittersill Double Chair construction is on schedule and on budget; Base area improvements at Tramway, Notchview, Peabody, and Brookside (doors, decks, windows, bridge, roof) were detailed; Snowmaking water line on Zoomer trail is underway, New Prinoth Bison and Trooper vehicles were approved at 11/17 G&C meeting; New promotional partnership with Littleton Chevrolet is working well; New retail and merchandising campaigns are underway; New website set for late November launch. 
Treasurer Provencher asked which, if any, capital maintenance projects were completed during summer ’10 using operating funds built into Cannon’s FY11 budget; John DeVivo detailed the annual groomer lease, the new snowmaking vehicle lease-to-buy, the snowmaking water line, and the various base area improvements; all were completed using operating funds built into the FY11 budget. 
Cannon’s management team believes that its remaining $301K operating deficit will be eliminated in FY11; future net profits should be applied toward making capital/maintenance improvements and paying down the debt service on the CMCIF, with the annual difference between the Sunapee lease payments and the debt service on the CMCIF to be made up for by allocations from Cannon’s net profit; Cannon’s management team believes that with its aggressive 10/11 marketing plan, the improvements made and marketed since September 2008, and an ever-increasing season pass holder base, the ski area will post a fourth consecutive net profit while continuing to improve upon its products, services, and infrastructure; The ski area has built some $500K into its FY11 operating budget toward capital and maintenance projects, based on expected revenues, and given the necessary performance, will encumber those funds in spring ’11 for summer ’11 projects and enhancements. 
The Mittersill Double Chair construction project is running on time and on budget; the load test is expected to take place in mid-late December, with an opening scenario to follow shortly thereafter; Governor and Doctor Lynch are expected to ride on the first chair, with all CMAC members invited to the ceremony; the date itself on the opening scenario is a moving target, as the lift services an all-natural terrain area; Lift-accessed all-natural terrain areas have become prominent across the US, and at Eastern and Western Canadian areas, as well; The project was spec’d at approximately $2.62M, with a contingency budget setting it at approximately $2.95M; The project was funded with 50% CMCIF funds and 50% general funds; The project scope included not only the lift construction, but the tear-down and removal of the old lift and the expansion/reclamation of 86 acres of all-natural terrain (a 50% increase in Cannon’s terrain offerings). Martha McLeod asked about snow depth requirements at Mittersill to make the area viable; Rich McLeod and Dennis Murphy answered that substantial snowfall is required, but that the type of snowfall and other weather patterns play into effect, as well; John DeVivo answered that Mittersill is a bit better wind-protected than Cannon proper, and that solid base depths at Mittersill and less rain and wind effects would lead to substantial "open" time at Mittersill, as the area is meant to serve an audience seeking all-natural terrain. 
Rich McLeod remarked to Chairman Murphy that under its current management team, Cannon is being operated as efficiently and effectively as it ever has; there was concurrence amongst the group; John DeVivo replied that Cannon’s team is very passionate and has set aggressive goals toward future successes.​[/FONT][/FONT]*Improvement plans for 2011 and beyond:​*[FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]John DeVivo reported the following: 
Mittersill base area/infrastructure improvements (parking lot enhancements, small base facility, limited snowmaking) will follow over a 3 – 5 year period; The area is designated for all-natural use for a 3 - 5 year period, following its 25 years’ use as such and a desire to offer this type of product for consumption within the marketplace; The original intent regarding State capital plan requests was to request capital funding on the Cannon side for the 12/13 fiscal cycle and on the Mittersill side for the 14/15 fiscal cycle. 
For the FY11 / FY12 / FY13 fiscal cycles, the ski area management team has built some $500K into each operating budget to use for maintenance capital projects (ex. snowmaking enhancements, retail enhancements, snowsports building expansion) based on expected revenues, with the intent of encumbering the funds each spring for summer/fall use; There is a $2M snowmaking project request in for FY12/FY13 consideration for the impending budget discussions; The CMAC recommends that if the project is approved by DRED and the Governor’s office for further consideration, it be removed by Cannon for this legislative session, with the thought that our success in gaining approval on the first and second phases ($1.433M and $460K respectively) of capital through the CMCIF, and the approval of the Mittersill Double Chair construction ($2.95M) through the CMCIF and general fund was a solid step; the Legislature is not expected to pass any wide sweeping capital plans during this session; Maintenance capital projects ID’d for planning by the ski area in early FY12 (using funds encumbered in FY11) include: new drive unit for the Cannonball Quad, grooming fleet enhancement with a new Bison WinchCat, rolling stock enhancements, retail space and Snowsports building enhancements, and snowmaking system improvements (either on-hill via pipe & hydrant enhancements or off-hill via added air capacity). 
Gerry Coogan asked whether an updated 5 – 10 year master plan or capital plan would be forthcoming. John DeVivo replied that the 1998/99 Master Plan as crafted by Sno Engineering had been approximately 50% completed in scope (concurred by Rich McLeod), but that the plan is essentially obsolete at this point; Martha McLeod noted that revisions to said Master Plan were required (elimination of a lift and trail section above 2,500’ elevation on Mittersill) to secure the MOA with NH Audubon and the land exchange with WMNF; the drafting of a revised Master Plan will be focused upon over the next year or so, and presented in each stage of its evolution to the CMAC. 
Cannon’s FY11 goal is to eliminate its existing operating budget deficit ($301K) and use that remaining net profit toward capital maintenance projects; Cannon’sFY12/FY13 goal is to build maintenance capital into each annual budget and utilize its net profit toward paying down the debt service on the CMCIF; Cannon’sFY14/FY15 goal is to build maintenance capital into each annual budget and utilize its net profit toward paying down the debt service on the CMCIF, and to explore options with available CMCIF funds. 
Franconia Ski Club will soon be launching a fundraising drive toward the expansion of the Ernie’s Haus facility (used non-exclusively by FSC as its operating base) and one of several trail expansion/improvement objectives; The Club has ID’d several trail initiatives, including linking several trail areas or expanding snowmaking capacity up onto Mittersill sections; when the FSC plan takes its final shape, details will be shared with the CMAC membership and the general public; such projects would be subject to approval by G&C as "accept and expend" projects.​*Legislative issues:​*Representative Taylor presented the draft of an amendment to RSA 227:14 (Resident Ski Rates, Reduced Rates) as requested by Cannon Mountain to:​

Reflect the same age structure for both its day use tickets and its season passes 
Eliminate the secondary school status and clean up the age requirement language 
Establish consistency with the same date (December 15) used for the NH Resident season pass discount and the age/date requirement for current-year season passes 
John DeVivo asked Representative Taylor if the item on Line 21 (Effective Date) may be flexible, as Cannon’s sales season (for the following year’s season passes) typically commences on the last Saturday in February or first Saturday in March; Representative Taylor replied that she would seek flexibility and/or immediate effectiveness, depending upon the bill’s status in various committees and/or a legislative vote on it. 
A question was raised as to whether a bill would be introduced in the current session regarding the leasing of Cannon Mountain; no one present at the meeting had any such information; John DeVivo remarked that he’d heard from Senator Gallus’ office in Concord earlier in the morning that he (Senator Gallus) would be unable to attend the CMAC meeting, and that he (John DeVivo) had remarked to the Senator’s Aide that it was likely that the CMAC membership would like to know if the Senator had any information on that subject. The Senator’s Aide offered that he’d work on getting an answer on it from the Senator.​[/FONT][/FONT]*Other/new business:​*[FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]None identified.​[/FONT][/FONT]*Set next meeting date/time:​*[FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]Chairman Murphy remarked that the CMAC typically meets during the spring season, but that with elections having taken place and new appointments to the CMAC forthcoming, he’ll wait a bit to see what shakes out in the legislative session and see what new appointments are made to the CMAC before setting the next meeting date.​[/FONT][/FONT]*Adjournment:​*[FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]Chairman Murphy adjourned the meeting at approximately 12:05 PM. 
[/FONT][/FONT]


----------



## Puck it (May 12, 2011)

From 2009: This mentions the GS racing trail


Cannon Mountain Advisory Commission 
November 16, 2009 Meeting @ Cannon Mountain ​*[FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]Members present: [/FONT][/FONT]*
Dennis Murphy (Chairman), Senator John Gallus, Representative Kathleen Taylor, Martha McLeod, Georgie Thomas 
*[FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]Others present: [/FONT][/FONT]*
Ted Austin (Director, NH Division of Parks & Recreation), John DeVivo (GM, Cannon & FNSP), Ron Kirby, Jack Thomas, Kevin Johnson, Art McGrath (Littleton Courier), Robert Blechl (Caledonian-Record) 
*[FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]Meeting minutes: [/FONT][/FONT]*
Chairman Murphy called the meeting to order at 10:10 AM. 
May 1st meeting minutes were approved. 
Cannon financials briefly discussed by John DeVivo. 
FY ’10 YTD financials (July 1 – Nov 12 only): 
Total revenue Nov 12 was 5% behind budget and 8% behind last year. Summer related business volume, not winter. 
Total expense Nov 12 was 30% under budget and 7% over last year, as expected. 
Net total Nov 12 was 105% ahead of budget and 105% behind last year – incredibly flexible in Nov/Dec annually. 
Net total as of Nov 12 had picked up 16% points, however, in the last 4 weeks w/winter momentum building ​ 
_[FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]Notables: [/FONT][/FONT]_[FONT=Arial,Arial]
​[/FONT]Season pass revenue up 14% as of Nov 15, and volume up 8% as of Nov 15; est. 15% NEW passes 

Summer retail was off by 8% compared to last summer 
BCG commissions well off this summer, largely due to loss of summer conference venue (constr.) 
Glen Group has done an incredible job thus far at connecting w/our core values & marketing plan! 
This year will set the tone for the next several years as we attack the I-93 corridor, NH, and Lin-Wood 
Very specifically targeted campaigns, no more shotgun style approaches 
Mittersill discussion led by John DeVivo. 
Lift funding of $3.065M was approved in June. Chairman Murphy commended the efforts of Rep.Taylor and Sen. Harold Janeway. Rep. Taylor commended Martha McLeod’s efforts, as well. Bid expected to be put out in Dec. ’09. Contract expected to be awarded in Jan/Feb ’10. Construction expected to commence in spring ’10. Lift expected to open in Dec. ’10. The project is to be 50% generally funded, 50% funded through the Cannon Mountain Capital Improvement Fund. 
Mittersill Terrain Area will be opened, marketed and managed as a backcountry terrain area for the 09/10 winter season. Shuttle service to be offered from base of Mittersill to Notchview Lodge on weekends & holidays. Terrain adds 86 acres (50%) to Cannon’s existing terrain. Believed to unprecedented at such a scale in the East. 
Kevin Johnson offered questions as to whether Cannon had done environmental and business impact studies on the Mittersill area. John DeVivo answered that DRED and WMNF had done such studies prior to entering into the Memorandum of Understanding. Johnson asked if Cannon would comply with any necessary DES or other applicable regulations. DeVivo answered that Beverly Kowalik at BPW would steward the project, and would be working with Tom Mansfield and Seth Prescott at DRED/DD&M to ensure compliance with State and/or local regulations, as and if required. 
Cannon Mountain capital improvements discussion led by John DeVivo. 
Capital improvement funding of $1.893M is 71% spent (as of November 15th). Total project completion percentage (13 projects) estimated at 60-70%. All 13 projects were detailed individually regarding percentage spent and percentage of completion. 48 vendors used in total thus far, 36 of them are NH based (75%)… some sole source / others used via bid process. Kevin Johnson asked whether Cannon had secured a building permit from the Town of Franconia. Martha McLeod answered that the NH Attorney General’s office had told the Franconia Select board that it was not required. 
Johnson asked whether Cannon had complied with an RSA requiring that a full set of plans be offered to the Town of Franconia 60 days prior to the start of the project. DeVivo answered that he’d spoken with Rich McLeod (Franconia Select board, CMAC member) prior to the CMAC meeting, and had agreed to provide a full set of plans to Mr. McLeod in short order. 
Tour of Peabody / Notchview base area improvements led by John DeVivo. ​

Cannon Beach Deck – 3,000 s.f. – adaptive ramp to be completed by opening day, tie-in w/NV next spring Cannonball Pub (roughly $400K Cannon / $200K BCG) – airlock next spring – *[FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]opening date Dec 18th [/FONT][/FONT]*
Peabody Lodge / Lafayette Food Court – added 1,600’ s.f. space & swapped hood around Rental & Repair shops – all electronic by Jan 1st / airlock next spring New PB Family Room – adding arcade space in old family room – *[FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]opening date Dec 18th [/FONT][/FONT]*
Out front: upper deck bridge completed by opening day / added handicap parking area / added drop-off area / new lower level bridge next spring / new entryway for staircase next spring Welcome Center – all new, do a full walk-thru of WC & office space / conf room NV Lodge – retail expansion / seating expansion (2 more windows next spring) / reclaimed lobby area We’re also now fully compliant w/fire code (suppression) in both PB & NV ALL capital moves @ PB / NV were designed to maximize on our ability to serve all sets of clientele and maximize upon our ability to merchandise and generate more revenue: 
[FONT=Courier New,Courier New][FONT=Courier New,Courier New]o [/FONT]
[/FONT]Family area expansions & restrooms @ PB to better service the brown baggers 
[FONT=Courier New,Courier New][FONT=Courier New,Courier New]o [/FONT]
[/FONT]Seating expansions at PB / NV to better service the retail F&B guests 
[FONT=Courier New,Courier New][FONT=Courier New,Courier New]o [/FONT]
[/FONT]Cannonball Pub to better service the pub & entertainment crowd 
[FONT=Courier New,Courier New][FONT=Courier New,Courier New]o [/FONT]
[/FONT]Cannon Beach deck adds a whole new dimension to peoples’ enjoyment on sunny days 
[FONT=Courier New,Courier New][FONT=Courier New,Courier New]o [/FONT]
[/FONT]Rental & repair shop facility enhances guests’ first and return experiences 
[FONT=Courier New,Courier New][FONT=Courier New,Courier New]o [/FONT]
[/FONT]Retail expansion adds elbow room & adds a new logo-gear area 
[FONT=Courier New,Courier New][FONT=Courier New,Courier New]o [/FONT]
[/FONT]Welcome Center enhances guests’ first and return experiences 
[FONT=Courier New,Courier New][FONT=Courier New,Courier New]o [/FONT]
[/FONT]Entire project lends itself to a tremendous upswing in summer conference/catering/wedding business 

Sunsetting of committees/commissions discussion led by Rep.Taylor. 

All committees/commissions deemed obsolete/unnecessary are to be "sunset" by the end of 2010, per the Governor’s request, as they take a tremendous amount of State employees’ time and resources to arrange and/or manage. A committee (HB-2 statutory study committee) has been formed to study the usefulness and effectiveness of all committees/commissions, and it is taking information/input currently. 
Discussion of whether a formal document should be issued to the study committee by CMAC requesting that the CMAC is allowed to continue. Georgie Thomas motioned that a formal document be issued to the study committee by CMAC requesting that the CMAC be allowed to continue. Motion seconded by Rep.Taylor, passed with a unanimous positive vote. John DeVivo offered that as he’s considered the CMAC’s efforts to be overwhelmingly positive and helpful to Cannon during his tenure, he’ll also go on record requesting that the CMAC be allowed to continue. The question was raised as to whether Director Austin should arrange for the CMAC to meet with the study committee; unclear as to who would check with Director Austin (who’d had to depart the meeting early) on it. 
Old Man of the Mountain Legacy Fund discussion led by Martha McLeod. 
The OMMLF has a new director, a new energy, new members, and a new direction in general. Focusing on the future of FNSP as a whole, with the legacy / memorial a large part of it, rather than purely on the memorial park itself. Discussion of joint efforts with the Friends of Franconia Notch State Park group, Franconia Notch State Park & Cannon Mountain staff, and other interested groups. 
Legislation affecting FNSP discussion led by Rep. Taylor. 
HB-58 was discussed re: setting parameters as to the leasing and/or sale of any and all State Park entities and/or facilities/areas, in part or in whole. Essentially under study and discussion as to how and/or why State Park properties and/or entities are leased or sold, and what the impact would or will be and upon whom. Also under discussion regarding the bill would be a clause that no bill as such would be submitted without public input and study on the aforementioned questions or issues. 
*Race trail discussion led by John DeVivo. *
*A ten-year discussion as to working toward a race/training/camp trail connection of Skylight, Upper and Lower Hardscrabble, and Turnpike has picked up momentum lately. The project would require ample cut and fill maneuvers on the trails in question, and probably an under/over bridge to ease traffic and improve safety. The project is estimated at $500K. The project would offer a better and safer full-length GS racing and training facility (lending itself to many more Championship-level USSA events), another full-length skiing trail for the general public (easing and spreading mid-mtn traffic), and an off-training camp venue for Cannon/FSC to host camps. *
*The interest has been sparked lately by a citizens’ group with strong ski industry and US Ski Team ties. Serious financial backing has been mentioned, and a closed-door meeting has been scheduled on Monday, November 23rd at Cannon to discuss the feasibility of the project and a potential launch of a fundraising effort if it’s deemed feasible. *
*Cannon Mountain (and DRED) will back the project publicly, but only if the entire project is funded privately and goes through the approval process strictly as an "accept and expend" proposition, with no capital funding expended through Cannon Mountain’s resources. Further, in the short term (next 1 – 2 two-year budget cycles), any and all "extra" resources utilized in that area (snowmaking, grooming, patrol) would be utilized at the expense of FSC’s current use of the front five and/or other racing/training facilities – a point made clear to the citizens’ group and FSC. *
Motion to adjourn the meeting made by Georgie Thomas. 
Seconded by Martha McLeod and Rep. Taylor, and passed with a unanimous vote. ​

The next meeting, tentatively scheduled for spring ’10, will be convened at the call of the Chairman. ​


----------



## thetrailboss (May 12, 2011)

Sounds terrible!



> Cannon recorded a net profit of $426K on its Quickbooks report, DRED reported a FY10 closure of $417K on its State report for Cannon; Season Pass revenues exceeded $1M for the first time;


 


> Cannon’s current FY11 net positive is $172K, some $159K ahead of FY10 YTD; revenue is running 8% ahead of FY10, while expense is running 5% under FY10; Season Pass revenue is running 25% ahead of FY10.


 


> Cannon’s management team believes that its remaining $301K operating deficit will be eliminated in FY11; future net profits should be applied toward making capital/maintenance improvements and paying down the debt service on the CMCIF, with the annual difference between the Sunapee lease payments and the debt service on the CMCIF to be made up for by allocations from Cannon’s net profit; Cannon’s management team believes that with its aggressive 10/11 marketing plan, the improvements made and marketed since September 2008, and an ever-increasing season pass holder base, the ski area will post a fourth consecutive net profit while continuing to improve upon its products, services, and infrastructure;


 


> The Mittersill Double Chair construction project is running on time and on budget


 


> The project was spec’d at approximately $2.62M, with a contingency budget setting it at approximately $2.95M; The project was funded with 50% CMCIF funds and 50% general funds; The project scope included not only the lift construction, but the tear-down and removal of the old lift and the expansion/reclamation of 86 acres of all-natural terrain (a 50% increase in Cannon’s terrain offerings).


 
Yeah, fire the bums!  :lol:



> *Rich McLeod remarked to Chairman Murphy that under its current management team, Cannon is being operated as efficiently and effectively as it ever has; there was concurrence amongst the group*; John DeVivo replied that Cannon’s team is very passionate and has set aggressive goals toward future successes.


----------



## threecy (May 12, 2011)

Cannonball said:


> It's odd to me that you have been posting "facts" about Cannon's profitability ad nauseum for many months over several threads, yet you haven't seen this data before?  I found all of these NH reports by copying and pasting one of your quotes into a google search!



I hadn't seen that particular PDF.  I've seen the data in other files.


----------



## deadheadskier (May 12, 2011)

Off Topic:

When does the Meullers lease of Sunapee run out?  

I wonder if they will continue to maintain leasing the property now that their real estate and ski expansion project for the West Bowl appears to be dead in the water.


----------



## Black Phantom (May 12, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> Off Topic:
> 
> When does the Meullers lease of Sunapee run out?
> 
> I wonder if they will continue to maintain leasing the property now that their real estate and ski expansion project for the West Bowl appears to be dead in the water.



http://www.friendsofmountsunapee.org/


----------



## threecy (May 12, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> Off Topic:
> 
> When does the Meullers lease of Sunapee run out?
> 
> I wonder if they will continue to maintain leasing the property now that their real estate and ski expansion project for the West Bowl appears to be dead in the water.



I believe the current lease is through 2018.  Tim Mueller will be pushing 70 at that point, so who knows whether or not the Muellers would continue.  Triple Peaks/CNL, on the other hand, I would imagine would want to continue to lease the ski area, as it's been profitable.


----------



## Puck it (May 12, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> Off Topic:
> 
> When does the Meullers lease of Sunapee run out?
> 
> I wonder if they will continue to maintain leasing the property now that their real estate and ski expansion project for the West Bowl appears to be dead in the water.


 

It wold nice if the whole plan came around too, not just the West Bowl.  The lift out of the Sunbowl to North Peak and Night skiing on North Peak.  Flying Goose under the lights would be great.


----------



## Puck it (May 12, 2011)

More FYI from FSC meeting minutes-----


Looking into the future is very exciting. I have a copy of expansion plans for Ernie’s Haus on my desk. We
have listened to the comments from the membership and have developed plans to meet the needs of the club’s
growth with an expansion of the building. I assure you that our new club house will be the envy of anyone who
visits! It includes a wrap around second story deck and more than twice the amount of usable space for our
members and guests. At the same time, we are moving forward with plans to construct our new training/racing
venue at Cannon. This new trail will allow us to create athletic programs that have no limit. Speed training, long
GS training with terrain changes and the ability to train several disciplines at the same time on one venue will
all soon become reality for our athletes. Hosting high level national level races will be possible right here at
Cannon. Believe it! Our Board has engaged a professional fundraising organization that will help us with a
detailed and organized campaign to achieve our goals. Look for a more comprehensive announcement very
soon.​Our


----------



## deadheadskier (May 12, 2011)

threecy said:


> I believe the current lease is through 2018.  Tim Mueller will be pushing 70 at that point, so who knows whether or not the Muellers would continue.  Triple Peaks/CNL, on the other hand, I would imagine would want to continue to lease the ski area, as it's been profitable.



True, 

but there is Ethan as well, who will only be about 40.  I believe there is a daughter as well, but not sure if she's involved with the family business.


----------



## threecy (May 12, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> but there is Ethan as well, who will only be about 40.  I believe there is a daughter as well, but not sure if she's involved with the family business.



Isn't he at Crested Butte?


----------



## deadheadskier (May 12, 2011)

threecy said:


> Isn't he at Crested Butte?



Yes he is.  So, I'd assume at some point he either takes Tim's reigns as head of the whole company or they sell it.


----------



## jack97 (May 12, 2011)

threecy said:


> Peak looked at a variety of areas, open and closed, before choosing Crotched.  Frankly, it remains to be seen if it was the best choice out of the areas they looked at.
> 
> 
> I don't think that's accurate - the current quad lift line at Crotched is steeper than the quad lift line at Temple.




Yep.... peak resort did look at many options, Temple would have been a better choice in terms of road access.

If you're talking about Pluto Plunge which is under the quad lift at Crotched, that trail does not get alot traffic. I made alot of visits during their first year  after they reopen and have been back at least 1-2 on a weekend every year. Only skiers who go down that trail are; good skiers, instructors and spandex warriors. I don't see a lot of parents taking their kids down that trail either. As good as Crotched's snowmaking capacity, the trail is expose to sun so after a thaw to freeze cycle, that trail usually has hardpack conditions. Given it has a long constant pitch..... lots of intermediate will pick up speed and will feel uncomfortable with their control on this trail and said conditions. 

The rest of the hill does not have this pitch and are usually the most crowded sections.


----------



## MadPadraic (May 12, 2011)

threecy said:


> So, if the Cannon ski area operations were privately leased, said German and Japanese tourists wouldn't visit New Hampshire anymore?



They would most likely go to upstate New York instead.


----------



## threecy (May 13, 2011)

jack97 said:


> Yep.... peak resort did look at many options, Temple would have been a better choice in terms of road access.


Temple had better road access, however the existing base area and parking situations were dreadful.



jack97 said:


> If you're talking about Pluto Plunge which is under the quad lift at Crotched, that trail does not get alot traffic. I made alot of visits during their first year  after they reopen and have been back at least 1-2 on a weekend every year. Only skiers who go down that trail are; good skiers, instructors and spandex warriors. I don't see a lot of parents taking their kids down that trail either. As good as Crotched's snowmaking capacity, the trail is expose to sun so after a thaw to freeze cycle, that trail usually has hardpack conditions. Given it has a long constant pitch..... lots of intermediate will pick up speed and will feel uncomfortable with their control on this trail and said conditions.
> 
> The rest of the hill does not have this pitch and are usually the most crowded sections.


My point is the existing topography of Crotched is steeper than the existing topography of Temple, so I don't think pitch was as much of a concern.

Regardless, it would be interesting to see if Peak would bid on a Cannon lease.  I suspect they need to get the IPO out of the way and retire some debt before considering taking on any more areas.


----------



## ski_resort_observer (May 13, 2011)

In hindsight I think Peak, for alot of reasons, made a great choice in starting with Crotched for their first NE ski hill, especially vs Temple.


----------



## jack97 (May 14, 2011)

threecy said:


> My point is the existing topography of Crotched is steeper than the existing topography of Temple, so I don't think pitch was as much of a concern.
> 
> Regardless, it would be interesting to see if Peak would bid on a Cannon lease.



That's where we differ.... pitch is very important given most areas will have long stretches of hardpack conditions. Man made snow overcomes the snow droughts or rain but the end product is still hardpack. I don't see intermediate skiers go down steep trail with hardpack conditions. When lifties pack up the chairs, I have hear complaints about various trails being very difficult. And yes.... even at Cannon, I hear  passholders complained about the combination of the pitch and the trails being sketchy. During those times, they would say "it just needs about 8 inches of fresh stuff to make it fun". They put up with it because they can and I am sure the average skiers won't.


----------



## AdironRider (May 14, 2011)

jack97 said:


> That's where we differ.... pitch is very important given most areas will have long stretches of hardpack conditions. Man made snow overcomes the snow droughts or rain but the end product is still hardpack. I don't see intermediate skiers go down steep trail with hardpack conditions. When lifties pack up the chairs, I have hear complaints about various trails being very difficult. And yes.... even at Cannon, I hear  passholders complained about the combination of the pitch and the trails being sketchy. During those times, they would say "it just needs about 8 inches of fresh stuff to make it fun". They put up with it because they can and I am sure the average skiers won't.



Well thats a pretty negative view and can apply to pretty much any eastern ski area. Get over it, or move out west.   

Crotched was the right call for Peak. Those PA hills are interesting as they sure do skier visits. Doesnt blue do something really high like 600,000? I thought I read that somewhere.


----------



## jack97 (May 14, 2011)

AdironRider said:


> Well thats a pretty negative view and can apply to pretty much any eastern ski area. Get over it, or move out west.



umm..... the point was, New England steeps and hardpack is brutal on the average skier. Thats why a place like Loon will get more visits than Cannon. Peak Resort or any private place that wants to capture the sweet spot of the market needs to understand how to attract this segment.

It's not an accident that Sunapee and Okemo are successful. I would guess that the later has outperform (in terms of visit count) others ski areas nearby.


----------



## threecy (May 14, 2011)

threecy said:


> My point is the existing topography of Crotched is steeper than the existing topography of Temple, so I don't think pitch was as much of a concern.





jack97 said:


> That's where we differ.... pitch is very important given most areas will have long stretches of hardpack conditions.


I wasn't saying pitch is unimportant in selecting an area.  What I was saying was that, considering Crotched is steeper than Temple, I don't think Peak Resorts turned down Temple because it was too steep.


----------



## MadPadraic (May 16, 2011)

threecy said:


> I wasn't saying pitch is unimportant in selecting an area.  What I was saying was that, considering Crotched is steeper than Temple, I don't think Peak Resorts turned down Temple because it was too steep.



I think the argument of Crotched vs Temple is well made, but is there really much difference? I mean, was one area that topographically superior to the other? Neither one is really competing with Cannon et al.


----------



## deadheadskier (May 16, 2011)

well, unsuccessful state run areas Cannon and Sunapee were responsible for Crotched and Temple's demise according to threecy, so Crotched and Temple share that in common.

Honestly, that's the one argument of threecy's that turns my head sideways.  The fiscal numbers he pointed out through Cannonball's documents were eye opening and give pause to think about the positives of the lease argument.  Really solid information. The fact that he blames unsuccessful State run areas for the demise of Crotched, Temple and King Ridge, yet argues those very same areas have (Sunapee) and could (Cannon) run so much better by private operators is contradicting.  Blaming poorly run state areas for putting private areas out of business doesn't work when you are arguing those same state run areas are/could be better run when leased to private operators.


----------



## threecy (May 17, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> The fact that he blames unsuccessful State run areas for the demise of Crotched, Temple and King Ridge, yet argues those very same areas have (Sunapee) and could (Cannon) run so much better by private operators is contradicting.  Blaming poorly run state areas for putting private areas out of business doesn't work when you are arguing those same state run areas are/could be better run when leased to private operators.



It's not a fact, it's a theory, and you'll note I used words such as 'hypothesis.'

That particular market has long been a question mark in lost ski area research, in that quite a few advanced ski areas in proximity to each other and significant population went out of business.  Each of those areas was in that rough triangle of then-government run areas.  The thing you're missing is that, even in the worst years, the government areas were getting bailed out and seeing additional investment.  Privately leased areas still have to deal with real world consequences.


----------



## threecy (May 17, 2011)

MadPadraic said:


> I think the argument of Crotched vs Temple is well made, but is there really much difference? I mean, was one area that topographically superior to the other?



Present day Crotched quasi-summit quad:  ~800 vertical feet
Former Temple summit quad:  452 vertical feet


----------



## deadheadskier (May 17, 2011)

threecy said:


> It's not a fact, it's a theory, and you'll note I used words such as 'hypothesis.'
> 
> That particular market has long been a question mark in lost ski area research, in that quite a few advanced ski areas in proximity to each other and significant population went out of business.  Each of those areas was in that rough triangle of then-government run areas.  The thing you're missing is that, even in the worst years, the government areas were getting bailed out and seeing additional investment.  Privately leased areas still have to deal with real world consequences.



The investment the State made in Sunapee pales in comparison to what the Meuller's have done.  I think the Meuller's have shown a willingness to invest in their properties during the worst of times.  They did so at Okemo during the early 80s, early 90s and 2000s when the economy was horrible.  Les Otten did the same with his resorts in the 80s and 90s.  I think it's safe to say that had the Meullers had the Sunapee lease from the mid-80s forward they would've economically hurt those small areas far worse than the big bad State of NH did.

Your theory in combination with your desire for private management of State owned ski areas is 100% a have your cake and eat it to position.


----------



## threecy (May 17, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> They did so at Okemo during the early 80s, early 90s and 2000s when the economy was horrible.



You really want to make that statement?  Their first new lifts at Okemo were 1983-84, when the economy was booming.  They were already in the midst of an expansion when the brief 1990-91 recession hit.  With the early 2000s Jackson Gore project, you have an example of how the private sector had to stop spending.


----------



## thetrailboss (May 17, 2011)

threecy said:


> It's not a fact, it's a theory, and you'll note I used words such as 'hypothesis.'
> 
> That particular market has long been a question mark in lost ski area research, in that quite a few advanced ski areas in proximity to each other and significant population went out of business. Each of those areas was in that rough triangle of then-government run areas. The thing you're missing is that, even in the worst years, the government areas were getting bailed out and seeing additional investment. Privately leased areas still have to deal with real world consequences.


 
I will agree that state ownership may be a factor, but it was not a nail in the coffin.  These areas went for years and decades against Cannon and Sunapee.  The impacts of labor expenses, energy costs (a HUGE increase in the 1970's), insurance, and weather all played much more into the equation.  You also aren't considering size or vertical drop.


----------



## thetrailboss (May 17, 2011)

threecy said:


> You really want to make that statement? Their first new lifts at Okemo were 1983-84, when the economy was booming. They were already in the midst of an expansion when the brief 1990-91 recession hit. With the early 2000s Jackson Gore project, you have an example of how the private sector had to stop spending.


 
But....this "private ownership" group went from a relatively small operation of Poma lifts at ONE mountain to controlling THREE large resorts with many big improvements.  They have done pretty damn well.


----------



## SIKSKIER (May 17, 2011)

*Here's what the mountain manager is saying*

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: William Mead [mailto:chiefmead@msn.com] 
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2011 1:47 PM

Subject: FW: HB74 / Senate vote approaching
Dear CMSP Team members,

Please note the email below from JD and the attached document.

The pro-lease folks are at it again and essentially "slipped it through the back door"
by changing a Bill whose intent was to adjust ages related to ticket pricing.

I can not understand, nor want to know what goes into the making of  "politics or sausages"

Regardless of your position, I urge you to review the attached in detail, respond to the appropriate folks (in your own words and on your own computer) if you desire.

Also, feel free to pass it along to others who have an interest in Cannon.

Thanks,

Subject: HB74 / Senate vote approaching
Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 13:30:12 -0400
From: john.devivo@dred.state.nh.us
To: chiefmead@msn.com; hamiltons4@myfairpoint.net; Stefanie.Warsnip@centerplate.com; sandy@adaptivesportspartners.org; irvfountain@yahoo.com
CC: greg.keeler@dred.state.nh.us

Bill / Trevor / Stef / Sandy / Irv –

I don’t see you folks daily, so I’ve attached the internal memo sent out this morning re: HB74. Please feel free to share it with your team members. 

Should any or all of them choose to contact any or all NH Senators, I again ask that they must be very respectful and write on their own time and write on their own PC’s… and that they utilize their own words – whether they’re for leasing or against it.

Thanks – JD
John M. DeVivo, General Manager
Cannon Mountain Aerial Tramway & Ski Area
Franconia Notch State Park
(603) 823-8800, x-790 (office)
(603) 823-8088 (fax)
(603) 545-7741 (cell / e-mail / text)
www.cannonmt.com / www.franconianotchstatepark.com 


Cannon Mountain Aerial Tramway & Ski Area
Franconia Notch State Park

May 16, 2011

To:	Cannon / FNSP / FSC / Centerplate / ASPNC Team members
From:	John DeVivo (JD)
Re:	HB74 (pro-lease legislation)


It’s no secret at this point that those who seek to lease / privatize Cannon are at it again. This time around, our own piece of proposed legislation to streamline our season pass processes (HB74) was stripped clean in the NH Senate, and then pro-leasing language was substituted in its place.

I’ve studied this issue for nearly four years, and I believe that operationally, logistically, historically, emotionally, socially, rhetorically, and most importantly financially, a leasing agreement is NOT in the best interests of Cannon and/or Franconia Notch State Park. As I’ve stated on three prior occasions, I will not force my opinion on our team members. My own opinion is just that – what I feel is best for the long-term health of the company and the ‘Notch.

Here’s my official position:

•	Cannon is healthy and thriving as a self-funded agency, as is FNSP
•	Cannon and Franconia Notch State Park, as self-funded agencies, have no impact on the general fund 
•	Cannon has reversed its $1.5 million deficit since 2007, and will close FY11 with nearly $1 Million in profit
•	Cannon is the primary revenue driver for both FNSP and the NH Division of Parks & Recreation
•	Cannon is the core of FNSP; separating the two entities will have dramatic negative results on both FNSP and the Division
•	Cannon's net profit will outperform the annual Sunapee lease payment in FY12
•	Cannon’s resurgence and marketplace momentum has the company poised for even greater success as the economy rebounds
•	Cannon's commitment to NH residents and organizations, military members and veterans, and the public at large, may change dramatically under a leasing agreement
•	Cannon's commitment to its partners (ex. FSC, Centerplate, ASPNC, etc.) may change dramatically under a leasing agreement
•	Cannon's pricing structure and commitment to value may change dramatically under a leasing agreement
•	Cannon's employment, wage and benefit structures may change dramatically under a leasing agreement
•	Cannon’s commitment to the character and integrity of the 'Notch may change dramatically under a leasing agreement
•	Cannon's commitment to environmental groups, veterans' groups, etc. may change dramatically under a leasing agreement
•	A lease would likely be in effect for 10 - 40 years here within the ‘Notch

Notable anti-lease position:			Notable pro-lease position:

Governor John Lynch				Executive Councilor Raymond Burton (District 1)
George Bald, DRED Commissioner			Senator John Gallus (District 1)
DRED / NH Parks & Recreation			Senator Chuck Morse (Senate Finance Committee Chairman)
Cannon Mountain Advisory Commission
Board of Selectmen, Franconia
Friends of Franconia Notch State Park
Society for Protection of NH Forests

Should HB74 be passed in the Senate, it’s believed that it’ll very likely be passed in the House of Representatives after a Committee of Conference and a vote on the floor. If HB74 becomes law (whether with or without the Governor’s signature), then Commissioner Bald will be required to construct an RFP (Request for Proposal) with the intent of finding a partner and securing a lease contract to take effect on July 1, 2012.

The Senate vote on HB74 is very nearly at hand. Should you have an opinion on the leasing of Cannon (whether for it or against it), then I encourage you to act quickly by contacting ALL twenty-four (24) New Hampshire Senators directly within the next week or so. Please be certain to do so from home, on your own time and on your own PC. You’ll find the Senate roster (with both e-mail and home addresses) at www.nh.gov. Whether you write in favor of leasing or against it, I very strongly encourage you to do the following:

•	Write in your own words and avoid using bullet points and/or form letters
•	Be courteous and show respect for these Senators’ service to the State of New Hampshire
•	Avoid any and all disrespectful, harsh, threatening, or derogatory language
•	Offer your thanks for their consideration

Thanks as always for your efforts and passion.


----------



## deadheadskier (May 17, 2011)

threecy said:


> You really want to make that statement?  Their first new lifts at Okemo were 1983-84, when the economy was booming.  They were already in the midst of an expansion when the brief 1990-91 recession hit.  With the early 2000s Jackson Gore project, you have an example of how the private sector had to stop spending.



way to back peddle

1983 the economy was not 'booming', it was when the economy first started to grow after a massive recession.  Mortgage rates were still through the roof, so it's not like people were out there 

FACT: Private operators were investing in their areas exponentially more than what Cannon was doing at it's State run areas during the 80s and 90s when those three small areas met their demise.

The State had nothing to do with those areas failing. All three had greater physical assets than a place like Pat's Peak which managed to survive.  They failed due to mismanagement and lack of financial resources.   A reborn Crotched is doing just fine today competing against a far more developed Sunapee today than when the State ran it.

Your theory is about as believable as the earth being flat.  It makes zero sense.


----------



## threecy (May 17, 2011)

thetrailboss said:


> I will agree that state ownership may be a factor, but it was not a nail in the coffin.  These areas went for years and decades against Cannon and Sunapee.  The impacts of labor expenses, energy costs (a HUGE increase in the 1970's), insurance, and weather all played much more into the equation.  You also aren't considering size or vertical drop.


Temple, Tenney, Crotched, the Highlands, Ragged, and the King Ridge were all sizable - either in terms of facility size or skier visits.  Prior to the Haystack/Ascutney closure, this region had the highest concentration of (for lack of better term) defunct high capacity chairlifts.



thetrailboss said:


> a relatively small operation of Poma lifts at ONE mountain


That's inaccurate.  In 1977-78, half a decade before the Muellers took it over, Okemo skied 176,000 and had 3 chairlifts.




deadheadskier said:


> 1983 the economy was not 'booming', it was when the economy first started to grow after a massive recession.  Mortgage rates were still through the roof, so it's not like people were out there


In 1983, interest rates were about half of what they were a few years earlier.  GDP growth was surging.  Check your facts.



deadheadskier said:


> FACT: Private operators were investing in their areas exponentially more than what Cannon was doing at it's State run areas during the 80s and 90s when those three small areas met their demise.


Fact?  That statement makes no sense.



deadheadskier said:


> A reborn Crotched is doing just fine today


Definitely thread drift, but if you look at the Peak Resort financials, you'll see Crotched isn't making money.


----------



## deadheadskier (May 17, 2011)

FACT: Private operators were investing in their areas exponentially more than what the State of NH was doing at it's areas during the 80s and 90s when those three small areas met their demise.

typo

and it's 100% true.  There is every reason to believe that private operation of the State run areas would have crushed Crotched, Temple and King Ridge far quicker than the big bad State of NH.

I give you a lot of credit for making some strong pro-lease arguments, but your theory that the State killed Crotched, King Ridge and Temple and that somehow those areas would've survived against private competition is beyond ridiculous.  So much so, that it takes away credibility from your well thought out pro-lease stance.  

We get that you hate the government, but generating phony theories like this one just makes you look Glen Beck crazy.


----------



## threecy (May 17, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> your theory that the State killed Crotched, King Ridge and Temple and that somehow those areas would've survived against private competition is beyond ridiculous.



That's not my theory.  My theory, again theory, is that the triangle of government owned and operated ski areas in the market of these advanced ski areas may have been a significant factor in their demise.  I deserves a thread of its own...with the exception of Tenney, Cannon on its own would have had little effect on these areas when they went under.  The question is, from a historical perspective, why did such major ski areas located in a market with significant population to draw from, go under in a relatively short amount of time.


----------



## deadheadskier (May 17, 2011)

one word: mismanagement


----------



## thetrailboss (May 17, 2011)

threecy said:


> Trailboss - my hypothesis about those NELSAP areas is in regard to the triangle of government run areas they were in/near during their demise.


 


threecy said:


> The most advanced NELSAP ski areas fell within the government run ski area triangle market in New Hampshire.


 


threecy said:


> There is no concentration of lost multi-chair, triple/quad/etc. NELSAP areas in such a short time period as there has been in the Gunstock/Sunapee/Cannon market.
> 
> 
> Cannon has millions of dollars of assets and hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars of annual capital investments. The Sunapee lease dollars, for instance, are apparently pumped into Cannon. I'm not sure how they're showing that on the ski area income statement, but will hopefully find out soon. Other significant investments are bonded, so they also don't show on the income statement the way they would for any other ski area having to get a loan (*cough* Peak Resorts). It certainly tells you something when it takes half a decade of good snow years to pay off rolled over deficits.
> ...


 


threecy said:


> It's not a fact, it's a theory, and you'll note I used words such as 'hypothesis.'
> 
> That particular market has long been a question mark in lost ski area research, in that quite a few advanced ski areas in proximity to each other and significant population went out of business. Each of those areas was in that rough triangle of then-government run areas. The thing you're missing is that, even in the worst years, the government areas were getting bailed out and seeing additional investment. Privately leased areas still have to deal with real world consequences.


 
It seems pretty clear to me that you are making the argument that *the reason* why your cited areas failed was because of the government's role in the marketplace.  Now I read you to be backpeddling and saying that it was *a reason* for their failure.  There is a big difference there.


----------



## BLESS (May 18, 2011)

I would just like to say,  it took me 3 days, and various trips to this site....but I had a great time reading this entire thread.  Some of the posts were funny, some insulting, some funny because they were insulting.  But mostly, its an informative and thought provoking one.  I personally dont want to see cannon leased....Im all set with it becoming more "mcdonalds". if you will and believe me, no matter who gets to run it, or what they say, it WILL change...IMO, not for the better.....as for the theory of the government areas putting the other areas out of business, its an interesting one....but I HIGHLY doubt that is the case....did it play a role?  possibly.  If it did, I would guess a VERY small one. 

while I realize its not a very good comparrison,  I live in Rhode Island, there is one state run university (URI), and 2 state run colleges (RIC, CCRI))....last I checked, the "private" colleges (PC, Brown, Bryant, Salve Regina, Johnson & Wales) were doing just fine.  If you're theory rang true, wouldnt all state run businesses be putting private businesses outta business?  I know that it doesnt really relate to the "traingle"  you talk about,  as obviously they're two different areas, but threecy yours is  an extremely general and loose theory (albeit interesting)...so I figure if you can make one, so can I.




I dont get the whole thing.....even tough it doesnt, so what if cannon operates in the red EVERY year....wouldnt you rather have to spend some more of your tax dollars to keep such a cool place (from becoming loon north) running than instead have to pay them towards some more bloated state/municipal disability pensions or some mother who just keeps pumping out kids to get more state assistance?  I know I would.  What I mean is, you're gonna get taxed anyway...theyre going to keep going up anyway, why not have them at least go, in part to somewhere that is,IMO worthwhile?

With all that said, it IS a little lame, that wednesday is the chosen day for NH resident discounts, sure Id have no problem with playing hooky or whatever if I felt like it, but for some people thats just not feasible.....I think they should offer a reduced rate....say 10-20% to NH residents on the weekends also.Im sure the $5-15 less they would get on the ticket could me easily made up on food or drink.... Do other places do this?  Ill assume no...but then again, other places arent run by the state...


----------



## threecy (May 18, 2011)

BLESS said:


> I personally dont want to see cannon leased....Im all set with it becoming more "mcdonalds". if you will and believe me, no matter who gets to run it


Including the government.  Cannon is no Mad River Glen at this point.  Look at what they've done with the HSQ, the Profile slope, Mittersill, etc.




BLESS said:


> wouldnt you rather have to spend some more of your tax dollars to keep such a cool place I dont get the whole thing.....even tough it doesnt, so what if cannon operates in the red EVERY year....


Apparently the people of Rhode Island didn't think this when they gave up on Diamond Hill.



BLESS said:


> With all that said, it IS a little lame, that wednesday is the chosen day for NH resident discounts, sure Id have no problem with playing hooky or whatever if I felt like it, but for some people thats just not feasible.....I think they should offer a reduced rate....say 10-20% to NH residents on the weekends also.


A little secret...Cannon hasn't remained state owned and operated for the benefit of hardworking taxpayers.


----------



## BLESS (May 18, 2011)

agreed about the first part...how its no MRG, they have done a lot...with MITT & the HSQ...but I fear it would be even worse privately run...

I wish Diamond Hill was still here, personally.


I was agreeing with you on the weds thing....I too think it could be another day, or something else, like weekend discounts.

Out of curiosity, do you have a vested interest in it becoming leased?  Are you going to be the one running/leasing it?  Is someone you know?    I just dont get why with all thats wrong with government these days, you choose to focus on a thing we all love...why not go after the million other things the gov wastes $ on, or things you feel they shouldnt have a hand in.... or do you do that also, elsewhere?


----------



## threecy (May 18, 2011)

BLESS said:


> agreed about the first part...how its no MRG, they have done a lot...with MITT & the HSQ...but I fear it would be even worse privately run...


Any fears about that can and likely would be addressed in the lease - a lease agreement could literally forbid the operator from cutting a single tree.




BLESS said:


> Out of curiosity, do you have a vested interest in it becoming leased?  Are you going to be the one running/leasing it?  Is someone you know?


My only interest in it is as a resident who pays taxes who spent a decade in the ski industry.  I have no involvement with anyone working on a lease.



BLESS said:


> I just dont get why with all thats wrong with government these days, you choose to focus on a thing we all love...why not go after the million other things the gov wastes $ on, or things you feel they shouldnt have a hand in.... or do you do that also, elsewhere?


This is a skiing forum with a no politics rule.  I am indeed opposed to other forums of government waste.


----------



## BLESS (May 18, 2011)

threecy said:


> Any fears about that can and likely would be addressed in the lease - a lease agreement could literally forbid the operator from cutting a single tree.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I realize what you mean with your lease agreement point..however, I would counter that look at almost any person leasing a car/house/whatever.....does the person who leased it to them actually check on them to see that they are indeed following the rules of the lease?  Or do cars and house routinely get trashed/changed/altered  by the lessee?  People who lease things generally dont care/take care of what their leasing because its "not theirs".  Would the same thing happen at Cannon?


.  Well I am certainly not here to stir the pot....I dont want the place leased, you do.  I am not a NH resident and probably only have skied cannon 8-10 times...my opinion is kinda useless...however, what I saw/experienced while I was there was fine with me....

.Im always curious to hear other peoples views/feelings on things....I like to know why people feel the way they feel.  You have made a decent argument.  I dont agree, but that doesnt mean you dont have some valid points.....good job on keeping on top of your government...I am not anti gov, ....but I do feel there is tremendous waste within, and see it daily.   I just think there are many other places I would start with first....maybe in a perfect world, go after Cannon..but im sure there are plenty of  other areas to "trim the fat"  first.


----------



## threecy (May 18, 2011)

BLESS said:


> I realize what you mean with your lease agreement point..however, I would counter that look at almost any person leasing a car/house/whatever.....does the person who leased it to them actually check on them to see that they are indeed following the rules of the lease?  Or do cars and house routinely get trashed/changed/altered  by the lessee?


I don't think it can be compared to a car - a car is a rapidly depreciating item, whereas a ski area lease appreciates and needs to continue to generate income.  Lessees are generally very closely monitored.



BLESS said:


> People who lease things generally dont care/take care of what their leasing because its "not theirs".


You've just backed into why government needs to be limited - it's not really 'theirs' - if something breaks at a government institution, no big deal - you get a new one.  If something breaks at Sunapee, it comes out of the lessee's pocket.




BLESS said:


> I just think there are many other places I would start with first....maybe in a perfect world, go after Cannon..but im sure there are plenty of  other areas to "trim the fat"  first.


This approach has been taken too long in New Hampshire - Concord can't afford to punt issues any longer.  Rather, they need to go after all options.

This isn't just about preventing New Hampshire taxpayers from having to foot the bill on losses in bad snow years.  This is also about saving New Hampshire taxpayers from having to continue to invest tens of millions in the ski area.  If past replacement schedules are replicated, taxpayers will be called upon to replace chairlifts and the tram in the next decade or two - $$,$$$,$$$+


----------



## MadPadraic (May 21, 2011)

threecy said:


> Present day Crotched quasi-summit quad:  ~800 vertical feet
> Former Temple summit quad:  452 vertical feet



They are both tiny. I don't understand your term "advanced ski areas," but neither of these are even remotely in competition with Cannon, and I can't see see them really being in competition with Sunapee either. You could consider them in being in competition with Gunstock from a "night skiing that's not WaWa" standpoint, but I think that's a very very weak case.  Plus, if you draw a triangle, won't you find both of them south of it?


----------



## MadPadraic (May 21, 2011)

threecy said:


> Definitely thread drift, but if you look at the Peak Resort financials, you'll see Crotched isn't making money.



I just scanned through their IPO prospectus and I didn't see Crotched broken out on the income statement. If possible, would you point me in the right direction? However I did notice that all their debt seems to be on 10%..wow.


----------



## threecy (May 21, 2011)

MadPadraic said:


> They are both tiny. I don't understand your term "advanced ski areas," but neither of these are even remotely in competition with Cannon, and I can't see see them really being in competition with Sunapee either. You could consider them in being in competition with Gunstock from a "night skiing that's not WaWa" standpoint, but I think that's a very very weak case.  Plus, if you draw a triangle, won't you find both of them south of it?



I wasn't saying they were in direct competition with Cannon per se, but that they were/are in the overall market of the three government ski areas.  Crotched, prior to be liquidated, was a major ski area.  In fact, when Waterville was involved, it was advertised as the largest ski area in Southern New Hampshire.

Temple had been a major ski area until others passed it by.  Still with two mountain faces and a quad chairlift, it wasn't exactly McIntyre or Whaleback.  Had they continued after the quad installation with the next planned expansion, they would have had a larger advertised vertical drop.


----------



## threecy (May 21, 2011)

MadPadraic said:


> I just scanned through their IPO prospectus and I didn't see Crotched broken out on the income statement. If possible, would you point me in the right direction? However I did notice that all their debt seems to be on 10%..wow.



Sorry, my post was wrong.  What they do show about Crotched, though, is that it's $8M of debt at about 10% interest.


----------



## MadPadraic (May 21, 2011)

threecy said:


> I wasn't saying they were in direct competition with Cannon per se, but that they were/are in the overall market of the three government ski areas.  Crotched, prior to be liquidated, was a major ski area.  In fact, when Waterville was involved, it was advertised as the largest ski area in Southern New Hampshire.
> 
> Temple had been a major ski area until others passed it by.  Still with two mountain faces and a quad chairlift, it wasn't exactly McIntyre or Whaleback.  Had they continued after the quad installation with the next planned expansion, they would have had a larger advertised vertical drop.



I never skied the old crotched and my only experience with temple involves summer hikes. How did the old Crotched compare to the new one?


----------



## deadheadskier (May 21, 2011)

I did ski old Crotched, King Ridge and Temple a few times a season each as a kid in the early 80s.

These were the areas my family learned to ski at.  Once we progressed after a couple of seasons, we moved on to bigger areas, Sunapee, Cannon, Loon, Okemo.

To suggest that Crotched, King Ridge, and Temple were competing with Sunapee, Gunstock and Cannon for the same customers would be to suggest a Ford is marketing their Ford Focus against a Audi A4.   Completely different markets.

The competitions for Crotched, King Ridge and Temple were Pat's Peak and King Ridge types areas.  Probably more than anything, those areas fell victim to a similar sized area with better snowmaking to the south in Wachusett.   Why drive almost 2 hours from Boston to go to Crotched, Temple or King Ridge when you've got a larger vert hill with better pitch and vastly superior snowmaking roughly half the drive away from Boston?


----------



## threecy (May 22, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> I did ski old *Crotched, King Ridge and Temple* a few times a season each as a kid in the early 80s.
> 
> These were the areas my family learned to ski at.  Once we progressed after a couple of seasons, we moved on to bigger areas, *Sunapee, Cannon*, Loon, Okemo.





deadheadskier said:


> To suggest that Crotched, King Ridge, and Temple were competing with Sunapee, Gunstock and Cannon for the same customers would be to suggest a Ford is marketing their Ford Focus against a Audi A4.   Completely different markets.


One could make the argument that Temple was being passed by due to not expanding their vertical, but Crotched and King Ridge were certainly in the same market at Sunapee and Gunstock.  The only with more vertical at Gunstock than Crotched, would have been the 15-20 minute long summit lift ride.  None of the heavily used lifts at Gunstock, prior to the HSQ, had more vertical than the Crotched quad.




deadheadskier said:


> The competitions for Crotched, King Ridge and Temple were Pat's Peak and King Ridge types areas.  Probably more than anything, those areas fell victim to a similar sized area with better snowmaking to the south in Wachusett.   Why drive almost 2 hours from Boston to go to Crotched, Temple or King Ridge when you've got a larger vert hill with better pitch and vastly superior snowmaking roughly half the drive away from Boston?



Vertical drop is often overestimated on ski area forums.  If that were the such a factor, why would so many people drive to Sunday River, where the largest peak has about the same vertical drop as Cranmore?


----------



## threecy (May 22, 2011)

MadPadraic said:


> I never skied the old crotched and my only experience with temple involves summer hikes. How did the old Crotched compare to the new one?



The new one has less vertical and probably half the skiable terrain (maps from NELSAP):

Crotched, just prior to closing:






Crotched, just prior to reopening:


----------



## deadheadskier (May 22, 2011)

threecy said:


> Vertical drop is often overestimated on ski area forums.  If that were the such a factor, why would so many people drive to Sunday River, where the largest peak has about the same vertical drop as Cranmore?



um......

because they have 3 peaks with about the same vertical, 5 more with about 1000 vertical, almost 4 times the terrain and the place actually has some pitch?  just a guess


----------



## threecy (May 23, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> um......
> 
> because they have 3 peaks with about the same vertical, 5 more with about 1000 vertical, almost 4 times the terrain and the place actually has some pitch?  just a guess



Ah, so Sunday River is big for having multiple pods, but Crotched, Temple, and King Ridge weren't.


----------



## deadheadskier (May 23, 2011)

holy cow

Sunday River has in excess of 600 acres of terrain, 18, lifts including 4 high speed quads, a chondola, 3 distinct large base lodges.  By most measurements it's one of the top 5 largest ski areas in the east.  

Crotched, Temple and King Ridge were much more comparable in size to say a Wachusett (with it's 3 terrain pods :lol  than Gunstock or Sunapee even Cranmore now that you've included it in the argument.  

 Feeder Hills vs. mid-sized destination ski areas.  Not the same at all.


----------



## threecy (May 23, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> Feeder Hills vs. mid-sized destination ski areas.  Not the same at all.



So 1990 Crotched was a "feeder hill" but Sunapee and Gunstock were "destination ski areas?"


----------



## deadheadskier (May 23, 2011)

yes


----------



## threecy (May 23, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> Crotched, Temple and King Ridge were much more comparable in size to say a Wachusett (with it's 3 terrain pods :lol  than Gunstock or Sunapee even Cranmore now that you've included it in the argument.
> 
> Feeder Hills vs. mid-sized destination ski areas.  Not the same at all.





threecy said:


> So 1990 Crotched was a "feeder hill" but Sunapee and Gunstock were "destination ski areas?"





deadheadskier said:


> yes



So, these "feeder hills" are small areas filled with novice terrain and novice skiers?


----------



## Puck it (May 23, 2011)

I need to get off. I am getting sick!!!!


----------



## deadheadskier (May 23, 2011)

threecy said:


> So, these "feeder hills" are small areas filled with novice terrain and novice skiers?



Threecy

I will say it again for you.  Crotched, King Ridge and Temple a much closer in scope to areas like Wachusette and Pat's Peak than they were to Sunapee or Gunstock.

yes, primarily novice and intermediate  terrain and a high percentage of lower skill level skiers.


----------



## bobbutts (May 23, 2011)

Crotched/SR is a crazy comparison but the rest of these places all fit into the same category in my head.  I think of these all as middle size areas south of the White Mtns.

Although my first day ever was at Crotched I did much of my learning at even smaller hills like Nashoba and Bradford.  Once skill increased I pretty much skipped over these areas and started visiting places like Waterville, Loon, Killington, Sugarloaf.



I'd argue that there are truly small areas, like McIntyre, Nashoba, Bradford, etc
and then there are middle areas including
Crotched, Pat's, Gunstock, Sunapee, Wachusett...  
Never went to Temple or King Ridge, so will skip trying to categorize those.

Sunapee sticks out as the only one with no night skiing.


----------



## threecy (May 23, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> Threecy
> 
> I will say it again for you.  Crotched, King Ridge and Temple a much closer in scope to areas like Wachusette and Pat's Peak than they were to Sunapee or Gunstock.
> 
> yes, primarily novice and intermediate  terrain and a high percentage of lower skill level skiers.



So Sunapee is more challenging and his a higher percentage of advanced skiers than Crotched?


----------



## threecy (May 23, 2011)

bobbutts said:


> Crotched/SR is a crazy comparison but the rest of these places all fit into the same category in my head.



The reason I brought up Sunday River is that it was considered by some to be a 'major' ski area, yet it certainly doesn't sport the top to bottom vertical of the other 'major' ski areas in New England, thus calling into question the theory that vertical is what makes a ski area 'major'


----------



## deadheadskier (May 23, 2011)

threecy said:


> So Sunapee is more challenging and his a higher percentage of advanced skiers than Crotched?





Puck it said:


> I need to get off. I am getting sick!!!!



yup


----------



## threecy (May 23, 2011)

threecy said:


> So Sunapee is more challenging and his a higher percentage of advanced skiers than Crotched?





deadheadskier said:


> yup



Did I understand that correctly?


----------



## Puck it (May 23, 2011)

threecy said:


> Did I understand that correctly?



No, he has been on the "twist me, puke me" ride too long.


----------



## deadheadskier (May 23, 2011)

Puck it said:


> No, he has been on the "twist me, puke me" ride too long.



correct


----------



## threecy (May 23, 2011)

Puck it said:


> No, he has been on the "twist me, puke me" ride too long.





deadheadskier said:


> correct



It certainly is hard to make a statement that Sunapee is a more challenging ski area with more advanced skiers than Crotched.


----------



## deadheadskier (May 23, 2011)

If you say so


----------



## threecy (May 23, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> If you say so



You implied that feeder areas are for novices and that destination areas are for experts.

You also mentioned that the areas the listed Southern New Hampshire that went out of business were small feeder areas for novices.

Is it not interesting that, in the past 30 years, the three (now two) goverment areas have spent millions on building and expanding novice areas?  Not including surface lifts (costing hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars per area), Cannon has installed a quad and two triples while Gunstock has installed a quad, a triple, and a double.

So, if King Ridge, Crotched, Highlands, Temple, and Tenney were all novice areas with novice skiers, couldn't one theorize the significant growth of government run novice areas significantly harmed these soon-to-be-closed privately owned and operated areas?


----------



## BLESS (May 23, 2011)

love this thread.  Like a junkie, I keep coming back to read it.  The funny thing is, even though DHS & Threecy keep disagreeing, i bet they are more alike than they think....I have no idea about feeder hills & crotches, but I do like to go skiing in the winter, regardless of where.  


With that said, Ive never been to them, but the perception among the RI people I know is that places like Crotched, King Ridge, Temple ar much smaller than places like Sunapee & Gunstock....as far as skill level, well thats way too subjective for me.n  Some people think they are experts because they can go 70 mph down blue cruisers at places like loon, and some people think theyre experts cause they can ski MITT @ 2mph without falling.  In my experience.....people that usually need to label themselves "experts"  usually are far from it.  

this prolly made no sense, but im bored.....carry on


----------



## deadheadskier (May 23, 2011)

If you say so


----------



## BLESS (May 23, 2011)

threecy said:


> You implied that feeder areas are for novices and that destination areas are for experts.
> 
> You also mentioned that the areas the listed Southern New Hampshire that went out of business were small feeder areas for novices.
> 
> ...




once again, you make a good argument.  But I still think it could certainly be circumstantial.  Could these places have invested in novice areas in response to the other areas closing?  as in, they saw a need?  Im not up on the dates of what happened when....so its just a question.....


----------



## threecy (May 23, 2011)

BLESS said:


> once again, you make a good argument.  But I still think it could certainly be circumstantial.



It may come off that way because I don't agree with the premise that Temple, King Ridge, Crotched, etc. where irrelevant, small feeder areas.


----------



## Northernflight (May 24, 2011)

I don't think at this point you can really compare Sunapee and Crotched. Sunapee, although in my opinion has fairly easy terrain, the trails their are much tougher than any terrain that Crotched has at this time. I love skiing at Crotched but I put it solidly in with Pats Peak and honestly I feel like Pats trails are steeper than Crotcheds. Does anyone have the trailmaps for these areas back in the 1980s- early 1990s before they closed. I never skid Sunapee before it was leased out so I can not compare the areas to  what they were back then but at this time they are in completely different markets. When was 93 built? That probably also had a line in taking out areas like Temple and Crotched when it doesn't take that much more time to drive to the larger areas in the Whites as opposed to those areas.


----------



## MadPadraic (May 24, 2011)

threecy said:


> Ah, so Sunday River is big for having multiple pods, but Crotched, Temple, and King Ridge weren't.


In a word: YES.   Arguing that Crotched or Temple are viewed by consumers as size-wise substitutes for Sunday River is like arguing that Upper Cannon is not an excellent blue run. :flame: (sorry RC).
The argument is so absurd that you can't really be making it, can you?



threecy said:


> Is it not interesting that, in the past 30 years, the three (now two) goverment areas have spent millions on building and expanding novice areas?  Not including surface lifts (costing hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars per area),



Remind me here, but I thought we established earlier that Cannon is self sufficient and has actually covered its bad years? 

As a second question, was the tuckerbrook area paid out of the state's general fund, or was the money raised in some other manner (e.g. bonds, taken from Sunapee lease payments, etc)?



> Cannon has installed a quad and two triples while Gunstock has installed a quad, a triple, and a double.
> 
> So, if King Ridge, Crotched, Highlands, Temple, and Tenney were all novice areas with novice skiers, couldn't one theorize the significant growth of government run novice areas significantly harmed these soon-to-be-closed privately owned and operated areas?


 
Wasn't Cannon's begineer area, tuckerbrook, built well after most of these places closed?


----------



## MadPadraic (May 24, 2011)

BLESS said:


> love this thread.  Like a junkie, I keep coming back to read it.  The funny thing is, even though DHS & Threecy keep disagreeing, i bet they are more alike than they think....I have no idea about feeder hills & crotches, but I do like to go skiing in the winter, regardless of where.



It's great isn't it? We are 5 months from  Sunday River opening the season, so I hope this doesn't go away.




> With that said, Ive never been to them, but the perception among the RI people I know is that places like Crotched, King Ridge, Temple ar much smaller than places like Sunapee & Gunstock....as far as skill level, well thats way too subjective for me.n  Some people think they are experts because they can go 70 mph down blue cruisers at places like loon, and some people think theyre experts cause they can ski MITT @ 2mph without falling.  In my experience.....people that usually need to label themselves "experts"  usually are far from it.
> 
> this prolly made no sense, but im bored.....carry on



I don't understand the fascination with what percentage of riders/skiers at any given area are experts/intermediates/novices/etc. The point is to have fun. Cannon makes the sport fun.


----------



## jack97 (May 24, 2011)

Northernflight said:


> I don't think at this point you can really compare Sunapee and Crotched. Sunapee, although in my opinion has fairly easy terrain, the trails their are much tougher than any terrain that Crotched has at this time. I love skiing at Crotched



I agree.....in addition, the glades at Sunapee are way harder than Crotched. Going to repeat... only trail that has any pitch is the main trail under the quad lift.


----------



## threecy (May 24, 2011)

MadPadraic said:


> In a word: YES.   *Arguing that Crotched or Temple are viewed by consumers as size-wise substitutes for Sunday River* is like arguing that Upper Cannon is not an excellent blue run. :flame: (sorry RC).
> The argument is so absurd that you can't really be making it, can you?


I never made that argument.  I'm not sure where you're coming up with that.





MadPadraic said:


> Remind me here, but I thought we established earlier that Cannon is self sufficient and has actually covered its bad years?


Not quite.  Cannon is injected with hundreds of thousands of dollars of Sunapee lease revenue every year.  Large projects, which would drag down private ski area income statements, are taken care of by taxpayer backed low interest bonds.


----------



## thetrailboss (May 24, 2011)

threecy said:


> I never made that argument. I'm not sure where you're coming up with that.


 


> Vertical drop is often overestimated on ski area forums. If that were the such a factor, why would so many people drive to Sunday River, where the largest peak has about the same vertical drop as Cranmore?


 


And maybe it is just me but it seems as if you argue for the sake of arguing sometimes.  At any rate, I've said what I am going to about Cannon for now.  This is rivaling the typical Killington thread!  :lol:


----------



## ski_resort_observer (May 24, 2011)

Personally I have yet to figure out why so many people go to SR


----------



## Puck it (May 24, 2011)

ski_resort_observer said:


> Personally I have yet to figure out why so many people go to SR


 

Never been.  I like throwing my money at the poorly run state run ski area in NH.


----------



## deadheadskier (May 24, 2011)

ski_resort_observer said:


> Personally I have yet to figure out why so many people go to SR



It has a lot of the same qualities as Stratton and Okemo that attracts tons of intermediate skiers (great snowmaking, grooming and cruising terrain), also has very underrated expert terrain, it's a large area that if you know the mountain you can avoid the crowds on holiday weeks, great terrain parks,tons of slopeside lodging, a long season, tremendous value in a season pass and good customer service.  Outside of not having great natural snowfall, Sunday River really has the whole package to make for an excellent eastern ski destination.


----------



## threecy (May 24, 2011)

ski_resort_observer said:


> Personally I have yet to figure out why so many people go to SR



Image is huge.  To some people, its worth the extra drive and money to be able to talk to their co-workers and friends about their time at a well-known ski area.  There are certainly a lot of other factors (such as apres skiing, etc.), but in the end, name brand steers a lot of skier visits.


----------



## SIKSKIER (May 24, 2011)

*Back on topic*

So I'm trying to figure out how leasing Cannon makes one feel all tingly when making the argument that it puts unfair pressure on other resorts.The state still owns it and and will profit from it won't it?And if the infusion of private capital and management increase skier visits at the expense of other resorts,then they will certainly suffer more won't they?You can't have it both ways.


----------



## bobbutts (May 24, 2011)

The thing that drew me to SR originally was their aggressive snowmaking and good conditions during poor snow years in the late 80's-90's via word of mouth.  
I've returned because it's a good place to ski and I've always had a good time there.
The suggestion that the main attraction to it is brand name seems off to me.


----------



## Cannonball (May 24, 2011)

threecy said:


> Is it not interesting that, in the past 30 years, the three (now two) goverment areas have spent millions on building and expanding novice areas?  Not including surface lifts (costing hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars per area), Cannon has installed a quad and two triples while Gunstock has installed a quad, a triple, and a double.
> 
> So, if King Ridge, Crotched, Highlands, Temple, and Tenney were all novice areas with novice skiers, couldn't one theorize the significant growth of government run novice areas significantly harmed these soon-to-be-closed privately owned and operated areas?



You may have misplaced your correlations and causations.

Another way of looking at this is to say that infrastructure improvements in any business help keep that business alive.  Failure to improve leads to failure of an operation.  So government run areas (C/S/G) AND private areas (Loon, WV, Wachusett, SR, K-mart, etc) that made smart improvements have survived and thrived while areas that didn't improve (see your list) failed.  

In this sense, NH's long-term vision and business strategy of investing in improvements to Cannon so that it could survive and eventually grow to the point of making money was pretty smart.  In fact it's consistent with smart private business strategies (Loon, etc) that have have continued to grow and succeed over the long term.

If NH had not funded improvements at Cannon do you think King Ridge, Crotched, Highlands, Temple, and Tenney would all still be in business?


----------



## threecy (May 24, 2011)

SIKSKIER said:


> So I'm trying to figure out how leasing Cannon makes one feel all tingly when making the argument that it puts unfair pressure on other resorts.The state still owns it and and will profit from it won't it?And if the infusion of private capital and management increase skier visits at the expense of other resorts,then they will certainly suffer more won't they?You can't have it both ways.


- NH taxpayers will be protected from bad snow years.
- The troubled parks division will be given two guaranteed sources of revenue (since the Sunapee lease payments would no longer be diverted into Cannon).
- NH taxpayers would no longer be called upon to provide millions of additional investments into Cannon.
- Private sector operator would pay state and local taxes (which currently are not paid), thus injecting even more money into the current budget issues.
- Private sector operator has to pay taxes and lease payments every year, thus making a more level playing field vs. fully privately owned and semi-privately owned ski areas.
- Private sector operator has to pay market rates for project financing, thus making a more level playing field vs. fully privately owned and semi privately owned ski areas.
- Private operator pays state as landlord, resulting in similar ownership structure as Loon, Sunapee, Waterville, Wildcat.



Cannonball said:


> If NH had not funded improvements at Cannon do you think King Ridge, Crotched, Highlands, Temple, and Tenney would all still be in business?


If taxpayers hadn't been forced to back improvements at Cannon, Gunstock, and Sunapee for decades, then yes, I suspect less of those areas would have been forced out of business.


----------



## deadheadskier (May 24, 2011)

threecy,  you really should go into politics.

You're great at bulleted talking points 

and very bad at answering questions.  In this case, sikskier's.


----------



## bigbob (May 24, 2011)

Threecy, I am sure the town of Franconia would love to collect property taxes off of Cannon.It would still be state owned land so I doubt they would be able to collect.
 It was my understanding that as the state bonded money to pay for Cannon improvements, the Sunapee cash would pay the yearly bond payments. Untill the bonds are retired, payments would still have to be made.


----------



## AdironRider (May 24, 2011)

threecy said:


> - NH taxpayers will be protected from bad snow years.
> - The troubled parks division will be given two guaranteed sources of revenue (since the Sunapee lease payments would no longer be diverted into Cannon).
> - NH taxpayers would no longer be called upon to provide millions of additional investments into Cannon.
> - Private sector operator would pay state and local taxes (which currently are not paid), thus injecting even more money into the current budget issues.
> ...



I love how you argue that Cannon gets special deals on stuff and doesnt pay market rates, when just last year we had a 30 page thread where you were bitching that they were paying to much for the Mitt lift arguing that it was way above what private resorts would pay. Doesnt really mesh well with your whole argument that Cannon and other state run resorts are making it unfair to other private resorts due to getting special deals now does it? Pick a side, not just cherry pick blanket statement arguments as you see fit.

Also, Im pretty sure Cannon uses their revenues to pay for investments in capital improvements. Taxpayers might cover the loss (which there hasnt been recently) if the yearly revenue doesnt cover everything, but its poor form to say we cover all costs for every dime put into the place but never see a cent back. You and I both know that is not true. Taxpayers are not on the hook for millions, more like on the hook for a possibility of a loss in any given year.


----------



## jack97 (May 24, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> threecy,  you really should go into politics.
> 
> You're great at bulleted talking points
> 
> and very bad at answering questions.  In this case, sikskier's.



yep......I lost track of what he was arguing about.


----------



## Puck it (May 24, 2011)

I think they spent too much on a chairlift.


----------



## UVSHTSTRM (May 24, 2011)

threecy said:


> - NH taxpayers will be protected from bad snow years.
> - The troubled parks division will be given two guaranteed sources of revenue (since the Sunapee lease payments would no longer be diverted into Cannon).
> - NH taxpayers would no longer be called upon to provide millions of additional investments into Cannon.
> - Private sector operator would pay state and local taxes (which currently are not paid), thus injecting even more money into the current budget issues.
> ...



I could care less one way or the other, but let me ask you this.  With everything you mentioned above, why would a private company buy this place?  You basically said without tax funds this place is a lemon so to speak.  What could a private sector business do to create enough of a profit to pay for all the above things you mention?  I hate to say it, but Cannon really can't do anymore then what is in place now.  Perhaps adding some snowmaking?  They have good lifts now, good snowmaking, good trails, above average (so they report) snowfall for NH and parts of Maine.  Cannon is big, but can it handle 300,000 skier visits, does it have the things or could it ever have the things in place to support and attract the numbers of people required to keep this place afloat......ie slopeside condos, bars restaraunts, etc.?  Would state and federal land regulations allow this to happen?


----------



## MadPadraic (May 24, 2011)

threecy said:


> I never made that argument.  I'm not sure where you're coming up with that.


This is where I came up with it:


threecy said:


> Ah, so Sunday River is big for having multiple pods, but Crotched, Temple, and King Ridge weren't.





> Not quite.  Cannon is injected with hundreds of thousands of dollars of Sunapee lease revenue every year.  Large projects, which would drag down private ski area income statements, are taken care of by taxpayer backed low interest bonds.



So many things wrong with this statement: first off, and YOU know this, the projects themselves don't show up as in one giant chunk on the income statement. Expenses are recognized over time (clearly interest is part of this)."

Big corporate ski areas finance improvements with debt (the 8-10% notes at Crotched  and Mt Snow are much higher than Vail's cost to borrow). Ski companies use revenues from one area to improve other areas. That's not dissimilar from using Sunapee revenue to improve Cannon or from using the state's credit rating to improve the public good.

Also, even if the borrowing rates are low, if the ski operations pay them off, then it's not like it is a net drain on the state's residents. In other words, they aren't subsidized.

But if Cannon borrows at lower rates, and it then passes on the savings to its patrons, then I'm happy. But elsewhere, you've argued that Cannon overpayed for their expansion. Which is it? Are they undercutting the competition by having a lower cost to expand, or are they fleasing the state's residents by overpaying for expansion? It can't be both.


----------



## MadPadraic (May 24, 2011)

threecy said:


> - NH taxpayers will be protected from bad snow years.



This is the case anyway, I simply pay less in taxes to NH during bad snow years.



> - The troubled parks division will be given two guaranteed sources of revenue (since the Sunapee lease payments would no longer be diverted into Cannon).


Since when is it troubled? That's a real question, not rhetorical.



> - NH taxpayers would no longer be called upon to provide millions of additional investments into Cannon.



They aren't now, so how would that change anything?



> - Private sector operator has to pay taxes and lease payments every year, thus making a more level playing field vs. fully privately owned and semi-privately owned ski areas.



So what? Private ski areas are all ready able to charge plenty. Why do I want them to charge even more?



> - Private sector operator has to pay market rates for project financing, thus making a more level playing field vs. fully privately owned and semi privately owned ski areas.



Let's be very clear on this particular point, you are *advocating a direct transfer of wealth from skiers to wall street banks. * I see this as undesirable.


----------



## threecy (May 25, 2011)

bigbob said:


> Threecy, I am sure the town of Franconia would love to collect property taxes off of Cannon.It would still be state owned land so I doubt they would be able to collect.


Sunapee indeed pays local taxes.  I believe the figure cited through 2006 was about $835,000




AdironRider said:


> I love how you argue that Cannon gets special deals on stuff and doesnt pay market rates, when just last year we had a 30 page thread where you were bitching that they were paying to much for the Mitt lift arguing that it was way above what private resorts would pay.


Do you seriously not understand this?  Cannon paid a premium for the Mittersill chairlift, courtesy below market debt backed by taxpayers.




UVSHTSTRM said:


> I could care less one way or the other, but let me ask you this.  With everything you mentioned above, why would a private company *buy* this place?  You basically said without tax funds this place is a lemon so to speak.  What could a private sector business do to create enough of a profit to pay for all the above things you mention?  I hate to say it, but Cannon really can't do anymore then what is in place now.  Perhaps adding some snowmaking?  They have good lifts now, good snowmaking, good trails, above average (so they report) snowfall for NH and parts of Maine.  Cannon is big, but can it handle 300,000 skier visits, does it have the things or could it ever have the things in place to support and attract the numbers of people required to keep this place afloat......ie slopeside condos, bars restaraunts, etc.?  Would state and federal land regulations allow this to happen?



The area is operated as a government institution, with government fiscal budgeting, bidding requirements, etc.  It's simply not an efficient way to operate an area.  There are indeed private sector firms interested in leasing Cannon.



MadPadraic said:


> Also, even if the borrowing rates are low, if the ski operations pay them off, then it's not like it is a net drain on the state's residents.


Even if the bonds are paid off, it's still absolutely a drain on state residents - it ties up taxpayer funds.  New Hampshire is staring at deficits and debt - why allocate debt to an alpine ski area that most New Hampshire residents will never use?



MadPadraic said:


> But elsewhere, you've argued that Cannon overpayed for their expansion. Which is it? Are they undercutting the competition by having a lower cost to expand, or are they fleasing the state's residents by overpaying for expansion? It can't be both.


They absolutely have a lower cost to expand - $0.  A privately owned ski area operator has to pay out of pocket to expand.  If a private sector owner dramatically overpays, they go bankrupt and lose their area.  If the government run ski area overpays, the government still pays for it.



MadPadraic said:


> This is the case anyway, I simply pay less in taxes to NH during bad snow years.
> 
> 
> Since when is it troubled? That's a real question, not rhetorical.


The parks division has been carrying losses over (division wide) for awhile.  Since they legally are supposed to be budget neutral, they carry the losses over into the next year's budget.  A bad snow year means they carry an even larger deficit into the following budget.  In theory, they get away with being in the red, but it does mean other parts of the division are harmed as a result.





MadPadraic said:


> They aren't now, so how would that change anything?


Yes, we are.





MadPadraic said:


> So what? Private ski areas are all ready able to charge plenty. Why do I want them to charge even more?


That's an odd conclusion to draw.





MadPadraic said:


> Let's be very clear on this particular point, you are *advocating a direct transfer of wealth from skiers to wall street banks. * I see this as undesirable.


What in the world are you talking about?


----------



## BLESS (May 25, 2011)

this thread delivers.  One more reason why I dont understand the no polotics/religion rule...or whatever it is.  We've had a 33+ page civil discussion on Cannon....no death threats, etc.   Why not be able to have more like this?


----------



## Puck it (May 25, 2011)




----------



## Northernflight (May 25, 2011)

> The parks division has been carrying losses over (division wide) for awhile.



Can you post the data to back that statement up? The previous data a few pages back showed that most parks were operating above deficit.


----------



## threecy (May 25, 2011)

Northernflight said:


> Can you post the data to back that statement up? The previous data a few pages back showed that most parks were operating above deficit.



This is a year old, but:  http://newhampshire.watchdog.org/5168/dred-pushing-park-fee-increases/



> Austin and Bald state that the Park Fund faced a deficit of over $1.8 million as of the beginning of Fiscal Year 2009. Under state law, the Park System is expected “to recover a reasonable portion of budget expenses”, but does not have to be self-sustaining.


----------



## deadheadskier (May 25, 2011)

I'm not going to search through 33 pages, but I could have sworn you said earlier in the thread that by law NH State Parks can't run in the red.


----------



## Puck it (May 25, 2011)




----------



## threecy (May 25, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> I'm not going to search through 33 pages, but I could have sworn you said earlier in the thread that by law NH State Parks can't run in the red.



There's no law that says they can't carry a deficit forward in the following budget, at least that I'm aware of.


----------



## deadheadskier (May 25, 2011)

That's not what Baldwin says though. He said the State Park system does not have to be self-sustaining.  Suggesting that the State recognizes that revenue from other tax sources can be used to fund operations of the parks...........same thing with every other state.  

By nature, State and National Parks were not established to be revenue centers for the government.  They're intended to conserve natural resources for the enjoyment of citizens.   Some how this concept is lost on you.


----------



## ski_resort_observer (May 25, 2011)

apples and grapefruits. The Parks Dept is an administrative part of NH state government. Revenue and Losses experienced by the state park units can be diferent than the overall budget results of the department as a whole. 

Every state budget, every year is public info. From my view unless you or someone else has reviewed the numbers from each state park, especially Cannon and Sunapee, all the posts regarding the profibilty of the state parks are just opinions. A dept deficit from what has been posted could be losses carried over from years ago and does not reflect actual Rev/Losses from each park. I suspect some parks make money, some do not. These numbers would be only a part of the state park's dept budgets resulting in the disconnect with the facts presented so far.


----------



## Nick (May 25, 2011)

You guys are intense. that's all I have to say


----------



## jack97 (May 25, 2011)

hmmm.... this is getting some steam

http://www.nhpr.org/senate-committee-pushes-privatize-cannon


I bet there are a lot of land owners nearby hoping this would happen. In addition, I would be interested to see which companies are stepping to the plate to place a bid.


imo, the pro to this is that competition is good maybe it will lower the rate of increasing ticket passes around the area.... force Loon or Bretton Woods to reasonable pricing. 

the con to this is that they have to compete, they have to tame the placed down even more. imo, the land swap for Mittersill was the first step and it now allows the option for wusification....


----------



## threecy (May 25, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> By nature, State and National Parks were not established to be revenue centers for the government.  They're intended to conserve natural resources for the enjoyment of citizens.   Some how this concept is lost on you.



How would Cannon not be conserved for the enjoyment of citizens if a private sector firm operated it?  Again, hundreds of acres of land are current off limits to everyone for most of the year, and in season, only available to those paying $67 for a lift ticket (or less on a deal day or more for a season pass).

Meanwhile, nearby Loon, Waterville, and Wildcat are operated at no cost to the government.  That land is open to free use year round, or for a fee if you wish to use a lift.


----------



## thetrailboss (May 25, 2011)

threecy said:


> How would Cannon not be conserved for the enjoyment of citizens if a private sector firm operated it? Again, hundreds of acres of land are current off limits to everyone for most of the year, and in season, only available to those paying $67 for a lift ticket (or less on a deal day or more for a season pass).


 
Not true!  Single tram rides are available for a relatively reasonable cost and one can hike up the Kinsman Trail.


----------



## MadPadraic (May 25, 2011)

threecy said:


> Even if the bonds are paid off, it's still absolutely a drain on state residents - it ties up taxpayer funds.  New Hampshire is staring at deficits and debt - why allocate debt to an alpine ski area that most New Hampshire residents will never use?


No it doesn't. First off there is no such thing as "tax payer funds." There is revenue generated from taxes, and there are state funds, but there is no such thing as "tax payer funds."  Second, unless you know something that the bond markets don't, the state of NH is not credit constrained. If it was, then they couldn't issue bonds for Cannon at rates which you find unreasonably low. Funds are not diverted away from some other source, and the existence of Cannon bonds doesn't prevent the state from borrowing in other areas. This is cut and dry.



> They absolutely have a lower cost to expand - $0.  A privately owned ski area operator has to pay out of pocket to expand.


Factually incorrect; we have data available from four private ski resort operators: intrawest, Vail, ASC, and Peak. Not a single one of these pays "out of pocket" for expansions. All four use debt.



> What in the world are you talking about?


You seem very upset that the state of NH can borrow cheaper than entities with poorer credit ratings. Hence, you want Cannon to pay more for its lifts. This means that you want higher costs to Cannon, which turns means higher lift ticket prices. Hence, Cannon skiers pay more money to Cannon, which goes directly into the bond markets.


----------



## Northernflight (May 25, 2011)

If Cannon is privatized I don't think it would put pressure on Loon and Bretton Woods to lower prices, it most likely would be the opposite with Cannon trying to compete with Loon and Bretton Woods more,  they would have to raise prices. I think the mountain is priced fairly for what it is now. I get a $250 season pass to 4 mountains so Im very happy with the current pricing structure. The only thing I see that can be done to Cannon to make it compete directly with Loon and Bretton Woods would be the complete taming of Mittersill, widening trails, adding snowmaking and expansion of slopeside houses which cant really occur anywhere withing the ski areas footprint unless they somehow add a pod on the ridge to the right of Mitt. which would cost a lot to do. I personally like the mountain how it is and I would not like to see it change in that way. If I want to ski Loon Ill go ski Loon, but most days I'm driving by to  Cannon.


----------



## deadheadskier (May 25, 2011)

Northernflight said:


> . I get a $250 season pass to 4 mountains so Im very happy with the current pricing structure.



Student pass?  State worker discount?  Which Mountains?  and how can I hook it up :lol:


----------



## MadPadraic (May 25, 2011)

Northernflight said:


> If Cannon is privatized I don't think it would put pressure on Loon and Bretton Woods to lower prices, it most likely would be the opposite with Cannon trying to compete with Loon and Bretton Woods more,  they would have to raise prices. I think the mountain is priced fairly for what it is now. I get a $250 season pass to 4 mountains so Im very happy with the current pricing structure. The only thing I see that can be done to Cannon to make it compete directly with Loon and Bretton Woods would be the complete taming of Mittersill, widening trails, adding snowmaking and expansion of slopeside houses which cant really occur anywhere withing the ski areas footprint unless they somehow add a pod on the ridge to the right of Mitt. which would cost a lot to do. I personally like the mountain how it is and I would not like to see it change in that way. If I want to ski Loon Ill go ski Loon, but most days I'm driving by to  Cannon.



I think this is right. Cannon is able to be so cheap because it doesn't have to maximize profits; it should be run to a break even. A private operator would see that it is 12%-50% cheaper than Loon or Sunapee and raise prices to just below Loon's.  Where do you get a $250 pass to four mountains?


----------



## Northernflight (May 25, 2011)

> Student pass? State worker discount? Which Mountains? and how can I hook it up



Its the 4-NH College pass which thank god was continued even though the Threedom is dead now. Its good at Waterville, Bretton Woods, Cranmore, and Cannon. I never make the trek over to Cranmore so its more like a 3 mountain pass but its nice to have that option if I'm ever in that neck of the woods.  Its going to run me up a little more than $250 this year since the pricing cutoff is this week and being a poor college student I need to find a job first......I wish they had something like pay $50 dollars up front to lock in the lower rate and then pay the rest before you pick up the pass. Makes the customer happy and if the pass doesn't get picked up they make a little $ but I'm getting off topic now. I honestly would not be happy with any other multiple mountain pass out there right now and the main thing that's the icing on the cake for me is having Cannon on the pass.


----------



## threecy (May 26, 2011)

threecy said:


> How would Cannon not be conserved for the enjoyment of citizens if a private sector firm operated it?  *Again, hundreds of acres of land are current off limits to everyone for most of the year*, and in season, only available to those paying $67 for a lift ticket (or less on a deal day or more for a season pass).
> 
> Meanwhile, nearby Loon, Waterville, and Wildcat are operated at no cost to the government.  That land is open to free use year round, or for a fee if you wish to use a lift.





thetrailboss said:


> *Not true!*  Single tram rides are available for a relatively reasonable cost and one can hike up the Kinsman Trail.



I have it from a good source that there was a ~$300 fine in place (including a sign) if one attempted to walk down the ski slopes.  So, not true that it's not true.  The hundreds of acres of and around the ski trails are indeed technically off limits year round at Cannon unless you have a ski pass.  Not the case at Loon, Waterville, and Wildcat.


----------



## threecy (May 26, 2011)

MadPadraic said:


> No it doesn't. First off there is no such thing as "tax payer funds."  There is revenue generated from taxes, and there are state funds, but there is no such thing as "tax payer funds."


We must have completely different views of government.  I view government as something to be of the people, by the people, for the people.  We fund government with our taxes.  Whether they spend the money today, or borrow against it, it is our tax dollars that funds it.



MadPadraic said:


> Factually incorrect; we have data available from four private ski resort operators: intrawest, Vail, ASC, and Peak. Not a single one of these pays "out of pocket" for expansions. All four use debt.


That comment is factually incorrect.  Sure, large purchases can be funded with debt (and are to an extent with Cannon, such as the Tramway).  However, other off-season work is indeed funded with ski area funds.  Different ski areas recognize it in different fashions.  Cannon keeps it off it's profit and loss statement.


----------



## Puck it (May 26, 2011)

threecy said:


> I have it from a good source that there was a ~$300 fine in place (including a sign) if one attempted to walk down the ski slopes. So, not true that it's not true. The hundreds of acres of and around the ski trails are indeed technically off limits year round at Cannon unless you have a ski pass. Not the case at Loon, Waterville, and Wildcat.


 
I call bullcrap on this statement. I have seen snowshoers and skiers skinning up the trails in the winter. They offer a one way ticket on the Tram also.

*Ticket Rates:*

Ages 13+ round-trip ride: $13
Children ages 6-12 round-trip ride: $10.00
Children ages 5 & under: Free w/ adult 
Ages 13+ one-way ride: $11.00


----------



## SIKSKIER (May 26, 2011)

I still have no response to my post 321.Threecy didn't answer any part of it in his response.


----------



## threecy (May 26, 2011)

SIKSKIER said:


> I still have no response to my post 321.Threecy didn't answer any part of it in his response.



I'm not sure how to answer a question about feeling tingly.

The state would become essentially a landlord.

Ski areas with government landlords in New Hampshire:
- Wildcat
- Sunapee
- Waterville
- Loon


----------



## deadheadskier (May 26, 2011)

Senator Threecy

The question is this.  You are adamant that private investors would put Cannon on track for prosperity like Sunapee.  That it will have greater skier visits etc.  Then you turn face and say the poorly run state areas are partly responsible for the demise of three ski areas.  Don't you see the hypocrisy in your positions on the two subjects.  You can't have it both ways.

Now please, provide Sikskier, myself, trailboss and the several others who've called you out on this hypocrisy with some  bulleted talking points dancing around the question like you're so fond of doing.


----------



## threecy (May 26, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> The question is this.  You are adamant that private investors would put Cannon on track for prosperity like Sunapee.  That it will have greater skier visits etc.  Then you turn face and say the poorly run state areas are partly responsible for the demise of three ski areas.  Don't you see the hypocrisy in your positions on the two subjects.  You can't have it both ways.



Again, my Southern New Hampshire theory is that - a theory.  But, yes if true, one can absolutely 'have it both ways.'  A poorly run business with bottomless pockets can indeed harm others.  Again, I'm not trying to single out Cannon employees, but rather the whole aspect of trying to run a business within government.


----------



## Cannonball (May 26, 2011)

threecy said:


> I have it from a good source that there was a ~$300 fine in place (including a sign) if one attempted to walk down the ski slopes.  So, not true that it's not true.  The hundreds of acres of and around the ski trails are indeed technically off limits year round at Cannon unless you have a ski pass.  Not the case at Loon, Waterville, and Wildcat.



In the past 8 months I've been at Cannon well over 100 days.  In the past 20 years I've been there hundreds and hundreds of times.  I have never seen a sign that says that.  I have hiked all aspects of Cannon (including the ski trails) during winter, spring, summer, and fall.  I have skied Cannon before and after the lifts were spinning.  I have walked past Cannon ski area employees and park maintenance crews while doing all of this.

I can't say that your "good authority" is definitely wrong.....but it sure seems it.


----------



## Puck it (May 26, 2011)

Cannonball said:


> In the past 8 months I've been at Cannon well over 100 days. In the past 20 years I've been there hundreds and hundreds of times. I have never seen a sign that says that. I have hiked all aspects of Cannon (including the ski trails) during winter, spring, summer, and fall. I have skied Cannon before and after the lifts were spinning. I have walked past Cannon ski area employees and park maintenance crews while doing all of this.
> 
> I can't say that your "good authority" is definitely wrong.....but it sure seems it.


 

Including Fischer Cat Glade!!!!!;-)


----------



## threecy (May 26, 2011)

Cannonball said:


> In the past 8 months I've been at Cannon well over 100 days.  In the past 20 years I've been there hundreds and hundreds of times.  I have never seen a sign that says that.  I have hiked all aspects of Cannon (including the ski trails) during winter, spring, summer, and fall.  I have skied Cannon before and after the lifts were spinning.  I have walked past Cannon ski area employees and park maintenance crews while doing all of this.
> 
> I can't say that your "good authority" is definitely wrong.....but it sure seems it.



I believe the sign was posted adjacent the top terminal of the Tramway last summer.  I generally avoid that area when I hike Cannon, so I don't have a firsthand account or photo, but I believe there are photos of it somewhere.  I do know people who have been turned around, both top and bottom if I recall, by Cannon employees in recent years.  Last I knew, the management there vigorously defends keeping the ski trails closed year round to foot traffic.


----------



## AdironRider (May 26, 2011)

Your comments are rediculous. So youve never seen the sign, admit that you dont spend much time hiking up there anyways, but claim they vigorously defend the no hiking policy. 

Ive hiked around Cannon plenty of times, all I got was a friendly wave from a lift mechanic up on a tower. Throw me on the list of people that think your full of shit.


----------



## deadheadskier (May 26, 2011)

threecy said:


> Again, my Southern New Hampshire theory is that - a theory.  But, yes if true, one can absolutely 'have it both ways.'  A poorly run business with bottomless pockets can indeed harm others.  Again, I'm not trying to single out Cannon employees, but rather the whole aspect of trying to run a business within government.



No you can't have it both ways.  If a private company increases skier visits by 100% like Sunapee has and you expect would happen at Cannon, they would be more competitive than poorly run State managed areas and Crotched, Temple et. al would've met their demise much faster.  If anything those areas survived much longer than they should have due to the poorly run State areas.  This really is 1+1=2 logic threecy.  There's no arguing against it.


----------



## Cannonball (May 26, 2011)

threecy said:


> I believe the sign was posted adjacent the top terminal of the Tramway last summer.  I generally avoid that area when I hike Cannon, so I don't have a firsthand account or photo, but I believe there are photos of it somewhere.  I do know people who have been turned around, both top and bottom if I recall, by Cannon employees in recent years.  Last I knew, the management there vigorously defends keeping the ski trails closed year round to foot traffic.



OK now I'm sure this is bogus.  You're saying there is a sign AT THE TOP of the mountain that says "no hiking"?  And you're saying that you know people who have been turned around from hiking AT THE TOP?  W..T.......F?


----------



## SIKSKIER (May 26, 2011)

As painfull as it is for me to agree with him,there are signs at the bottom of Gremlin and at the top that are posted in the summer that say no hiking on the ski trails.That said,I have  never seen anybody stopped from hiking but there really is nobody sitting there looking for people either.I can certainly understand the reason at the top.There is a very fragile thin layer of topsoil and it gets beat up very easy.Take a look at the Rim trail as it runs to the Hi Cannon trail.The trail is all exposed granite worn through 1 foot of soil.


----------



## threecy (May 26, 2011)

AdironRider said:


> Your comments are rediculous. So youve never seen the sign, admit that you dont spend much time hiking up there anyways, but claim they vigorously defend the no hiking policy.
> 
> Ive hiked around Cannon plenty of times, all I got was a friendly wave from a lift mechanic up on a tower. Throw me on the list of people that think your full of shit.


How many times have you hiked Cannon in the past half decade?



deadheadskier said:


> No you can't have it both ways.  If a private company increases skier visits by 100% like Sunapee has and you expect would happen at Cannon, they would be more competitive than poorly run State managed areas and Crotched, Temple et. al would've met their demise much faster.  If anything those areas survived much longer than they should have due to the poorly run State areas.  This really is 1+1=2 logic threecy.  There's no arguing against it.


Do you really not understand this concept?

In a bad year, a government run ski area is covered and continues to operate, virtually regardless of the losses - no check bounce.

In a bad year, a privately run ski area still has to pay property taxes to both town and county.  The ski area also has to pay its loans.

When was the last time a government run ski area was foreclosed or liquidated by a town?


----------



## threecy (May 26, 2011)

Cannonball said:


> OK now I'm sure this is bogus.  You're saying there is a sign AT THE TOP of the mountain that says "no hiking"?  And you're saying that you know people who have been turned around from hiking AT THE TOP?  W..T.......F?



You are aware that they sell one-way Tram tickets, aren't you?


----------



## deadheadskier (May 26, 2011)

threecy said:


> How many times have you hiked Cannon in the past half decade?
> 
> 
> Do you really not understand this concept?
> ...



Senator threecy,

you conveniently leave out your argument that Sunapee is now doing 300K under private management.   When it was state run, it was doing what? 150.  Even during bad years, the Muellers are going over 225K skier visits.

300K is double the competition for those NELSAP areas.  Your argument that better run vastly more popular ski areas would do less harm to the competition than poorly run State areas is 100% bogus. 

Learn to say, "I am wrong" when you are.  It's a valuable life skill.


----------



## AdironRider (May 26, 2011)

threecy said:


> How many times have you hiked Cannon in the past half decade?
> 
> 
> Do you really not understand this concept?
> ...



Easily 10 times. Dont have trip reports though. Cannon is my playground when Im back home. 

And I would argue that saying no hiking on sensitive areas is pretty standard for the Whites, pretty much everything above tree line has those same warnings. Id also argue its vastly different from a vigourous no hiking policy and quarantining hundreds of acres of public land.


----------



## Puck it (May 26, 2011)

There a dirt road to the top also.  Do you think any body would be stopped on the road?


----------



## threecy (May 26, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> Your argument that better run vastly more popular ski areas would do less harm to the competition than poorly run State areas is 100% bogus.


Private sector ski area competing against private sector ski area = competition
Government skia area competing against private sector ski area = unfair competition




AdironRider said:


> And I would argue that saying no hiking on sensitive areas is pretty standard for the Whites, pretty much everything above tree line has those same warnings. Id also argue its vastly different from a vigourous no hiking policy and quarantining hundreds of acres of public land.


Incorrect.  There is no standard no hiking policy in the Whites, aside from small revegetation areas, endangered bird nesting areas, and Cannon Mountain ski area.



Puck it said:


> There a dirt road to the top also.  Do you think any body would be stopped on the road?


According to the management at Cannon, yes.


----------



## MadPadraic (May 26, 2011)

threecy said:


> We must have completely different views of government.  I view government as something to be of the people, by the people, for the people.  We fund government with our taxes.  Whether they spend the money today, or borrow against it, it is our tax dollars that funds it.



I agree with what you have said here, but it doesn't prove me wrong. Would you answer me this: define "the people" in your definition above.


----------



## Puck it (May 26, 2011)

I have not found any reference to the hiking policy on he any NH state site. I would think that they would put this policy on the parks site if it was truly enforced.

Sunapee allows it hiking on the ski trails.


----------



## AdironRider (May 26, 2011)

threecy said:


> Private sector ski area competing against private sector ski area = competition
> Government skia area competing against private sector ski area = unfair competition
> 
> 
> ...



BS, hike up Mt Isolation and tell me you dont see signs warning you to stay on certain trails, no camping, etc. Its pretty standard info for most hiking in the Whites to prevent human destruction, Im willing to bet this is the same type of signage at Cannon. I personally have no seen any laws or posted signs, more along the lines of "be concious of the fragile environment around you", again pretty standard stuff for hiking in any national forest, let alone the Whites. 

You state you've heard second hand accounts of people being turned away and havent seen or had any trouble yourself. Hardly enough to base an argument on. Ive hiked all over Cannon, all I got was a wave. Sikskier mentioned theres a sign at the bottom of Gremlin, but has never heard anybody getting turned away.


----------



## deadheadskier (May 26, 2011)

threecy said:


> Private sector ski area competing against private sector ski area = competition
> Government skia area competing against private sector ski area = unfair competition
> .



fair or unfair doesn't matter.  what does is skier visits.  you preach the virtues of private management bringing Sunapee to 300K visits, yet some how when it was doing 150K visits it had a worse impact on business levels at the nelsap areas.  Sorry, it doesn't add up.  You can't politic your way out of that simple fact.


----------



## threecy (May 26, 2011)

AdironRider said:


> BS, hike up Mt Isolation and tell me you dont see signs warning you to stay on certain trails, no camping, etc.


Mt. Isolation has "no camping" signs in revegetation areas along the hiking trails and in forest protection areas.  There are no no-hiking signs posted on any of the trails to Mt. Isolation.  



AdironRider said:


> You state you've heard second hand accounts of people being turned away and havent seen or had any trouble yourself. Hardly enough to base an argument on. Ive hiked all over Cannon, all I got was a wave. Sikskier mentioned theres a sign at the bottom of Gremlin, but has never heard anybody getting turned away.



The folks I know who have been turned around and/or who reported the no hiking signs are respected figures in the hiking community - it's not made up.  Ask the Cannon GM the official policy if you think this is inaccurate.


----------



## threecy (May 26, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> fair or unfair doesn't matter.


If you don't care about government competing against the people who pay for it, then you and I will likely never agree on anything fiscal.



deadheadskier said:


> what does is skier visits.  you preach the virtues of private management bringing Sunapee to 300K visits, yet some how when it was doing 150K visits it had a worse impact on business levels at the nelsap areas.  Sorry, it doesn't add up.  You can't politic your way out of that simple fact.



Skier visits != ticket sales and != revenue and != profit.

Sunapee is not at 300K skier visits yet by the way.


----------



## AdironRider (May 26, 2011)

threecy said:


> Mt. Isolation has "no camping" signs in revegetation areas along the hiking trails and in forest protection areas.  There are no no-hiking signs posted on any of the trails to Mt. Isolation.
> 
> 
> 
> The folks I know who have been turned around and/or who reported the no hiking signs are respected figures in the hiking community - it's not made up.  Ask the Cannon GM the official policy if you think this is inaccurate.



Respected figures in the hiking community? Geez you are stretching things here. What makes someone a respected member of the hiking community exactly? Do they have perfect walking form or something? Ive hiked every 4000 footer in NH and all of the High Peaks in the ADK and don't consider myself a respected member of the hiking community. Get off your high horse. You contantly think youre better than everyone else so your opinion must be right. 

This is the second year you've gone on and on about how messed up things are with Cannon. Hate to break it to you, but you seem to be the only one who cares.


----------



## deadheadskier (May 26, 2011)

"respected members of the hiking community" = more valid opinion than someone who's owned real estate at the base of Cannon for decades and never had an issue hiking the trails.

got it


----------



## deadheadskier (May 26, 2011)

threecy said:


> If you don't care about government competing against the people who pay for it, then you and I will likely never agree on anything fiscal.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Whether a state run area has to pay taxes or is kept afloat during lean years has no bearing on those private businesses.  What matters to them is the number of paying customers using their facilities.  If privately run areas are doing MORE business than they were doing as State areas, that means less business is going to go to those nelsap areas.  Pretty simple math.  Please revisit Business 101.  Hell even Arithmetic.


----------



## Cannonball (May 26, 2011)

threecy said:


> The folks I know who have been turned around and/or who reported the no hiking signs are respected figures in the hiking community - it's not made up.  Ask the Cannon GM the official policy if you think this is inaccurate.



If they are getting turned away while all of the rest of us seem to have no problems, I guess that would make them the Disrespected Members of the Hiking Community. Good band name....


----------



## threecy (May 26, 2011)

AdironRider said:


> Respected figures in the hiking community? Geez you are stretching things here. What makes someone a respected member of the hiking community exactly? Do they have perfect walking form or something? Ive hiked every 4000 footer in NH and all of the High Peaks in the ADK and don't consider myself a respected member of the hiking community. Get off your high horse. You contantly think youre better than everyone else so your opinion must be right.


You seem like such a pleasant person - I look forward to meeting you on the trails sometime.



AdironRider said:


> This is the second year you've gone on and on about how messed up things are with Cannon. Hate to break it to you, but you seem to be the only one who cares.


Absolutely.  I'm the only person who reads these forums who would like to see Cannon leased.  I'm also the only person in the state who would like to see Cannon leased.


----------



## threecy (May 26, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> Please revisit Business 101.  Hell even Arithmetic.



I'm curious about your business knowledge.  Explain to us why ski schools bring in some of the highest margins of any unit at a ski area.


----------



## Puck it (May 26, 2011)

Use one much?


----------



## deadheadskier (May 26, 2011)

threecy said:


> I'm curious about your business knowledge.  Explain to us why ski schools bring in some of the highest margins of any unit at a ski area.



jeez

maybe because instructors are only paid when they teach and one hour privates cost as much as college tuition credits?

All I'm saying is you're trying to add pieces to the pie.

10 pieces in a Pie
Crotched gets 3 pieces
State Run Sunapee gets 3 pieces
Temple gets 2 pieces
King Ridge gets 2 pieces

If a privately run Sunapee gets 6 pieces, guess what?  The nelsap areas get less.  Hence BOGUS argument


----------



## bobbutts (May 26, 2011)

:argue:



Concord Monitor Editorial (Don't Lease)



> In 2008-09 and 2009-10, when visits to New Hampshire resorts fell by about 3 percent overall, Cannon posted double-digit gains.





> It's extremely unlikely that a private company could match - much less beat - the results produced by Cannon's focused and capable management team.


----------



## riverc0il (May 26, 2011)

Cannonball said:


> In the past 8 months I've been at Cannon well over 100 days.  In the past 20 years I've been there hundreds and hundreds of times.  I have never seen a sign that says that.  I have hiked all aspects of Cannon (including the ski trails) during winter, spring, summer, and fall.  I have skied Cannon before and after the lifts were spinning.  I have walked past Cannon ski area employees and park maintenance crews while doing all of this.
> 
> I can't say that your "good authority" is definitely wrong.....but it sure seems it.


threecy is correct, now that he has amended his statement to "in theory". There are signs posted at the top of the tram stating that down hiking on the ski trails in prohibited. That is factual. Though as a frequent turn earner, as noted before, I have actually talked to Cannon Ops staff before/after skinning and all was good. I suspect they look the other way during the ski season but are more gung ho during tram season. They probably don't want out of shape people taking the tram up and hurting themselves by down hiking. Down hiking ski trails sucks balls any ways.


----------



## riverc0il (May 26, 2011)

Guys, I said it before and I'll say it again... just because you don't agree with threecy doesn't mean he doesn't have good facts. I know it is hard to take anything he presents as factual because he doesn't back down and does not concede points of merit to the opposing view point. But your only doing the same to him that you are accusing him of doing to you when you just deny everything he puts forth as information backing up his perspective.


----------



## Puck it (May 26, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> threecy is correct, now that he has amended his statement to "in theory". There are signs posted at the top of the tram stating that down hiking on the ski trails in prohibited. That is factual. Though as a frequent turn earner, as noted before, I have actually talked to Cannon Ops staff before/after skinning and all was good. I suspect they look the other way during the ski season but are more gung ho during tram season. They probably don't want out of shape people taking the tram up and hurting themselves by down hiking. Down hiking ski trails sucks balls any ways.



I hike the ski trails at Sunapee quite a bit.  Going up is more of a task then down hiking. But it depends on the trail, too.  I bet following the road is easy, which is Upper Ravine down to Gremilin.


----------



## deadheadskier (May 26, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> Guys, I said it before and I'll say it again... just because you don't agree with threecy doesn't mean he doesn't have good facts. I know it is hard to take anything he presents as factual because he doesn't back down and does not concede points of merit to the opposing view point. But your only doing the same to him that you are accusing him of doing to you when you just deny everything he puts forth as information backing up his perspective.



I disagree with this statement.  When it came to the financials, I full admitted he was right and I was wrong.

I've got no problem admitting when I'm wrong, despite how opinionated I come across on a message forum.

threecy on the other hand.............100% politician.  Only uses the facts that backs up his opinions, neglects the ones that don't and does not answer questions directly if he feels that doing so will weaken his position.


----------



## AdironRider (May 26, 2011)

threecy said:


> You seem like such a pleasant person - I look forward to meeting you on the trails sometime.
> 
> 
> Absolutely.  I'm the only person who reads these forums who would like to see Cannon leased.  I'm also the only person in the state who would like to see Cannon leased.



I find it interesting that noone is chiming in backing you up on this one. I wouldnt want to meet you on the trails either threecy, or should I say rocket21.


----------



## Cannonball (May 26, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> Guys, I said it before and I'll say it again... just because you don't agree with threecy doesn't mean he doesn't have good facts. I know it is hard to take anything he presents as factual because he doesn't back down and does not concede points of merit to the opposing view point. But your only doing the same to him that you are accusing him of doing to you when you just deny everything he puts forth as information backing up his perspective.



Just because he uses the word "fact" a lot doesn't mean he has, or provides, good facts.  I don't feel like re-reading 40 pages.  But if I recall, I'm the only one who actually provided some actual published facts and figures, with links to others.  Some of us cherry-picked from those facts to support one side.  Threecy cherry-picked from them to create an interpretation for his side.  But overall I'd say he's heavy on opinion and light on facts.


----------



## threecy (May 26, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> maybe because instructors are only paid when they teach and one hour privates cost as much as college tuition credits?



So you're saying ski school should be a highly profitable venture for ski areas?



AdironRider said:


> I find it interesting that noone is chiming in backing you up on this one. I wouldnt want to meet you on the trails either threecy, or should I say rocket21.


It's surprising, considering how pleasant you've been to me here, that others wouldn't want to join in on the fun.



bobbutts said:


> In 2008-09 and 2009-10, when visits to New Hampshire resorts fell by about 3 percent overall, Cannon posted double-digit gains.


Factually incorrect.  Cannon Mountain Total Attendence (ski area only...figures used when pricing liability insurance) for the years cited:
2009-2010:  103,387
2008-2009:  102,582
2007-2008:  103,885

They did, however, have a significant jump in attendence for 2010-2011, though they also recorded 55% more snowfall than average.  FY11 has not been closed or audited yet, though.


----------



## jack97 (May 26, 2011)

threecy said:


> Private sector ski area competing against private sector ski area = competition
> Government skia area competing against private sector ski area = unfair competition



fair or unfair ==> relative to the beholder

I can easily argue food stamps, social security, Medicare and health care are unfair to certain sections of the population. Yet they exist to benefit the groups of people that need them.

So if I argue for the sake of arguing......  given how Cannon is presently operating, it is benefiting the groups of skiers that can not afford to ski at places like Loon and BW. Maximizing it for the the highest revenue does not garantee affordable lift tickets. It has nothing to do with fairness but of ensuring lower cost to the average Joe.


----------



## AdironRider (May 26, 2011)

threecy said:


> So you're saying ski school should be a highly profitable venture for ski areas?
> 
> 
> It's surprising, considering how pleasant you've been to me here, that others wouldn't want to join in on the fun.
> ...



Whatever dude, Cannon is more than just skier visits, we already covered this like 30 pages ago. And go back and look, initially I wasnt for or against a lease, but after hearing all your hogwash, you've done a good job of swaying me highly towards not leasing the place. I was the closest you had to anyone being pro-lease. Just don't turn this into another Ossipee and screw everyone over.


----------



## threecy (May 26, 2011)

jack97 said:


> So if I argue for the sake of arguing......  given how Cannon is presently operating, it is benefiting the groups of skiers that can not afford to ski at places like Loon and BW.



The two biggest slopeside 'resort' type of areas are priced above Cannon:
2010-2011:
Bretton Woods $76, $68 midweek
Cannon $67, $67 midweek
Loon $76, $76 midweek

The others:
2010-2011:
Attitash:  $70, $63 midweek
Cannon $67, $67 midweek
Waterville:  $69, $69 midweek
Wildcat $70, $63 midweek


----------



## threecy (May 26, 2011)

AdironRider said:


> Just don't turn this into another Ossipee and screw everyone over.



Who did I 'screw over' in Ossipee?


----------



## Puck it (May 26, 2011)

Spill it, why do you have an ax to grind against the state and the state park system?   

 "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."


----------



## threecy (May 26, 2011)

Puck it said:


> Spill it, why do you have an ax to grind against the state and the state park system?
> 
> "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."



Concord is in bad financial shape and the state shouldn't be in the ski business.


----------



## AdironRider (May 26, 2011)

threecy said:


> Who did I 'screw over' in Ossipee?



Do I need to draw a map out for you to figure it out? Maybe mark the trail along the way.


----------



## thetrailboss (May 26, 2011)

Back on track.... :wink:


----------



## EPB (May 26, 2011)

AdironRider said:


> I find it interesting that noone is chiming in backing you up on this one. I wouldnt want to meet you on the trails either threecy, or should I say rocket21.



I'm an NH resident who would rather see Cannon leased.  It would ensure steady positive cash flows for a fixed period of time. It's something that operating the mountain simply cannot guarantee.  Furthermore, if one wants to play the "benevolent leader" card, the Mt. Sunapee lease demonstrated that leasing a ski area can provide more benefit for the resort's surrounding communities than with state ownership.


----------



## jack97 (May 26, 2011)

threecy said:


> The two biggest slopeside 'resort' type of areas are priced above Cannon:
> 2010-2011:
> Bretton Woods $76, $68 midweek
> Cannon $67, $67 midweek
> Loon $76, $76 midweek



ok stick to the above areas, only Cannon has these deals

Tuesdays & Thursdays 2-for-$67 or 1-for-$42
*Not valid 12/28/10, 12/30/10, 2/22/11, 2/24/11

NH Resident Wednesdays $35
Every Wednesday, non-holiday, New Hampshire Residents can purchase a lift ticket for just $35! 
Proof of NH residency required. One ticket per Wednesday per resident. Not valid: 12/29/10


Still...for weekend trip, that's a saving of $10-$20 per person per trip. Maximizing profits will prolly align it to Loon and BW pricing... meaning the above midweeks deals are off the table as well.


----------



## threecy (May 26, 2011)

jack97 said:


> So if I argue for the sake of arguing......  given how Cannon is presently operating, it is benefiting the groups of skiers that can not afford to ski at places like Loon and BW. Maximizing it for the the highest revenue does not garantee affordable lift tickets. It has nothing to do with fairness but of ensuring lower cost to the average Joe.





jack97 said:


> ok stick to the above areas, only Cannon has these deals
> 
> Tuesdays & Thursdays 2-for-$67 or 1-for-$42
> *Not valid 12/28/10, 12/30/10, 2/22/11, 2/24/11
> ...



Firstly, Waterville has done a $1 day this past season, as well as other discounts.  Pre-Peak Resorts, Wildcat had some $9 days.  Many of the listed areas have various discounts for day and overnight skiers.

Secondly, especially in today's economy, a lot of average Joes can't afford to lose a day's wages in order to get a midweek discount.

Thirdly, resident discounts can be mandated in a Cannon lease.

Fourth(ly?), I don't think one would see a leased Cannon, with a 100-130K skier visit runrate, raising lift ticket prices to the level of Loon at this point.  There are other ways to generate profits.


----------



## Cannonball (May 26, 2011)

Anyone have an opinion on privatized roadways?  Might cost you a $30 toll here and there but it would guarantee the some lease and tax income to the state every year.


----------



## witch hobble (May 26, 2011)

eastern powder baby said:


> the Mt. Sunapee lease demonstrated that leasing a ski area can provide more benefit for the resort's surrounding communities than with state ownership.



Would those lessees have been as interested in leasing Sunapee if they had known then what they know now?  

Were there other potential lessees for Sunapee at the time?


----------



## jack97 (May 26, 2011)

threecy said:


> Firstly, Waterville has done a $1 day this past season, as well as other discounts.  Pre-Peak Resorts, Wildcat had some $9 days.  Many of the listed areas have various discounts for day and overnight skiers.
> 
> Secondly, especially in today's economy, a lot of average Joes can't afford to lose a day's wages in order to get a midweek discount.



Stick to the areas... proponents for privatization has been using Loon as the model for compassion..... this has been going since 2007.

In terms of the average Joe, he might have wife and kids, that a saving of $20-$36 per day trip. I been to that place on the weekends, I see more family's packing there own lunch and drinks than any other places. 

Also I see alot of Average Joes during midweek, certain trails can get just as crowded as a weekend.


----------



## jack97 (May 26, 2011)

eastern powder baby said:


> .....the Mt. Sunapee lease demonstrated that leasing a ski area can provide more benefit for the resort's surrounding communities than with state ownership.



Only if you're a landlord or someone who has a business nearby.


----------



## jack97 (May 26, 2011)

threecy said:


> Thirdly, resident discounts can be mandated in a Cannon lease.
> 
> Fourth(ly?), I don't think one would see a leased Cannon, with a 100-130K skier visit runrate, raising lift ticket prices to the level of Loon at this point.  There are other ways to generate profits.



haha.... that's reeks of having the state mandating a ski operator how to run a business.


----------



## threecy (May 26, 2011)

witch hobble said:


> Would those lessees have been as interested in leasing Sunapee if they had known then what they know now?
> 
> Were there other potential lessees for Sunapee at the time?



That's been a pretty messy situation, in part due to the changes that happened in Concord and a lack of clarity in some of the documents (hopefully the sta.  The Muellers apparently have something in writing that would have allowed them to expand over to privately held land, but some changes in Concord caused that to stall.  ASC was apparently also interested, but hadn't been looking into a private land development.  I'm not sure how many companies bidded on it in total.



jack97 said:


> Stick to the areas... proponents for privatization has been using Loon as the model for compassion..... this has been going since 2007.


Do you have any examples?  This has been going on for a much longer time than 2007, and I don't think Loon has been the only or prime example (especially since a leased Cannon would likely have zero real estate).



jack97 said:


> Only if you're a landlord or someone who has a business nearby.


I don't know about that one...I spent a lot of time in Sunapee on a renovation project maybe about half a decade or so after Sunapee was leased...that was not what I was hearing.  The ski area was bringing in more people to the area and was, for the first time, contributing taxes on a local level.  They also have been doing a lot of good will stuff, such providing college scholarships to locals.



jack97 said:


> haha.... that's reeks of having the state mandating a ski operator how to run a business.


If it were a lease loaded with provisions, that would be a valid argument in my opinion.  However, a lease that clearly sets boundaries and preserves what is deemed critical to the mountain is not a bad thing.


----------



## Cannonball (May 26, 2011)

threecy said:


> Thirdly, resident discounts can be mandated in a Cannon lease.





jack97 said:


> haha.... that's reeks of having the state mandating a ski operator how to run a business.




True Jack, that is pretty hilarious given the anti-government involvement perspective of Threecy's argument.

But more importantly it's just not realistic.  Threecy keeps talking out of both sides of his mouth.  One side:  A private business would find Cannon appealing and profitable.  The other side: The State could make them operate just like the state currently does, dictating the discounts, terms, operations, etc.  You can't have it both ways.

I go back to my original argument some 30 pages ago.....It boils down to simple economics.  This can either be a profitable business or it can't.  If it can be profitable than the state might as well be the one operating the business profitably (as they have been recently).  Or if it can't, then NH is going to be in trouble leasing it to a failing private entity.  Threecy will claim that it's more complicated than that.  But it's not.  It's only more complicated if you impose unrealistic constraints on both the public and private operational strategies.

In fact, 30 pages ago he claimed that a simplistic business plan is what put the NELSAP areas out of business.  Only later on did he claim that State-run operations but them out of business.


----------



## threecy (May 26, 2011)

Cannonball said:


> True Jack, that is pretty hilarious given the anti-government involvement perspective of Threecy's argument.
> 
> But more importantly it's just not realistic.  Threecy keeps talking out of both sides of his mouth.



Have you ever seen a lease agreement?  They're loaded with clauses.

It could be pretty simple - operator must provide X% season pass discount to New Hampshire residents, or $X+inflation season pass discount to New Hampshire residents (the Sunapee base payment, for instance, has an inflation step included), or operator must provide 1 NH resident discount per non-holiday work, or operator must provide X NH resident discount days per season, etc.


----------



## Cannonball (May 26, 2011)

threecy said:


> Have you ever seen a lease agreement?  They're loaded with clauses.
> 
> It could be pretty simple - operator must provide X% season pass discount to New Hampshire residents, or $X+inflation season pass discount to New Hampshire residents (the Sunapee base payment, for instance, has an inflation step included), or operator must provide 1 NH resident discount per non-holiday work, or operator must provide X NH resident discount days per season, etc.



Actually, yes I have originated and developed several public->private lease agreements, private->public land sales, and public/private->nonprofit conservation restrictions.  Yes, they are loaded with clauses. BUT they are not one-way as you describe.  The lessee needs to have room in the agreement to make a profit or else it simple is untenable.  So far you have described a scenario where the private operator would have to operate under basically ALL of the existing Cannon offerings PLUS pay a lease fee and taxes.  If the state can't turn a profit under these scenarios then the private operator would certainly suffer a loss under the same income restraints but with a larger operating cost.  You just can't have it both ways.

Have you?


----------



## jack97 (May 26, 2011)

Cannonball said:


> True Jack, that is pretty hilarious given the anti-government involvement perspective of Threecy's argument.
> 
> But more importantly it's just not realistic.  Threecy keeps talking out of both sides of his mouth.  One side:  A private business would find Cannon appealing and profitable.  The other side: The State could make them operate just like the state currently does, dictating the discounts, terms, operations, etc.  You can't have it both ways.
> 
> ...



yep.... I got a good chuckle myself. Threecy's opinion will not change nor the proponents for privatization. 

This issue comes up every now and then, it happened back in 2007 when local business wanted to go private. It's been fun but I have too much on my plate right now. 

http://forums.alpinezone.com/showthread.php?t=13881


----------



## MadPadraic (May 27, 2011)

Cannonball said:


> Just because he uses the word "fact" a lot doesn't mean he has, or provides, good facts.  I don't feel like re-reading 40 pages.  But if I recall, I'm the only one who actually provided some actual published facts and figures, with links to others.  Some of us cherry-picked from those facts to support one side.  Threecy cherry-picked from them to create an interpretation for his side.  But overall I'd say he's heavy on opinion and light on facts.



I direct you to post #62 

By the way, when it comes to financials, the Tuck report and a 2008 audit committee report (available on the nh parks page) both make reference to much of the Flume's operating budget (and virtually all of the summer tram's) actually being expensed to the ski area, which overstates their profitability and understates Cannon's. The audit committee, however, doesn't make the last claim, just that the intertwined accounts are a mess.

It would be nice to see updated statements, as the recent profits dwarf the old P&L results. Have expenses gone up just as much, so a bad year would be that much worse, or would it easily be covered by the next good year?


----------



## MadPadraic (May 27, 2011)

threecy said:


> So you're saying ski school should be a highly profitable venture for ski areas?


http://biz.yahoo.com/e/110310/mtn10-q.html
You'll see that it is a little under 1/4th the revenue of lift tickets for MTN. Ski school salaries are not broken out, but it does appear to matter. Also, rentals, which are huge, go hand in hand with ski school.



> It's surprising, considering how pleasant you've been to me here, that others wouldn't want to join in on the fun.


Well, I would like to snowboard and have a beer with you (preferably at Cannon). :beer:



> Factually incorrect.  Cannon Mountain Total Attendence (ski area only...figures used when pricing liability insurance) for the years cited:
> 2009-2010:  103,387
> 2008-2009:  102,582
> 2007-2008:  103,885
> ...


Would you please provide us with a link for this? (I don't doubt it, but I want to know what other nuggets are in there).


----------



## MadPadraic (May 27, 2011)

Cannonball said:


> Anyone have an opinion on privatized roadways?  Might cost you a $30 toll here and there but it would guarantee the some lease and tax income to the state every year.



I would gladly pay a premium for reduced traffic.


----------



## threecy (May 27, 2011)

Cannonball said:


> Actually, yes I have originated and developed several public->private lease agreements, private->public land sales, and public/private->nonprofit conservation restrictions.  Yes, they are loaded with clauses. BUT they are not one-way as you describe.  The lessee needs to have room in the agreement to make a profit or else it simple is untenable.  So far you have described a scenario where the private operator would have to operate under basically ALL of the existing Cannon offerings PLUS pay a lease fee and taxes.  If the state can't turn a profit under these scenarios then the private operator would certainly suffer a loss under the same income restraints but with a larger operating cost.  You just can't have it both ways.


Requiring a midweek discount day and a season pass discount, as well as forbidding real estate development, is a ridiculous proposal.  I would suggest that firms will still be interested to bid on Cannon, even if the lease is more restrictive than Sunapee.



MadPadraic said:


> http://biz.yahoo.com/e/110310/mtn10-q.html
> You'll see that it is a little under 1/4th the revenue of lift tickets for MTN. Ski school salaries are not broken out, but it does appear to matter. Also, rentals, which are huge, go hand in hand with ski school.



My question was in regard to profit, not revenue.  Also, I should be more specific and say a New England ski school, as western operations tend to differ.



MadPadraic said:


> Would you please provide us with a link for this? (I don't doubt it, but I want to know what other nuggets are in there).



http://www.newenglandskihistory.com/NewHampshire/cannonmtn.php


----------



## threecy (May 27, 2011)

MadPadraic said:


> By the way, when it comes to financials, the Tuck report and a 2008 audit committee report (available on the nh parks page) both make reference to much of the Flume's operating budget (and virtually all of the summer tram's) actually being expensed to the ski area, which overstates their profitability and understates Cannon's. The audit committee, however, doesn't make the last claim, just that the intertwined accounts are a mess.


The Cannon P&L statement has winter and summer operations broken out.



MadPadraic said:


> It would be nice to see updated statements, as the recent profits dwarf the old P&L results. Have expenses gone up just as much, so a bad year would be that much worse, or would it easily be covered by the next good year?


FY11 has not yet closed, so I suspect it could be awhile before audited statements are complete.  FY10 is "missing."  Expenses have increased every year prior.  Snowfall has been significantly higher than average in the referenced four years of operational net income.  The last time the ski area recorded below average snowfall, its operating deficit was significant.


----------



## riverc0il (May 27, 2011)

threecy said:


> FY11 has not yet closed, so I suspect it could be awhile before audited statements are complete.  FY10 is "missing."  Expenses have increased every year prior.  Snowfall has been significantly higher than average in the referenced four years of operational net income.  The last time the ski area recorded below average snowfall, its operating deficit was significant.


Oops, correlation not causation there. A lot of other things have changed at Cannon that could plausibly explain increased revenue besides higher snowfall totals. Increased snowmaking, better grooming, better bar, the addition of new terrain, perhaps better marketing, and a better run operation overall could have all played factors as these have all changed since the last bad snow year. I think I stated this on page one of this thread: it would be a lot easier to make your case if Cannon has a bad financial year during a bad snow year since all the other variables have been changed. Cannon is not the same mountain it was four years ago.


----------



## ski_resort_observer (May 27, 2011)

threecy said:


> Skier visits != ticket sales and != revenue and != profit.
> .



This statement is not exactly true......a skier visit can include, severly discounted group tiks, staff tiks, comp tiks and season pass skiers/riders. While some of  these do indirectly increase revenue, to say every skier visit equates to profits is not true.


----------



## threecy (May 27, 2011)

threecy said:
			
		

> Skier visits != ticket sales and != revenue and != profit.





ski_resort_observer said:


> This statement is not exactly true......a skier visit can include, severly discounted group tiks, staff tiks, comp tiks and season pass skiers/riders. While some of  these do indirectly increase revenue, to say every skier visit equates to profits is not true.



!= means "not equal to"


----------



## bobbutts (May 27, 2011)

I'll step up and defend threecy here.  Why?  Because he gets under the skin of the most annoying posters here.  He's like the Julian Assange of NH ski politics.


----------



## AdironRider (May 27, 2011)

I know that most ski resorts do not look at the price of a holiday lift ticket window rate and base their budget off those numbers multiplied by total skier visits. Hell my fiancee is expected to comp a couple hundred tickets herself yearly for goodwill, promos, etc. 

Im pretty sure the mtn would rather have as many people there buying their higher profit margin services, notably f&b and ski school, and depending on the resort rental and retail. Rentals have probably the highest margins for a ski resort, as most of those janky skis are years old and only cost em 150-200 bucks a pair wholesale. 4 days of rentals and theyve made their money back on the capital purchase, then just need to cover the minimum wage guys handing em out and tuning. Gravy. 

Season pass holders support f&b primarily, along with everyone else. Discounted groups blow up ski school, rich day ticketers rental and retail plus ski school. 

Skier visits is all about how many opportunities does the resort have to sell services, not just a strict bottom line figure.


----------



## campgottagopee (May 27, 2011)

bobbutts said:


> I'll step up and defend threecy here.  Why?  Because he gets under the skin of the most annoying posters here.  He's like the Julian Assange of NH ski politics.



Politics isn't allowed on AZ, or is it.


----------



## threecy (May 27, 2011)

AdironRider said:


> Im pretty sure the mtn would rather have as many people there buying their higher profit margin services, notably f&b and ski school, and depending on the resort rental and retail.



Cannon loses money on its ski school.


----------



## MadPadraic (May 27, 2011)

threecy said:


> My question was in regard to profit, not revenue.  Also, I should be more specific and say a New England ski school, as western operations tend to differ.



Maybe you'll notice that I didn't claim revenue were profits and specifically highlighted that we didn't know the cost of running it?  I was hoping someone could provide context on this.  Perhaps even you know the costs of running a ski school.



threecy said:


> The Cannon P&L statement has winter and summer operations broken out.



Yes, and I was specifically referencing two separate reports which indicate that Cannon's winter operations carry many of the costs of the summer operations, which distorts the P&L of both. 



threecy said:


> Cannon loses money on its ski school.



Would you be willing to provide a source?


----------



## MadPadraic (May 27, 2011)

bobbutts said:


> I'll step up and defend threecy here.  Why?  Because he gets under the skin of the most annoying posters here.  He's like the Julian Assange of NH ski politics.


That's mean.


----------



## threecy (May 27, 2011)

MadPadraic said:


> Would you be willing to provide a source?



Not at this time, but you can inquire in Concord and pay the per-page fee to obtain the records.


----------



## AdironRider (May 27, 2011)

Then I highly doubt it. Margins on ski school are absurd. They pay an instructor max 20 bucks an hour, then rape the customer on pricing. Theres little overhead besides labor, credit card processing fees, and a check in area. I know the resorts out here make their nut on ski school.


----------



## threecy (May 27, 2011)

AdironRider said:


> Then I highly doubt it. Margins on ski school are absurd. They pay an instructor max 20 bucks an hour, then rape the customer on pricing. Theres little overhead besides labor, credit card processing fees, and a check in area. I know the resorts out here make their nut on ski school.



You can find a few years of Cannon's ski school performance here per a link posted earlier in this thread:
http://nhstateparks.org/uploads/pdf/Appendix 1 - SB5 Legislation and Report.pdf

The absurd margin on $1,386,913 in revenue resulted in a $122K loss in the years in that chart


----------



## AdironRider (May 27, 2011)

threecy said:


> You can find a few years of Cannon's ski school performance here per a link posted earlier in this thread:
> http://nhstateparks.org/uploads/pdf/Appendix 1 - SB5 Legislation and Report.pdf
> 
> The absurd margin on $1,386,913 in revenue resulted in a $122K loss in the years in that chart



First off, that data applies only up to 2005, thats 6 years old. Hardly applicable currently. Also, all 5 years show Cannon, with the Tram and Flume being extremely profitable. Tram is going with a Cannon lease, and I highly doubt anyone with any smarts would lease the place without the flume. Those are summer ops, and should definitely be included, excluding them is a politicians trick, but your a pro at that. Every other ski lease has summer ops, Wildcat has a zip line, Attitash is the best at it with everything under the sun, etc. Thats part of running a ski area, summer ops. Excluding those is hogwash. 

Second, only two of 5 years ski school is showing a loss. With all 5 years showing Cannon in the black with a total net gain of over 3 million including summer operations. Sure individual departments are showing losses, but any business shows that. You want it to show that. They are called loss leaders. You need something to write off. 

Theres no breakdown for overhead in those charts. Wheres there insurance liability? Wheres Utilities? This data youve provided is not thorough enough or anywhere near current enough for you to argue and say Cannon loses money on ski school, when regardless, even with your outdated and simplistic data, the majority of years they are profitable in ski school alone. 

My fiancee runs ski school for Jhole, they make rediculous profit on just ski school, but their books look worse due to loss generators and accounting tricks. It is a business after all. Im an accountant, I highly doubt ski school, with the lowest overhead of any ski resort department, is posting massive losses. Im willing to bet theyve lumped a large portion of their insurance premiums there to generate a loss leader, either that or capital projects. I do the books for this type of stuff, this is just as common as you claiming deductions for your mortgage and other expenditures on your taxes, just a little more detailed. 

Id love to see a current balance sheet for Cannon to get the real picture. But either way your data is old and outdated and data the better part of a decade old shows little to me at this point. To use this as accounting evidence to support a lease is laughable. An auditor wouldnt even ask to see income statements from 6 years ago, thats ancient history. Outside of depreciating lifts and buildings, nothing from FY 2005 even remotely applies currently from a business standpoint.


----------



## MadPadraic (May 27, 2011)

eastern powder baby said:


> I'm an NH resident who would rather see Cannon leased.  It would ensure steady positive cash flows for a fixed period of time. It's something that operating the mountain simply cannot guarantee.  Furthermore, if one wants to play the "benevolent leader" card, the Mt. Sunapee lease demonstrated that leasing a ski area can provide more benefit for the resort's surrounding communities than with state ownership.



Are you worried at all about Cannon's character or charm being changed? Would you feel the same way if the state didn't have larger financial problems?


----------



## EPB (May 27, 2011)

MadPadraic said:


> Are you worried at all about Cannon's character or charm being changed? Would you feel the same way if the state didn't have larger financial problems?



The vibe wouldn't change all that much, especially to the occasional visitor.  The weather will still make Cannon feel like it always has, and the Mittersill build-out is the only significant terrain alteration that would happen.  Changes to Mittersill might happen regardless, though. Maybe the lodges will be remodeled, which would be cause for nostalgia.  The threat of real estate around the area is also a possibility, though I don't know enough about real estate prospects in the area to comment.  

I would feel bad for the locals/regulars because they are the ones that have a real connection with Cannon's charm.  On the flip-side, almost everyone deals with a change of ownership/management/vibe at their favorite ski areas.  As far as I'm concerned, they can get in line like the rest of us.  The fact that the area is state owned is irrelevant to the matter of charm as I see it.  Certainly others feel differently, and I have little intent to argue about it because it wouldn't be worth anyone's time.


----------



## EPB (May 27, 2011)

jack97 said:


> Only if you're a landlord or someone who has a business nearby.



Isn't that precisely the point? 

Why did you leave out additional employees that could be hired by said prospering "businesses nearby"?  Aren't they positively affected?  

Who did you think was supposed to benefit from Mt. Sunapee, and how have they been wronged by private ownership?


----------



## jack97 (May 27, 2011)

eastern powder baby said:


> .....I would feel bad for the locals/regulars because they are the ones that have a real connection with Cannon's charm.



my POV, it comes down to this..... "uniqueness" or "sameness". 


I go to a place like Whaleback, Ragged, MRG and to a certain extent Cannon.... it feels unique. 

I go to a places like Okemo, BW and Sunapee (before they seed), its feel like a shopping mall. Once inside, they all look the same.


----------



## threecy (May 27, 2011)

AdironRider said:


> First off, that data applies only up to 2005, thats 6 years old. Hardly applicable currently. Also, all 5 years show Cannon, with the Tram and Flume being extremely profitable. Tram is going with a Cannon lease, and I highly doubt anyone with any smarts would lease the place without the flume. Those are summer ops, and should definitely be included, excluding them is a politicians trick, but your a pro at that. Every other ski lease has summer ops, Wildcat has a zip line, Attitash is the best at it with everything under the sun, etc. Thats part of running a ski area, summer ops. Excluding those is hogwash.
> 
> Second, only two of 5 years ski school is showing a loss. With all 5 years showing Cannon in the black with a total net gain of over 3 million including summer operations. Sure individual departments are showing losses, but any business shows that. You want it to show that. They are called loss leaders. You need something to write off.
> 
> ...



The link I posted was not 'data I've provided' but rather something that had been posted earlier in the thread, since you were doubting my statement that the Cannon ski school loses money.  Until FY08, the only significant costs associated with the ski school revenue are payroll and benefits.

The chart gives you half a decade of information demonstrating that they show losses in a high margin section of the business - now you're trying to disregard that data.

More detailed data is available if you're willing to go to Concord and pay money for it.


----------



## threecy (May 27, 2011)

jack97 said:


> I go to a place like Whaleback, Ragged, MRG and to a certain extent Cannon.... it feels unique.
> 
> I go to a places like Okemo, BW and Sunapee (before they seed), its feel like a shopping mall. Once inside, they all look the same.



It's funny to talk about that, considering the wide boulevards that have been cut by the government at Cannon (how about that Profile trail?), as well as what's been done at Mittersill.

Fortunately there are people in Concord who don't make important financial decisions based soley upon feelings.


----------



## jack97 (May 27, 2011)

threecy said:


> It's funny to talk about that, considering the wide boulevards that have been cut by the government at Cannon (how about that Profile trail?), as well as what's been done at Mittersill.
> 
> Fortunately there are people in Concord who don't make important financial decisions based soley upon feelings.



Fortunately as well, there are people using present data instead of data tabulated 6 years agos 

I think Profile is the widest trail, and they widening that long ago. What had made Cannon unique in the past was it's wildness. With the new manager, they have made this into a family place with high value, remember that $20 to $36 saving and even more on two midweeks. Last time I went to Cannon, it reminded me of your old stomping ground, Berkshire East, place was cold and had hardpack all over, the charm was the layout, the  lodge and the people. Lots of family, parents spending the day with the kids.... everyone was down to earth. Nuthing plastic about the place, I got close to that same vibe at Cannon.


----------



## AdironRider (May 28, 2011)

threecy said:


> Fortunately there are people in Concord who don't make important financial decisions based soley upon feelings.



So even with your shitty old data, which shows FNSP and Cannon having earned the taxpayers of the state 3 million+ in gross profit, Im not sure I get your point.


----------



## jack97 (May 28, 2011)

*what comes around goes around*

Speaking of old data....here's an article back in 2008, it talks about the same issues brought up recently.

Some of the most important quotes from proponents wanting to maximize the earning potential of the place.

"[Cannon is] looking at drawing it out for four or five years because they don't have the capital to maximize the ski area," said Johnson. "Their spin is they want to keep it natural. But the audience for that is very small. If that's their target audience, the mountain will lose money."

Johnson said other ski areas, such as Gunstock Ski Area & Resort, Mount Sunapee and Loon Mountain Resort, have put millions of dollars into capital improvements that "make them marketable and bring in the business.


Here's the article

http://caledonianrecord.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=39011


----------



## EPB (May 28, 2011)

jack97 said:


> my POV, it comes down to this..... "uniqueness" or "sameness".
> 
> 
> I go to a place like Whaleback, Ragged, MRG and to a certain extent Cannon.... it feels unique.
> ...



I can buy that for sure.  Given Cannon's wind issues and agreement with the federal government to expand Mittersill's trails back to their original width, it seems unlikely that Cannon could get to the point where it would feel like a cookie cutter area like Okemo or Bretton Woods.


----------



## bobbutts (May 28, 2011)

At Cannon, don't mess with success ; John Devivo Opinion Article at Concord Monitor.


----------



## riverc0il (May 28, 2011)

JD said:
			
		

> Over the past four years, Cannon's average annual net profit has exceeded the Mount Sunapee lease payment to the state,


Wow, that is quite the statement against leasing, IMO. The success of the Sunapee lease is often cited as evidence to lease Cannon. I would guess Sunapee processes more visits, or at least more visits as a percent of available terrain. 

This brings up an interesting point regarding outsourcing/leasing: good management trumps bad management. State run with good management will generate more revenue than leasing with bad management. And as we saw before JD and in comparison to Sunapee during that time, vice versa.


----------



## bobbutts (May 28, 2011)

Arguing for a change right now in the midst of a successful few years is pretty bad timing.  Given the governor's position on the matter it's probably moot too.

Another subj, I'd like it if the unload area on the Peabody Quad were improved a bit.. it's a cramped spot with no flat area.. I'm using cinch (snowboard) bindings which are super easy to enter on flats, and a bit pain on a pitch.  It starts to get on my nerves when lapping that lift.  It just overall feels more like a skier's mtn. to me vs. snowboard.
  Is some of Cannon's appeal is that it's (at least in my obs) higher slanted towards skiers vs. snowboarders in general vs. other non-MRG areas in NE?


----------



## jack97 (May 28, 2011)

bobbutts said:


> Is some of Cannon's appeal is that it's (at least in my obs) higher slanted towards skiers vs. snowboarders in general vs. other non-MRG areas in NE?



 I think other places have better terrain parks.


----------



## riverc0il (May 28, 2011)

bobbutts said:


> Another subj, I'd like it if the unload area on the Peabody Quad were improved a bit.. it's a cramped spot with no flat area.. I'm using cinch (snowboard) bindings which are super easy to enter on flats, and a bit pain on a pitch.  It starts to get on my nerves when lapping that lift.  It just overall feels more like a skier's mtn. to me vs. snowboard.


It is better than it used to be. For years, you couldn't turn left off the chair towards Bypass nor ski down around the right side of the chair onto Middle Cannon. They finally fixed that snafu a few years ago. I don't know about no flat area though, the landing area is pretty flat, just to small to handle a lot of people hanging around.


----------



## threecy (May 28, 2011)

AdironRider said:


> So even with your shitty old data, which shows FNSP and Cannon having earned the taxpayers of the state 3 million+ in gross profit, Im not sure I get your point.



I thought you said you were an accountant?  Do you really think those charts show Cannon as earning taxpayers net income?



bobbutts said:


> Given the governor's position on the matter it's probably moot too.


Not unless he can do a lot of lobbying.  The Legislature can override his veto.


----------



## threecy (May 28, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> Wow, that is quite the statement against leasing, IMO. The success of the Sunapee lease is often cited as evidence to lease Cannon. I would guess Sunapee processes more visits, or at least more visits as a percent of available terrain.



Unfortunately, I suspect the statement you cited is full of spin.  I haven't seen the 2011 numbers yet (FY11 is not complete), however based upon the data I've seen, one can spin that Cannon is bringing in the state money in recent good snow years.  This is not the full story, however.  More to come later.


----------



## jack97 (May 28, 2011)

*Seems the spinner is spinning the spin.......*



threecy said:


> Unfortunately, I suspect the statement you cited is full of spin.  I haven't seen the 2011 numbers yet (FY11 is not complete), however based upon the data I've seen, one can spin that Cannon is bringing in the state money in recent good snow years.  This is not the full story, however.  More to come later.



If this was truly spinning the story, then the proponents for privatization would have brought up accounting issues for the past four years since they got the new GM. I have not heard this to be the case, meaning profits for the past fours years being in questioned. The only consistent criticism has been that Cannon under state control will not be maximized to its fullest potential in terms of revenue generation.  

If the spin is whether they can still make a profit with several bad snow years.... thats another story. Something I'm curious about myself.


----------



## threecy (May 29, 2011)

jack97 said:


> If this was truly spinning the story, then the proponents for privatization would have brought up accounting issues for the past four years since they got the new GM. I have not heard this to be the case, meaning profits for the past fours years being in questioned. The only consistent criticism has been that Cannon under state control will not be maximized to its fullest potential in terms of revenue generation.


You may hear something about this in the near future.



jack97 said:


> If the spin is whether they can still make a profit with several bad snow years.... thats another story. Something I'm curious about myself.



The one advantage they have now versus half a decade ago is that they have half a million dollars in additional season pass revenue than before, so in an average (160 inch) snow year, they hopefully wouldn't show the deep losses they claimed in 2006-2007 (166 inches).

In a below average snow year, it remains to be seen - their operational costs are up in good snow years.  One of the trickiest things about the ski industry vs. traditional businesses is that in a bad year in the ski industry, your costs can skyrocket while your revenue plunges.

One example of this - they certainly don't have a state of the art snowmaking system.  In a bad season, a typical New England ski area will have to open on 100% snowmaking trails, resulting in high snowmaking costs and much lower through-the-window revenue.  Another dimension to this - a bad season can mean more marginal temperatures.  Marginal temperatures have a logarithmic effect on yield from an hour of snowmaking, meaning they'd had to run guns for more hours at the same cost to put down what they otherwise would in cold temperatures.  One more dimension - a bad season can mean rain and thaws, further impacting snowmaking.

Net net, I'm skeptical that Cannon, in its current government controlled structure, could claim a break even year with less than average snowfall.


----------



## jack97 (May 29, 2011)

threecy said:


> The one advantage they have now versus half a decade ago is that they have half a million dollars in additional season pass revenue than before, so in an average (160 inch) snow year, they hopefully wouldn't show the deep losses they claimed in 2006-2007 (166 inches).



Now that's spinning...... 

The present GM, John DeVivo started his position on July of 2007. Subsequently, he cleared off this debt (the loss you mentioned) the following year and made a profit. Again, if this was cooking the books, the legislators who have a business interest in terms of privatization would have put him to task on this. 

You of all people should know that when to make snow and getting the right equipment is key to all this. In addition, marketing was another reason for boasting season pass and day tickets. All of this was due to the GM....  the result of the legislators hiring a manager with excellent and well proven credentials.


----------



## EPB (May 29, 2011)

jack97 said:


> Now that's spinning......
> 
> The present GM, John DeVivo started his position on July of 2007. Subsequently, he cleared off this debt (the loss you mentioned) the following year and made a profit. Again, if this was cooking the books, the legislators who have a business interest in terms of privatization would have put him to task on this.
> 
> You of all people should know that when to make snow and getting the right equipment is key to all this. In addition, marketing was another reason for boasting season pass and day tickets. All of this was due to the GM....  the result of the legislators hiring a manager with excellent and well proven credentials.



The extent to which Cannon is making/can make money would be reflected in the price of the lease.  If Cannon is not particularly profitable, the state would not able to get much money in a lease agreement.  If Cannon's money making prospects look positive, the state would be able to lease the area for more money.  

The whole point in leasing the area in the first place is to receive defined positive cash flows each year.  Operating the area cannot promise any sort of specific net cash flows.


----------



## Geoff (May 29, 2011)

eastern powder baby said:


> The whole point in leasing the area in the first place is to receive defined positive cash flows each year.  Operating the area cannot promise any sort of specific net cash flows.



Yeah, but it's also more than that.   What is Cannon worth?   Maybe 20 million?   You're not going to get much more than $1 to $2 million/year if you leased it.   That would more or less be the cost of capital for borrowing the money to buy it.

The business that leased Cannon would be paying business income taxes (assuming they're profitable), workmans comp, unemployment insurance, ....   Today, Cannon as a state-run business pays none of those.

In my opinion, the state should only run businesses when nobody in the private sector will do it; and it has to be for something that is deemed to be for the public good.   A ski area where there are 2 others right down the road just doesn't fall into that category.


----------



## EPB (May 29, 2011)

Geoff said:


> Yeah, but it's also more than that.   What is Cannon worth?   Maybe 20 million?   You're not going to get much more than $1 to $2 million/year if you leased it.   That would more or less be the cost of capital for borrowing the money to buy it.
> 
> The business that leased Cannon would be paying business income taxes (assuming they're profitable), workmans comp, unemployment insurance, ....   Today, Cannon as a state-run business pays none of those.
> 
> In my opinion, the state should only run businesses when nobody in the private sector will do it; and it has to be for something that is deemed to be for the public good.   A ski area where there are 2 others right down the road just doesn't fall into that category.



Is selling the area an option that's on the table?


----------



## jack97 (May 29, 2011)

eastern powder baby said:


> Is selling the area an option that's on the table?



It's part of the Franconia State Park, as the article states. 

Maybe NH should sell more of its state land to real estate developers.... it's a win-win, immediate revenues and tax infusion due from the property taxes.


----------



## MadPadraic (May 29, 2011)

threecy said:


> You may hear something about this in the near future.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I realize that we'll likely have slightly different takes on this, but to me it is irrelevant if the area makes losses some years assuming the good years make up for it. Again, the area should be run with the intention of breaking even over many years rather than trying to maximize profit.

Your info on snow making yield is very informative.


----------



## DoublePlanker (May 31, 2011)

I hiked the Kinsman Ridge trail from tram to Cannon summit on Sunday.  What a great hike!  I have never skied Kinsman Glade but it seems to be a great trail.  The pitch in that area is excellent.  If I were a private operator taking over Cannon, I would want to develop this area.  It looks to be ~ 1500 vertical feet of advanced/expert pitch.


----------



## Puck it (May 31, 2011)

DoublePlanker said:


> I hiked the Kinsman Ridge trail from tram to Cannon summit on Sunday. What a great hike! I have never skied Kinsman Glade but it seems to be a great trail. The pitch in that area is excellent. If I were a private operator taking over Cannon, I would want to develop this area. It looks to be ~ 1500 vertical feet of advanced/expert pitch.


 

Your assessment is very correct.  It a great trail with a lot of options along the way.


----------



## witch hobble (May 31, 2011)

DoublePlanker said:


> If I were a private operator taking over Cannon, I would want to develop this area.  It looks to be ~ 1500 vertical feet of advanced/expert pitch.



And what would you do with it?  Blast it and grade it?  Make it intermediate's paradise, with a winding road with slopeside mcmansions?  Cannon doesn't lack for advanced and  expert pitches, and I doubt that would be the focus of the hypothetical lessee.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 1, 2011)

FWIW from the Concord Monitor:  

Editorial Comment:  http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/258674/leave-cannon-in-states-capable-hands?CSAuthResp=%3Asession%3ACSUserId%7CCSGroupId%3Aapproved%3ABA4A9537C4BF4594E11F4B09D8217743&CSUserId=94&CSGroupId=1

General Manager's view:  http://www.concordmonitor.com/artic...F4594E11F4B09D8217743&CSUserId=94&CSGroupId=1


----------



## Puck it (Jun 1, 2011)

thetrailboss said:


> FWIW from the Concord Monitor:
> 
> Editorial Comment: http://www.concordmonitor.com/artic...F4594E11F4B09D8217743&CSUserId=94&CSGroupId=1
> 
> General Manager's view: http://www.concordmonitor.com/artic...F4594E11F4B09D8217743&CSUserId=94&CSGroupId=1


 
Not going to happen at all. The whole park would have to be lease due to the intertwining.

3

2

1

Threecy on!!!!!!


----------



## threecy (Jun 1, 2011)

The lease of Cannon Mountain starting in 2012-2013 has been included in the State Senate budget proposal today.  Sen. D'Allesandro proposed an amendment to HB2 which would remove the lease from the proposed budget.  The amendment was defeated.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 1, 2011)

DeVivo on the importance of Cannon to the system:



> We operate Cannon Mountain and Franconia Notch State Park as a singular operating unit, with shared assets, resources, personnel, costs, maintenance and infrastructure. They operate unlike any other New Hampshire state park and generate nearly 60 percent of the annual revenue of the entire park system.


 
As to separating from FNSP:



> Cannon is the epicenter of New Hampshire's flagship state park. To separate the ski area from the park itself would have serious negative long-term operational, logistical and financial effects on both the park and the state parks division.
> 
> The park's headquarters, IT infrastructure, management team and primary maintenance facilities are located at Cannon.


 
Hidden costs:  



> Additionally, the costs associated with freezing our rates, zeroing our budget and entering a lease may quickly add up to nearly $2 million during fiscal years 2012 and 2013.


 
Philanthrophy:



> We're also concerned over the millions in potential losses in discounts and philanthropy that may affect New Hampshire residents and organizations over several decades during a leasing agreement.


----------



## threecy (Jun 1, 2011)

The New Hampshire State Senate has just passed HB2.  Included is the lease of Cannon Mountain.


----------



## Cannonball (Jun 1, 2011)

I'd like to see Threecy and Sen. Morse go toe-to-toe.

Morse says NH has to lease Cannon because it can't afford to compete with private ski areas.

Threecy says NH has to lease Cannon because it unfairly outcompetes private ski areas.


----------



## threecy (Jun 1, 2011)

Summary of Cannon discussion in the State Senate today (per the online audio feed):

- Funds not available to adequately invest in the area moving forward.
- Environmental damage involving Mittersill noted.
- $50K of lease revenues to be allocated to NH Search & Rescue, reducing burden on hunters and anglers.
- Ski school being paid ~$30K in benefits.
- Questions about financial documents raised, including winter expenses recognized in summer in recent years, inflating winter financial results.
- No depreciation appears to be recognized, potentially inflating ski area results by $250K-$500K.
- Potential increase in leased Cannon skier visits (Sunapee used as comparison) would boost rooms and meals tax revenue.
- Amendment to remove Cannon lease from HB2 was defeated by a large margin.  HB2 passed by large margin.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 1, 2011)

threecy said:


> The New Hampshire State Senate has just passed HB2. Included is the lease of Cannon Mountain.


 
Not to get into politics, but Lynch will veto it.


----------



## threecy (Jun 1, 2011)

thetrailboss said:


> Not to get into politics, but Lynch will veto it.



Governor Lynch does not have a line item veto.

The House will have to approve HB2 as amended by the Senate.  If passed, it will go to the Governor.  If the Cannon lease remains in the budget, the Governor would have to veto the entire budget.  Republicans have a veto-proof majority.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 1, 2011)

threecy said:


> Governor Lynch does not have a line item veto.
> 
> The House will have to approve HB2 as amended by the Senate. If passed, it will go to the Governor. If the Cannon lease remains in the budget, the Governor would have to veto the entire budget. Republicans have a veto-proof majority.


 
I'm sure that the conference committee will iron it out and that Lynch will put pressure on to make sure it does not make it to him.


----------



## threecy (Jun 1, 2011)

thetrailboss said:


> I'm sure that the conference committee will iron it out and that Lynch will put pressure on to make sure it does not make it to him.



17 of the 24 State Senators voted to keep the lease in the bill today.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 1, 2011)

So, have you bought your bottle of champagne to celebrate with threecy?


----------



## Puck it (Jun 1, 2011)

Wow


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 1, 2011)

FWIW Pages 99-100 *of this document* spell out the proposed process to have it leased by July 1, 2012.


----------



## riverc0il (Jun 1, 2011)

Whatev, they are only halfway there. There actually has to be a company out there that thinks they can achieve a good enough Return on Investment (let alone actually profitability) given how tight the state will likely wind up that lease. Can Cannon be leased profitably if they assign all the costs and improvement to the leasor AND require the leasor to keep Cannon a so called value and continue to offer resident and mid-week discounts? Who is going to take this one?


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 1, 2011)

And if I am reading the *Governor's original proposal* correctly, if I am to assume that the zeroed out items for Cannon mean a cut in funding, then it would appear that he had proposed leasing it out as a way to cut expenses....unless I am reading it wrong and it is zeroed out to indicate break even (and no funds needed).  (search the document by "Cannon")


----------



## AdironRider (Jun 1, 2011)

Bummer. 

Im with Riv though, hopefully the lease never goes through thanks in part to threads like this showing what a "bad deal" a Cannon lease is.


----------



## jack97 (Jun 1, 2011)

AdironRider said:


> Bummer.
> 
> Im with Riv though, hopefully the lease never goes through thanks in part to threads like this showing what a "bad deal" a Cannon lease is.



I think the proponents against privatization needs the tree huggers to mobilized. Make it such that a lease will restrict real estate development. Then it does become a bad deal for a private company.


----------



## Cannonball (Jun 1, 2011)

Sorry Old Man.

This still seems like a LONG way from being a reality.  But just in case, I've been going over the upsides as outlined by Threecy:

- All the same deals. discounts, and offers will be in effect because they'll be written into the lease agreement.
- The State will keep all of the 'good parts' (tram, flume, summer ops, etc) and only lease out the 'bad parts' (ski ops, management, ski school).
- The leasee will pay huge sums to the State during good years AND bad years.
- The huge sums from Sunapee lease will go into something other than an historic ski area
- That overpriced Mittersill lift that the state paid too much for will be someone else's problem (although the state already bought it)
- Small ski areas all over the state will come to life as the oppressive thumb of a state-run area is lifted


----------



## riverc0il (Jun 1, 2011)

Real estate is already impossible since it is all government owned land. The only possible real estate development could happen would be a buy out of Mittersill (which seems unlikely per sikskier's comments earlier in this thread) or further development down the road from Mitt towards Franconia, but that can absolutely never be anything close to slopeside because Mittersill's boundaries are constrained per the agreement to allow Cannon to reopen it within its original footprint only. I'm not worried about the land. Unless Cannon allows, as part of the lease, development at the base area but I can't believe that. I bet even Cannon lease supporters also appreciate Cannon as unspoiled by modern resort real estate. Or at least most...

Threecy already commented at length that provisions could be included in the deal to ensure Cannon continues on in certain respects.... be it resident pricing, mid-week deals, lack of grooming at Mittersill, no trail widening, etc. But for all of those rules added to any lease.... it would make it less appealing to lease. At a certain point, Cannon "works" the way it does because it is run by the park system.

We'll see what happens. A little nervous but unless I get kicked off the mountain for skinning or hiking Mitt when it is closed or whatnot, as I proposed earlier, perhaps not much will change for the worse?


----------



## riverc0il (Jun 1, 2011)

Cannonball said:


> - Small ski areas all over the state will come to life as the oppressive thumb of a state-run area is lifted


Uh oh, but Cannon will do MORE skier visits leased to a private business with better business acumen. Leasing publicly owned Cannon out might actually put more ski areas under! Is it possible that Cannon being poorly run actually resulted in fewer ski areas going under? Note that Tenney went under when J.D. came on board as GM and started running the ski area like a business....

 :razz:

:beer:


----------



## Cannonball (Jun 1, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> Uh oh, but Cannon will do MORE skier visits leased to a private business with better business acumen. Leasing publicly owned Cannon out might actually put more ski areas under! Is it possible that Cannon being poorly run actually resulted in fewer ski areas going under? Note that Tenney went under when J.D. came on board as GM and started running the ski area like a business....
> 
> :razz:
> 
> :beer:



DOH!  you're right!!  

But wait, what about Threecy's evil government triangle theory?


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 1, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> Uh oh, but Cannon will do MORE skier visits leased to a private business with better business acumen. Leasing publicly owned Cannon out might actually put more ski areas under! Is it possible that Cannon being poorly run actually resulted in fewer ski areas going under? Note that Tenney went under when J.D. came on board as GM and started running the ski area like a business....
> 
> :razz:
> 
> :beer:



impossible according to threecy.   A publicly managed, lower priced, less frequently visited, poorly run Cannon is much more devastating to private ski businesses than a highly popular privately run operation.


----------



## threecy (Jun 1, 2011)

It's certainly not a done deal, but today's vote is a big step toward the lease.

I believe it was Senator Morse who mentioned on the floor that they intend to build upon the Sunapee lease experience and try to get all parties together as they move forward with putting together the lease agreement.  Finding an operator does not appear to be an issue.


----------



## UVSHTSTRM (Jun 1, 2011)

Still don't get why a private company would invest in this place?  If they can't add any bells or whistles, what can they do (other then go under) to make more people want to go there?

The new management group will have to........

Pay taxes, pay a lease, be forced most likely to have a certain number of NH residence tickets, raise ticket prices and not be able to develope any property.  This would all lead to fewer skier visits right?  So why would anyone want to take this on?  Can they build a hotel at the base?  What can they do that the state isn't already doing?  Sorry this sounds like a loser to me.  I am guessing this will stay state controled as nobody will step forward unless some property is available for further developement.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 1, 2011)

I believe threecy knows which operator(s) are interested.  Saving it up for an "I told you so"


----------



## Northernflight (Jun 2, 2011)

The only way I can see Cannon being an asset to any company without completely changing its character is if the operator has resorts in the area and uses it to boast a multi-mountain pass, which would most likely cost more than its worth to do. An Attitash, Wildcat, Cannon, Crotched Pass would be pretty sweet.......


----------



## MadPadraic (Jun 2, 2011)

UVSHTSTRM said:


> Still don't get why a private company would invest in this place?  If they can't add any bells or whistles, what can they do (other then go under) to make more people want to go there?
> 
> The new management group will have to........
> 
> Pay taxes, pay a lease, be forced most likely to have a certain number of NH residence tickets, raise ticket prices and not be able to develope any property.  This would all lead to fewer skier visits right?  So why would anyone want to take this on?  Can they build a hotel at the base?  What can they do that the state isn't already doing?  Sorry this sounds like a loser to me.  I am guessing this will stay state controled as nobody will step forward unless some property is available for further developement.



They can advertise more and raise prices. That alone will drive a lot of revenue. Also, as NorthernFlight mentioned, it can be used to really enhance the value of a multi-mountain season pass. Think how happy people around here would be if Jay (for example) and Cannon were on the same pass? One destination and one day trip...


----------



## threecy (Jun 2, 2011)

Firstly, I am not privy the operators interested in leasing Cannon Mountain.

Secondly, there is certainly room for improvement without raising prices.

For instance, FY00-FY09, Cannon's ski school *lost* money in 5 out of 10 years, for a total of -$305,000.

In other words, for every hypothetical retail group lesson of 10 people and 1 instructor at Cannon, the ski area has $350 in revenue and $385 in expenses.  Amazing.


----------



## Puck it (Jun 2, 2011)

The lessee will have to pay for both the lease and the tram up keep for the state to use in the summer.  That will definitely raise the price of a ticket. This seems like it will a CF of a lease. I can not see it being a good business desicion without combining all of the attractions.


----------



## FridayHiker (Jun 2, 2011)

threecy said:


> Finding an operator does not appear to be an issue.



Would Executive Councelor Christopher Sununu (Waterville CEO) be a likely bidder, or would he have a conflict of interest?


----------



## UVSHTSTRM (Jun 2, 2011)

MadPadraic said:


> They can advertise more and raise prices. That alone will drive a lot of revenue. Also, as NorthernFlight mentioned, it can be used to really enhance the value of a multi-mountain season pass. Think how happy people around here would be if Jay (for example) and Cannon were on the same pass? One destination and one day trip...



What is advertising going to do?  Other then locals, the people of NH who all know Cannon exists, you have the Boston market, which already knows Cannon exists and either go there now or already to choose to go to WV, Loon, etc who will go there?  And as far as raising prices, won't that drive people away?  I am not saying it won't work, I guess I just don't get the appeal of the place if prices go up?


----------



## threecy (Jun 2, 2011)

FridayHiker said:


> Would Executive Councelor Christopher Sununu (Waterville CEO) be a likely bidder, or would he have a conflict of interest?



My guess is that if he were to bid on it, he would recuse himself from the vote.


----------



## Puck it (Jun 2, 2011)

FridayHiker said:


> Would Executive Councelor Christopher Sununu (Waterville CEO) be a likely bidder, or would he have a conflict of interest?


 

Not a bad thought, but his team just took on the the big burden of WV.  Does he have the cash flow to do this. too?


----------



## riverc0il (Jun 2, 2011)

threecy said:


> For instance, FY00-FY09, Cannon's ski school *lost* money in 5 out of 10 years, for a total of -$305,000.


That is certainly stunning considering how much lessons cost.


----------



## SIKSKIER (Jun 3, 2011)

Man,I go away for a few days and then read this crap about my Senate passing this backdoor bill?I'm furious with my elected officials.If this goes through it will feel to me like the day the Old Man fell.Shit lets just dump the whole jewel of the State park system into private hands since the old guy is not looking over us anymore.It doesn't take long for people to forget history does it.Franconia Notch used to be all private until the state purchased it to preserve it for all of its residents.It looks like were headed back the other way.
I still don't see how leasing Cannon would be attractive to anybody given all the negative numbers threecy keeps throwing out there.They will have way more expenses the moment a deal is signed.How can the numbers work here?


----------



## jack97 (Jun 3, 2011)

SIKSKIER said:


> Franconia Notch used to be all private until the state purchased it to preserve it for all of its residents.It looks like were headed back the other way.



You have to follow the money trail.... some of the proponents for privatization are local business people who have a monetary interest. From past newspaper articles, they have stated that they have more to gain if Cannon was operated to maximizes its revenues. 




SIKSKIER said:


> I still don't see how leasing Cannon would be attractive to anybody given all the negative numbers threecy keeps throwing out there.They will have way more expenses the moment a deal is signed.How can the numbers work here?



From my pov, JD has been doing a great job and under his watch has outperformed the Sunapee lease. Below is an interesting link, its the minutes from a Advisory Commission meeting. 

http://nhparks.state.nh.us/uploads/pdf/CMACminutes111609.pdf

Here's some  highlights (in blue)  of JD's  initiatives. 

Mittersill Terrain Area will be opened, marketed and managed as a backcountry terrain area for the 09/10 winter season. Shuttle service to be offered from base of Mittersill to Notchview Lodge on weekends & holidays. Terrain adds 86 acres (50%) to Cannon’s existing terrain. Believed to unprecedented at such a scale in the East.

A ten-year discussion as to working toward a race/training/camp trail connection of Skylight, Upper and Lower Hardscrabble, and Turnpike has picked up momentum lately. The project would require ample cut and fill maneuvers on the trails in question, and probably an under/over bridge to ease traffic and improve safety. The project is estimated at $500K. The project would offer a better and safer full-length GS racing and training facility (lending itself to many more Championship-level USSA events), another full-length skiing trail for the general public (easing and spreading mid-mtn traffic), and an off-training camp venue for Cannon/FSC to host camps.
The interest has been sparked lately by a citizens’ group with strong ski industry and US Ski Team ties. Serious financial backing has been mentioned, and a closed-door meeting has been scheduled on Monday, November 23rd at Cannon to discuss the feasibility of the project and a potential launch of a fundraising effort if it’s deemed feasible. 


The irony and shame to all of this is that a private company will have to make Mittersill a Loon clone and tame the rest of the mtn just to get the visit count high. Thus the potential for further uniqueness of Cannon will be lost. Some times, government initiatives are needed to break the status quo of how private companies operate or to provide alternatives to the consumer.


----------



## threecy (Jun 3, 2011)

jack97 said:


> You have to follow the money trail.... some of the proponents for privatization are local business people who have a monetary interest.


How does Senator Morse, from Salem, have any sort of monetary interest in this?




jack97 said:


> under his watch has outperformed the Sunapee lease.


The numbers presented showing Cannon as 'profitable for 4 years' are questionable to say the least...this was cited on the State Senate floor Wednesday.


----------



## threecy (Jun 3, 2011)

SIKSKIER said:


> I still don't see how leasing Cannon would be attractive to anybody given all the negative numbers threecy keeps throwing out there.They will have way more expenses the moment a deal is signed.How can the numbers work here?



For instance, I think a private operator can figure out a way to get the ski school to at least break even.  It operated at a 10% loss from FY00-FY09.

Also during that time, Cannon paid _ski school employees_ over a _quarter of a million dollars in benefits_.


----------



## FridayHiker (Jun 4, 2011)

threecy said:


> For instance, I think a private operator can figure out a way to get the ski school to at least break even.  It operated at a 10% loss from FY00-FY09.
> 
> Also during that time, Cannon paid _ski school employees_ over a _quarter of a million dollars in benefits_.



Threecy, in light of management changes being fairly recent at Cannon, I'd be much more interested in what the profit/loss figures are for the past four years, not since 2000.  Can you direct me to those figures?

Also, I know quite a few of the ski instructors, and beyond getting a ski pass, they don't get "benefits" (e.g. health insurance or retirement or whatever). What sort of "benefits" are you speaking about, and how do they compare to what ski instructors get at other mountains?


----------



## jack97 (Jun 4, 2011)

threecy said:


> How does Senator Morse, from Salem, have any sort of monetary interest in this?



Again, you have taken this out of context...... the original statement was respect to local business owners wanting to privatized. I reference a 2008 newspaper article where a motel owner believes that his occupancy rate would increase due to privatization. Again....past newspaper articles have cited other local business owners wanting the privatize so that there business interest would thrive. 

Republicans control both the Senate and Reps... privatization is dogmatic and follows their party line. 




threecy said:


> The numbers presented showing Cannon as 'profitable for 4 years' are questionable to say the least...this was cited on the State Senate floor Wednesday.



haha...this is a Jedi mind trick...... the numbers deceive you, do they? The bigger issue would be that the accounting and audit process should be in question. Time would be well spent in find these discrepancy and ensuring uniform accounting procedures. Wait.... maybe we should privatize that as well....


----------



## bobbutts (Jun 4, 2011)

jack97 said:


> The irony and shame to all of this is that a private company will have to make Mittersill a Loon clone and tame the rest of the mtn just to get the visit count high.



You're totally making up this convert Mitt to Loon thing.  Scare tactics and a straw man argument.


----------



## jack97 (Jun 4, 2011)

bobbutts said:


> You're totally making up this convert Mitt to Loon thing.  Scare tactics and a straw man argument.



Just my best guess....

But when proponents for privatization are constantly comparing Loon and Sunapee visit count numbers to Cannon's performance.... what do you think a private operator will do?


Here's another irony, I don't visit Cannon as much as I use to. It's has gotten tame and the moguls at zommer and rocket have trash lines..... its what I would call GS bumps. Even the locals has stated the same..... they think K Mart has better bumps b/c of the types of skiers K Mart brings in. Even with the initiatives that JD will bring in will not interest me.... well maybe if they keep Mittersill more backcountry like.


----------



## UVSHTSTRM (Jun 4, 2011)

jack97 said:


> Just my best guess....
> 
> But when proponents for privatization are constantly comparing Loon and Sunapee visit count numbers to Cannon's performance.... what do you think a private operator will do?
> 
> ...



Can somebody explain to me how Mittersill is even remotely considered backcountry?  It's got a lift, trails, and woods in between the trails.  It also seems like snowmaking may be in it's future with so much increased skier traffic.  Sounds like a regular old ski slope to me, no?  Also people have stated that they are worried it will be turned into Loon, this would lead me to believe it is not all that steep?  Although this my sound like a negative statement it is not, just trying to figure out what it is really like.


----------



## Cannonball (Jun 4, 2011)

UVSHTSTRM said:


> Can somebody explain to me how Mittersill is even remotely considered backcountry?  It's got a lift, trails, and woods in between the trails.  It also seems like snowmaking may be in it's future with so much increased skier traffic.  Sounds like a regular old ski slope to me, no?



Mittersill is no longer even remotely considered backcountry.



UVSHTSTRM said:


> Also people have stated that they are worried it will be turned into Loon, this would lead me to believe it is not all that steep?



Mittersill is not all that steep.


----------



## UVSHTSTRM (Jun 4, 2011)

Cannonball said:


> Mittersill is no longer even remotely considered backcountry.
> 
> 
> 
> Mittersill is not all that steep.



That is what I thought, but the way some people talk around here you would think otherwise.


----------



## jack97 (Jun 4, 2011)

UVSHTSTRM said:


> That is what I thought, but the way some people talk around here you would think otherwise.





Cannonball said:


> Mittersill is no longer even remotely considered backcountry.
> 
> 
> 
> Mittersill is not all that steep.



:-?  ..... I make a statement paraphrasing JD by using "backcountry like" and then it gets called backcountry. 

My take on this "backcountry like" is that would be simular to Mad River Glen where they leave the trails alone and only groom the interconnecting trails. BTW, Mad River Glen is not that steep, what makes this challenging is that they don't groom most of the trails. 

As I said, what JD has done is made Cannon a value proposition for the consumers. What they will do to trails at Mittersill and Hardscrabble will either make me go more or make me stop going. But the place is still great value.


----------



## FridayHiker (Jun 4, 2011)

There is lots of backcountry at Mittersill, and some of it IS steep.  Mittersill proper is not backcountry, just a different sort of skiing.


----------



## threecy (Jun 4, 2011)

FridayHiker said:


> Threecy, in light of management changes being fairly recent at Cannon, I'd be much more interested in what the profit/loss figures are for the past four years, not since 2000.  Can you direct me to those figures?


I have not been able to obtain FY10 ("missing").  FY11 is still in progress.  Cannon's ski school lost $135K in FY08 and $99K in FY09, two of the alleged profit years for the ski area.



FridayHiker said:


> What sort of "benefits" are you speaking about, and how do they compare to what ski instructors get at other mountains?


I don't have the detail behind what the benefits are, just the cost.


----------



## threecy (Jun 4, 2011)

Cannonball said:


> Mittersill is no longer even remotely considered backcountry.



Except of course by Cannon, which calls it the "Mittersill Backcountry Area"


----------



## FridayHiker (Jun 5, 2011)

threecy said:


> Except of course by Cannon, which calls it the "Mittersill Backcountry Area"



As noted, there is lots and lots of backcountry at Mittersill.  I don't have an issue with the nomenclature.  If you don't know where to look, befriend a local and ask them to take you for a few runs.  It's truly astounding.


----------



## riverc0il (Jun 5, 2011)

jack97 said:


> haha...this is a Jedi mind trick...... the numbers deceive you, do they? The bigger issue would be that the accounting and audit process should be in question. Time would be well spent in find these discrepancy and ensuring uniform accounting procedures. Wait.... maybe we should privatize that as well....


Threecy has a VERY legitimate point here. If Cannon is posting profitable numbers because they are not including capital expenses and depreciation in their income statements, then the GM stating that Cannon is profitable without considering those numbers in disingenuous. I don't care how we as individuals feel about the lease, pro or con, but that is a HUGE issue, IMO, even as a lease opposer.


----------



## riverc0il (Jun 5, 2011)

FridayHiker said:


> As noted, there is lots and lots of backcountry at Mittersill.  I don't have an issue with the nomenclature.  If you don't know where to look, befriend a local and ask them to take you for a few runs.  It's truly astounding.


It is astounding. But it is not BC. Slackcountry maybe.


----------



## x10003q (Jun 5, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> Threecy has a VERY legitimate point here. If Cannon is posting profitable numbers because they are not including capital expenses and depreciation in their income statements, then the GM stating that Cannon is profitable without considering those numbers in disingenuous. I don't care how we as individuals feel about the lease, pro or con, but that is a HUGE issue, IMO, even as a lease opposer.



I am just guessing - but maybe since there are no shareholders and no tax ramifications there really is no need to account for capital expenses and depreciation. In NYS Gore is not responsible for getting the money to add lifts. ORDA is responsible for borrowing or getting grants. Gore's statements are basically money in and money out. I do not know how it works in NH.


----------



## riverc0il (Jun 5, 2011)

x10003q said:


> I am just guessing - but maybe since there are no shareholders and no tax ramifications there really is no need to account for capital expenses and depreciation. In NYS Gore is not responsible for getting the money to add lifts. ORDA is responsible for borrowing or getting grants. Gore's statements are basically money in and money out. I do not know how it works in NH.


Right. Practically,  there is no need because the funds are handled through the state. But if those expenses are not accounted for in Cannon's bottom line, then it is disingenuous to say that the area operates at a profit (but if only not accounting for big capital expenses).

Can anyone verify if this is accurate? Can someone cite where the Double install went financially and what depreciation effects would have had on Cannon's bottom line?


----------



## Cannonball (Jun 5, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> Threecy has a VERY legitimate point here. If Cannon is posting profitable numbers because they are not including capital expenses and depreciation in their income statements, then the GM stating that Cannon is profitable without considering those numbers in disingenuous. I don't care how we as individuals feel about the lease, pro or con, but that is a HUGE issue, IMO, even as a lease opposer.



"IF" is the key word.

Threecy has made this claim but not backed it up.  IF it's true it's an issue.  Although, as others have pointed out, the state is operating as a large entity looking towards an overall bottom line.  In these cases it's often appropriate to not be restrained by looking at specific product lines as 'stand alone'.  Capital improvements are surely going into the accounting somewhere and it MIGHT be reasonable to roll them in with other costs in the larger accounting.  Not as a way to hide it, but simply as a way to efficiently appropriate funds.

I'm sure this will sound like a huge red flag to Threecy.  But it's completely appropriate to to handle accounting on scales that suit the business.  Large private ski corporations with multiple holdings will often cover improvement costs at one area with the profits from another.  OR they will show a loss at one area (due to improvements) but will cover it in the bottom line with profits from another.

While micro-accounting helps a business (or state, or family, etc) understand where the money comes and goes on a small scale, macro-accounting is equally important so that you can make the most efficient use of your money.

Example:  I currently own two businesses. Business #1 has very high overhead but has the potential for very high earnings.  Business #2 has very low overhead and very modest earning potential.  I frequently take the earnings from Business #2 to help make the capital investments in Business #1 to improve my long-term bottom line.  If I always isolated the two business Business #1 would show big losses in some years and a myopic accounting perspective would say "dump it".  But overall, it's the real earner.


----------



## jack97 (Jun 5, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> Right. Practically,  there is no need because the funds are handled through the state. But if those expenses are not accounted for in Cannon's bottom line, then it is disingenuous to say that the area operates at a profit (but if only not accounting for big capital expenses).
> 
> Can anyone verify if this is accurate? Can someone cite where the Double install went financially and what depreciation effects would have had on Cannon's bottom line?



I would assume Cannon's numbers has gone through the state's audit division. That's what most business would do.... have there numbers checked by an independent source to ensure quality in their accounting process. 

I figure for the past 5-6 years, Cannon has been on the cross-hair by the Republicans for privatization, any "creative" bookkeeping would have trigger some sort in legislative hearing by now. The best they can muster is "questionable"... showing the numbers would be a better argument. If they had definitive proof, I would favor privatization. 


Mittersill looks sweet.....


----------



## Geoff (Jun 5, 2011)

jack97 said:


> BTW, Mad River Glen is not that steep, what makes this challenging is that they don't groom most of the trails.



False.   

Mad River Glen is as steep as anything in the Vermont 250+" snow belt.   That makes it steeper than anything lift-serviced in New Hampshire where they get much less natural snow.


----------



## Cannonball (Jun 5, 2011)

Geoff said:


> False.
> 
> Mad River Glen is as steep as anything in the Vermont 250+" snow belt.   That makes it steeper than anything lift-serviced in New Hampshire where they get much less natural snow.



I wasn't completely on board with Jack's original statement about MRG until you posted this map.  This map makes MRG look far less steep than I remember it. If you have access, maybe you can post the Cannon/Mittersill map for the sake of comparison as related to this discussion?  Thanks.


----------



## riverc0il (Jun 5, 2011)

jack97 said:


> I would assume Cannon's numbers has gone through the state's audit division. That's what most business would do.... have there numbers checked by an independent source to ensure quality in their accounting process.


The point has nothing to do with accounting accuracy and everything to do with spin. JD wrote that Cannon has been profitable recently. But would it be if capital expenses were on Cannon's books rather than the state's books? In other words, if they operated like a non-state run ski area and held profitability to the same standards. I am still awaiting a verification that this is indeed the case as threecy suggests. It is pretty damning of JD's statement if it is the case.


----------



## riverc0il (Jun 5, 2011)

Geoff said:


> False.
> 
> Mad River Glen is as steep as anything in the Vermont 250+" snow belt.   That makes it steeper than anything lift-serviced in New Hampshire where they get much less natural snow.





Cannonball said:


> I wasn't completely on board with Jack's original statement about MRG until you posted this map.  This map makes MRG look far less steep than I remember it. If you have access, maybe you can post the Cannon/Mittersill map for the sake of comparison as related to this discussion?  Thanks.


Cannonball is spot on on this one. MRG is not steep overall. From the mid-station to the summit (Chute, Fall Line, Paradise) it is fairly steep. And the upper part of the Double is steep as well (Gazelle, Panther, Slalom Hill, etc). But that is only the top 1/3 - 1/4 of the mountain at best and even then nothing is overly steep. Liftline is knarly but not steep. Don't believe me? Ski Glade which parallels Liftline. The lower 1/3 of the Sunnyside is downright mellow in terms of pitch. It is all good. You can find cliffs and steep pitches plenty at MRG. But overall, the mountain does not have the steepest pitch though plenty of pucker and cliffiness.


----------



## jack97 (Jun 5, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> The point has nothing to do with accounting accuracy and everything to do with spin. JD wrote that Cannon has been profitable recently. But would it be if capital expenses were on Cannon's books rather than the state's books? In other words, if they operated like a non-state run ski area and held profitability to the same standards. I am still awaiting a verification that this is indeed the case as threecy suggests. It is pretty damning of JD's statement if it is the case.



IMO, private versus public will operate under different business models or restrictions depending on how you look at it. If JD has leveraged captital espenses tallied under the state budget... I see that as a budgeting issue or where the money is counted. 

A large corporation manipulates this just as well, I don't see this as damning.


----------



## riverc0il (Jun 5, 2011)

jack97 said:


> IMO, private versus public will operate under different business models or restrictions depending on how you look at it. If JD has leveraged captital espenses tallied under the state budget... I see that as a budgeting issue or where the money is counted.
> 
> A large corporation manipulates this just as well, I don't see this as damning.


Again, it is not an issue with how the dollars and cents are actually handled. The accounting is sound and I am not suggesting otherwise. You are correct, that it is not an issue. Unless you are trying to make the case that Cannon makes a profit or loses money. If Cannon's profits are not large enough to off set capital expenses (even if tallied under the state budget balance sheet instead of Cannon's), then it is disingenuous to suggest that Cannon is making a profit. Threecy has a legitimate argument here that non-state run ski areas can not simply bury/hide capital expenses to make them look profitable (unless you are a car company or bank... for example....). In other words, I don't disagree with your rebuttal but you have not rebutted anything I have stated. Which is how most people are arguing with threecy so I can feel for him in that regard.

And just for the record, I will again assert I am not in favor of a lease. But I am trying to give a fair thinking man's critical evaluation to some of the very valid points that threecy makes. Addressing valid issues could actually help Cannon to be state run. Otherwise, the pro-lease contingent will continue to slam the lease through.


----------



## threecy (Jun 6, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> Can anyone verify if this is accurate? Can someone cite where the Double install went financially and what depreciation effects would have had on Cannon's bottom line?


The double would be a FY11 depreciation, which hasn't been completed.  I can confirm that there is no depreciation on Cannon's Statements of Income and Expenses through FY09 (last year currently available).  I suspect these statements will make their way online at some point.



Cannonball said:


> I'm sure this will sound like a huge red flag to Threecy.  But it's completely appropriate to to handle accounting on scales that suit the business.  Large private ski corporations with multiple holdings will often cover improvement costs at one area with the profits from another.


The depreciation would show up on the income statement/balance sheet of the operation with the assets (in this case Cannon).



jack97 said:


> I figure for the past 5-6 years, Cannon has been on the cross-hair by the Republicans for privatization, any "creative" bookkeeping would have trigger some sort in legislative hearing by now.


This was discussed during the HB2 hearing on the Senate floor on June 1.



riverc0il said:


> The point has nothing to do with accounting accuracy and everything to do with spin. JD wrote that Cannon has been profitable recently. But would it be if capital expenses were on Cannon's books rather than the state's books?


Until the depreciation information is made public, one interesting way to do some quick math would be to look at the Cannon operating profits (not including depreciation and recent bond interest, which are not on the Statements of Income and Expenses), then compare to the annual Sunapee lease infusion.  The first two 'profittable' years of the often cited four year stretch would show a net deficit.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 6, 2011)

Is this lack of reporting depreciating values unique just to Cannon?

Curious if any of the 14M investment in Hampton Beach State Park was depreciated and reflected in the income statement of that park.


----------



## threecy (Jun 6, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> Is this lack of reporting depreciating values unique just to Cannon?
> 
> Curious if any of the 14M investment in Hampton Beach State Park was depreciated and reflected in the income statement of that park.



Is the head of Hampton Beach State Park is bragging about the park outperforming Mt. Sunapee's lease revenue?


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 6, 2011)

Why does that matter?

I'm just curious if the numbers are being reported consistently for all parks.


----------



## threecy (Jun 6, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> Why does that matter?


Cannon is being presented as a government run profitable venture for the state, to the point in which the Sunapee lease is being antagonized.  The Sunapee lease has actually brought the state millions in new income, whereas Cannon has been fed millions of dollars (off of its income statement).



deadheadskier said:


> I'm just curious if the numbers are being reported consistently for all parks.


Offhand, I'm not aware of the other park managers touting other parks in the manner Cannon has across the state recently (as a million dollar money maker).



Cannonball said:


> NH legislature commissions lots of studies so I'm not sure which one you are reffering to but it might be this one: http://nhstateparks.org/uploads/pdf/Appendix%201%20-%20SB5%20Legislation%20and%20Report.pdf



The Cannon income numbers reported in the above file cited many pages ago are straight from the Statements of Income and Expenses - and thus do not include depreciation, etc.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 6, 2011)

threecy said:


> Offhand, I'm not aware of the other park managers touting other parks in the manner Cannon has across the state recently (as a million dollar money maker).
> .



I'm not interested in what the other park managers are saying.  That doesn't matter.  

My question is if all parks report their numbers the same way.  

I see this has become a bit of a personal thing for you with JD.


----------



## threecy (Jun 6, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> My question is if all parks report their numbers the same way.



I don't know the answer to this question at the moment, however Cannon has reported in this manner dating back to at least FY00.




deadheadskier said:


> I see this has become a bit of a personal thing for you with JD.


I'm not sure how you're coming to that conclusion?  My issue is with Cannon being a government run ski area.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 6, 2011)

looking at that document, it would appear that none of the State Parks report capital expense depreciation in their fiscal reporting.  

Instead of just throwing JD and Cannon under the bus for this, shouldn't the entire State Park system receive equal scrutiny?


----------



## bobbutts (Jun 6, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> looking at that document, it would appear that none of the State Parks report capital expense depreciation in their fiscal reporting.
> 
> Instead of just throwing JD and Cannon under the bus for this, shouldn't the entire State Park system receive equal scrutiny?



A ski area is not like the rest of the state parks.  Active recreation dependent on significant infrastructure at a cost of > $50 per day.  Name another similar park.

A more applicable parallel would be if the state had an amusement park competing with  Canobie Lake.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 6, 2011)

Just stating that there's a park right down the road from me that's receiving a 14M face lift with taxpayer funds.  Doesn't appear they report depreciation in their financials.


----------



## threecy (Jun 6, 2011)

bobbutts said:


> A ski area is not like the rest of the state parks.  Active recreation dependent on significant infrastructure at a cost of > $50 per day.  Name another similar park.



Indeed...and Cannon requires millions in new improvements on a regular basis.  It's time for the state to get out of the ski business.


----------



## Cannonball (Jun 6, 2011)

threecy said:


> Indeed...and Cannon requires millions in new improvements on a regular basis.  It's time for the state to get out of the ski business.



Schools need millions in new improvements on a regular basis. Is it time for the state to get out of the education business?  I'm actually curious (and slightly afraid) of what your answer will be.


----------



## UVSHTSTRM (Jun 6, 2011)

Cannonball said:


> Schools need millions in new improvements on a regular basis. Is it time for the state to get out of the education business?  I'm actually curious (and slightly afraid) of what your answer will be.



Education is paramount to the succes of us as a culture and as a people, while skiing is a very expensive recreation activity.  However don't get me started on the building of schools and the added expenses that come with them in regards to the over the top design and the over the top price.


----------



## threecy (Jun 6, 2011)

Cannonball said:


> Schools need millions in new improvements on a regular basis. Is it time for the state to get out of the education business?



So you're implying that it's as essential for the state to fund a major ski area as it is to teach a child to learn how to read?


----------



## Cannonball (Jun 6, 2011)

threecy said:


> So you're implying that it's as essential for the state to fund a major ski area as it is to teach a child to learn how to read?



I'm not implying anything.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 6, 2011)

It definitely is no where near as important to fund a recreational facility as it is schools.

I still don't have a problem with the state funding recreational facilities including Cannon.  Project down the road from me cost each of us residents about $10.  I rarely use Hampton Beach, but I've got no problem with ponying up that $10.


----------



## bobbutts (Jun 6, 2011)

threecy said:


> So you're implying that it's as essential for the state to fund a major ski area as it is to teach a child to learn how to read?



I guess he's hoping you'll say something that decisively proves you are a radical.. Then your arguments about Cannon will be more easily refuted.


----------



## threecy (Jun 6, 2011)

Cannonball said:


> I'm not implying anything.



You made the connection between funding education and funding a ski area.


----------



## threecy (Jun 6, 2011)

bobbutts said:


> I guess he's hoping you'll say something that decisively proves you are a radical.. Then your arguments about Cannon will be more easily refuted.



Indeed...it's easier to try to discredit the opposition than try to make a case as to why the state should continue to fund and operate a major ski area.


----------



## Cannonball (Jun 6, 2011)

bobbutts said:


> I guess he's hoping you'll say something that decisively proves you are a radical.. Then your arguments about Cannon will be more easily refuted.



Nope.

Threecy made this statement:


threecy said:


> Cannon requires millions in new improvements on a regular basis.  It's time for the state to get out of the ski business.



I made this parallel statement:


Cannonball said:


> Schools need millions in new improvements on a regular basis. Is it time for the state to get out of the education business?



The point is: just because an operation requires millions of dollars in investment is not a de facto reason not to do it.  There are many, many, many good reasons to invest millions of dollars in an operation: profit, social benefits, etc.  Threecy's blanket statement that the state needs to get rid of Cannon just because it requires capital investments is not a good argument.  The question at hand has been "is Cannon worth keeping in the state system?"  A requirement of investment does not automatically make the answer "no".


----------



## bobbutts (Jun 6, 2011)

Sometimes you have to spell it out for us ;-)

Point taken.


----------



## jack97 (Jun 6, 2011)

New Hampshire should get out of public colleges as well, they are competing with private colleges.

If college tuition gets to high.... well as Judge Smails said, someone has to be digging the ditches.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 6, 2011)

jack97 said:


> New Hampshire should get out of public colleges as well, they are competing with private colleges.
> 
> If college tuition gets to high.... well as Judge Smails said, someone has to be digging the ditches.



liquor and wine business as well.

I buy all my wine from NHS liquor stores.  It's cheaper than the mom and pop places.  Not fair


----------



## threecy (Jun 6, 2011)

Cannonball said:


> The point is: just because an operation requires millions of dollars in investment is not a de facto reason not to do it.  There are many, many, many good reasons to invest millions of dollars in an operation: profit, social benefits, etc.  Threecy's blanket statement that the state needs to get rid of Cannon just because it requires capital investments is not a good argument.  The question at hand has been "is Cannon worth keeping in the state system?"  A requirement of investment does not automatically make the answer "no".


The State of New Hampshire only has so much money.  The more it pours into a facility (which is used by a very small minority of the taxpayers, and at a high per-use fee), the less it has to put into other programs.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 6, 2011)

threecy said:


> Indeed...it's easier to try to discredit the opposition than try to make a case as to why the state should continue to fund and operate a major ski area.


 
Well, to take you up on your offer, the State made a decision in the 1930's that the resulting tourism, economic, social, cultural, and other intangible benefits justified the creation of Cannon and met the public interest. There are some things that cannot be valued in terms of profit/loss. 

I think you'd have a very good argument at that time against Cannon because it was one of the largest ski areas. Period. Now you have many private operators of various sizes and in different locations.


----------



## riverc0il (Jun 6, 2011)

thetrailboss said:


> Well, to take you up on your offer, the State made a decision in the 1930's that the resulting tourism, economic, social, cultural, and other intangible benefits justified the creation of Cannon and met the public interest. There are some things that cannot be valued in terms of profit/loss.


In the spirit of intellectual honesty, I feel it neccesary to point out that when the tram was built, it was figured to be profitable during the summer but would be a money loser during the winter. I also don't think we can make 2011 decisions based on 1930's intent. The ski area will fulfill economic needs regardless of state or lease operated.

It is pointless discussing the Cannon lease from a financial perspective unless you are pro-lease and don't care about anything else. From a financial perspective, a lease 100% completely makes the most sense. Guaranteed income in lean years though you might not get quite as good profitability in the best years. You take a slight decrease in revenue in the best years to hedge against the best and have a very predictable number for budgeting purposes.

But why are not all services funded by the state outsourced? Why are some services outsourced and others not? Why is it important for the state to keep some services in house? That is the best argument against a Cannon lease. If you argue against dollars and cents, you'll loose.

Let's here the anti-lease arguments not based on financials but rather what really stands to be gained or lost in a lease.... control. Threecy suggests controls can be written into a lease. I disagree. If you write in enough controls, no company will want to lease the mountain. They have to not only run the mountain more effiencly and profitably, but they have to do that while paying minimum payments and percent of sales to the state. If you tie a company's hands up and force them to run it 100% like the state does, what is the point?!?! There WILL be a loss of control with a lease. That is the best argument against, IMHO.


----------



## tjf67 (Jun 6, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> In the spirit of intellectual honesty, I feel it neccesary to point out that when the tram was built, it was figured to be profitable during the summer but would be a money loser during the winter. I also don't think we can make 2011 decisions based on 1930's intent. The ski area will fulfill economic needs regardless of state or lease operated.
> 
> It is pointless discussing the Cannon lease from a financial perspective unless you are pro-lease and don't care about anything else. From a financial perspective, a lease 100% completely makes the most sense. Guaranteed income in lean years though you might not get quite as good profitability in the best years. You take a slight decrease in revenue in the best years to hedge against the best and have a very predictable number for budgeting purposes.
> 
> ...




So they lease it out.  Some company with good intentions comes in and has a hard time making a go of it.  They don't keep up with maitenance and @ the end of the lease turn a run down ski resort back over to the state.


----------



## Cannonball (Jun 6, 2011)

The last two points/post by Rivercoil and Tjf67 are both very good and I totally agree.  

They also happen to points that were raised 30-40 pages ago in this thread.  I'd say we've gone all the way around the block a few times on this one and really haven't gotten anywhere.  Let's stick a fork in it.


----------



## MadPadraic (Jun 6, 2011)

threecy said:


> The State of New Hampshire only has so much money.  The more it pours into a facility (which is used by a very small minority of the taxpayers, and at a high per-use fee), the less it has to put into other programs.



Elementary schools are used by roughly zero tax payers (first graders don't pay taxes in states that don't have sales tax).  That's a bad reason to get rid of them. Reductio-absurdum to make a point.

But more generally, you haven't yet shown that Cannon pulls money away from other programs.


----------



## jack97 (Jun 6, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> .....I also don't think we can make 2011 decisions based on 1930's intent.....



Back then circa 1930, the state wanted to kick start a sport and an industry. Presently, given how expensive this sport has become, imo, it may become a sport for the rich only. This could be one of the reason why the number of skiers/riders has become stagnant, only the population with disposable income can play. As such, the children from this population may be the only ones participating in the future.

JD is marketing Cannon as a value proposition so that it addresses another segment of the population.


----------



## threecy (Jun 6, 2011)

Something I found interesting...

In regard to the way Cannon is being presented as 'profitable' - using the same criteria, the American Skiing Company would be considered 'profitable' as well.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 6, 2011)

tjf67 said:


> So they lease it out.  Some company with good intentions comes in and has a hard time making a go of it.  They don't keep up with maitenance and @ the end of the lease turn a run down ski resort back over to the state.



good point.  actually the major point of all of us who are anti-lease.

There's no guarantee whoever leases the property is a great steward of a wonderful state resource.  

At least right now, those who use Cannon are very happy with how the state is running it operationally.  By all account, JD has done a helluva job.  No guarantee the next operator will run it as well as he has.  Some things, simply aren't worth putting the full focus on money.  Cannon is one of them IMO.


----------



## MadPadraic (Jun 7, 2011)

threecy said:


> Something I found interesting...
> 
> In regard to the way Cannon is being presented as 'profitable' - using the same criteria, the American Skiing Company would be considered 'profitable' as well.



Can you back this claim up? Where is it documented that Cannon doesn't account for its expansion/improvement/maintenance costs?


----------



## threecy (Jun 7, 2011)

MadPadraic said:


> Can you back this claim up? Where is it documented that Cannon doesn't account for its expansion/improvement/maintenance costs?



The detail will probably be released at some point, however it was referenced during HB2 discussion in the NH State Senate on June 1.  I can confirm that the older PDF already publicly available (a few posts back) shows alleged Cannon profits (and plenty of losses) that do not include depreciation, bond interest, or other investment costs.


----------



## Northernflight (Jun 7, 2011)

Something were not really looking at here is how will the lease effect Franconia Notch State Park? Cannon is a majority of the park and going off the article earlier by JD the resort itself seems to be very tightly intertwined into the State Park. What happens to the tram during the summer? Surely the lease will want to run the summer operation. What about the Flume?


----------



## threecy (Jun 8, 2011)

Northernflight said:


> Cannon is a majority of the park



264 skiable acres, out of 6,692 acres in Franconia Notch State Park. 



Northernflight said:


> and going off the article earlier by JD the resort itself seems to be very tightly intertwined into the State Park. What happens to the tram during the summer? Surely the lease will want to run the summer operation. What about the Flume?



A lease should be a good thing for the State Park.  Net positive cashflow would flow to the park, millions of dollars of ski area investments would no longer be needed from state coffers, and park staff could focus on the park, rather than a commercial ski area.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 8, 2011)

threecy said:


> 264 skiable acres, out of 6,692 acres in Franconia Notch State Park.
> 
> 
> 
> A lease should be a good thing for the State Park.  Net positive cashflow would flow to the park, millions of dollars of ski area investments would no longer be needed from state coffers, and park staff could focus on the park, rather than a commercial ski area.



no guarantee the ski experience will be better as a leased entity than what guests enjoy now.  Depending on what the State asks for in payment, there could be much less snowmaking, inferior grooming as well as having more expensive lift tickets and food and beverage.


----------



## threecy (Jun 8, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> no guarantee the ski experience will be better as a leased entity than what guests enjoy now.  Depending on what the State asks for in payment, there could be much less snowmaking, inferior grooming as well as having more expensive lift tickets and food and beverage.



There's no guarantee that the government run operation will be as good next season as it was in the past four with significantly above-average snowfall.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 8, 2011)

threecy said:


> There's no guarantee that the government run operation will be as good next season as it was in the past four with significantly above-average snowfall.



interesting

most Cannon skiers I know, say that even with the above average snowfall, the mountain made more snow than they ever have before.  Heck, I remember skiing there on a Superbowl Sunday after significant recent snowfall and they were still blasting away.  In February.


But, I suppose you have an argument for how they will make less snow if there's less natural.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 8, 2011)

Just heard on NHPR's "The Exchange" that Cannon is a war memorial and was bought by funds raised through fundraising from Vet groups.  The Mountain was supposed to be a tribute to World War I vets and has a memorial for them at the top and has been the site of the spreading of Vet's ashes.  Folks in Franconia are concerned about leasing out this "memorial" and rightfully so.  It is the public's mountain.  Leasing it out gives a private entity the right to control who accesses the land and when.  So what is next?  Privatizing the Vietnam War Memorial?


----------



## threecy (Jun 8, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> But, I suppose you have an argument for how they will make less snow if there's less natural.



Compared to other areas in the state, the Cannon snowmaking system is antiquated.  Considering snowmaking ops become more limited and less productive in poor snow years, Cannon is not as nearly well prepared to cope as others.

The last time Cannon had 'average' snow fall (166 inches, vs. 160 advertised average annual snowfall), the area cost the state $1,057,235.



thetrailboss said:


> Just heard on NHPR's "The Exchange" that Cannon is a war memorial and was bought by funds raised through fundraising from Vet groups.  The Mountain was supposed to be a tribute to World War I vets and has a memorial for them at the top and has been the site of the spreading of Vet's ashes.  Folks in Franconia are concerned about leasing out this "memorial" and rightfully so.



The Franconia Notch Forest Reservation and Memorial Park was dedicated in September of 1928.  There is a small monument to veterans on the north side of Profile Lake.

The Lonesome Lake Hut complex, also located in the park, has been leased out to the Appalachian Mountain Club since 1929.

Food and Beverage operations have been leased at Cannon Mountain for many years.



thetrailboss said:


> It is the public's mountain.  Leasing it out gives a private entity the right to control who accesses the land and when.  So what is next?  Privatizing the Vietnam War Memorial?



There are 264 acres of commercial ski trails in the memorial park that are completely closed to the public 8 months of the year and only open for a fee ($67) during the other 4 months.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 8, 2011)

threecy said:


> There are 264 acres of commercial ski trails in the memorial park that are completely closed to the public 8 months of the year and only open for a fee ($67) during the other 4 months.


 
Again, single rides on the tram are available for a reasonable fee.  

But the fee that is assessed is paid for the skiing infrastructure and to cover the expenses of the facility rather than being paid to a private entity for profit. You must admit that there is a fundamental difference there.


----------



## threecy (Jun 8, 2011)

thetrailboss said:


> Again, single rides on the tram are available for a reasonable fee.


Are you suggesting that would stop under a private operator?  



thetrailboss said:


> But the fee that is assessed is paid for the skiing infrastructure and to cover the expenses of the facility rather than being paid to a private entity for profit. You must admit that there is a fundamental difference there.


The fees assessed don't cover the expenses of the facility.

And again, 264 acres of the veteran's memorial park are completely closed to non-skiers under current government control.  Compare to nearby Waterville Valley, which is also on public land - they do not restrict access.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 8, 2011)

threecy said:


> Are you suggesting that would stop under a private operator?


 
No, but the fee would be going to a private entity and towards profits.  You are allowing a private entity to profit off of a public facility that was intended to remain public with pennies raised from vets back in the day.  



> The fees assessed don't cover the expenses of the facility.


 
Come on.  :roll:  Of COURSE the revenue is USED to cover the expenses and defray costs.  



> And again, 264 acres of the veteran's memorial park are completely closed to non-skiers under current government control. Compare to nearby Waterville Valley, which is also on public land - they do not restrict access.


 
Technically this is not true.  As a private lessee of public land, WV and any other operator has the right to restrict access to the land that they are leasing.  SB does this.  And in the winter, these resorts restrict access to ski trails the same way Cannon does by requiring tickets.


----------



## threecy (Jun 8, 2011)

thetrailboss said:


> No, but the fee would be going to a private entity and towards profits.  You are allowing a private entity to profit off of a public facility that was intended to remain public with pennies raised from vets back in the day.


There was no commercial ski area when the park was created.  There also doesn't appear to be an issue with the AMC making money off the Lonesome Lake Hut, located at the southern foot of Cannon Mountain, nor does there seem to be an issue with a private operator making money off concessions at Cannon Mountain.  I'm pretty sure my father fought Communists during the Cold War because, in part, the US believed profit wasn't a bad thing (as compared to the opponents).




thetrailboss said:


> Come on.  :roll:  Of COURSE the revenue is USED to cover the expenses and defray costs.


There is a big difference between 'covering' and 'defraying' costs.





thetrailboss said:


> Technically this is not true.  As a private lessee of public land, WV and any other operator has the right to restrict access to the land that they are leasing.


Technically your statement is not true.  The USFS ensures free foot access on ski areas in the WMNF.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 8, 2011)

threecy said:


> There was no commercial ski area when the park was created.


 
It is still public.  



> There also doesn't appear to be an issue with the AMC making money off the Lonesome Lake Hut, located at the southern foot of Cannon Mountain, nor does there seem to be an issue with a private operator making money off concessions at Cannon Mountain.


 
If LL is like most AMC huts, they are operating with a special use permit from the WMNF.  They are not charging fees for people to access the public land!

Likewise, in many public parks/areas allow private vendors to sell food based on a special license.  But not to run the entire park!



> I'm pretty sure my father fought Communists during the Cold War because, in part, the US believed profit wasn't a bad thing (as compared to the opponents).


 
Political statement.  Nobody asserted that profit was bad.  Nor private enterprise.  



> Technically your statement is not true. The USFS ensures free foot access on ski areas in the WMNF.


 
Can you show me the proof?  That is not the case with areas operating in the GMNF.  It is a liability issue since the operators maintain operations on the land.


----------



## threecy (Jun 8, 2011)

thetrailboss said:


> If LL is like most AMC huts, they are operating with a special use permit from the WMNF.  They are not charging fees for people to access the public land!


The Lonesome Lake Hut is not located in the WMNF, it is located in the Franconia Notch State Park, as is Cannon.




thetrailboss said:


> Likewise, in many public parks/areas allow private vendors to sell food based on a special license.  But not to run the entire park!


The lease proposal is not to run the entire Franconia Notch State Park, but rather just the ski area.




thetrailboss said:


> Political statement.  Nobody asserted that profit was bad.  Nor private enterprise.


It's being implied that profit is bad and that a private operator would somehow restrict access.  As it stands today, the government restricts non-skiers from accessing 264 acres of the park.




thetrailboss said:


> Can you show me the proof?  That is not the case with areas operating in the GMNF.  It is a liability issue since the operators maintain operations on the land.


Different forests have different forest plans, so I don't know how the GMNF ski area leases were set up.  For the WMNF, you may contact Susan Matheison of the USFS.  As paraphrased from a January 2011 inquiry, "those who snowshoe up and down a ski trail should be able to do so at no charge.  They should use the side of the trail.  She said this should be well understood by management. If anyone is told otherwise by ski area personnel they should clearly state they are not going to ski down and that they have the right to use USFS land. If that fails they should get the name of the person or persons from the ski area that are telling them otherwise and pass them on to her.  Those who snowshoe up, or use ski skins to get up, and then ski down on the trails, may be required to get a $15 trail pass.  This is apparently due to liability issues.  A lift ticket is not required."


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 8, 2011)

threecy said:


> The Lonesome Lake Hut is not located in the WMNF, it is located in the Franconia Notch State Park, as is Cannon.


 
Fair enough. But again they are a non-profit operation running a single building in the middle of the park. Not controlling access to the land. 



> The lease proposal is not to run the entire Franconia Notch State Park, but rather just the ski area.


 
Correct, but it is not allowing someone to run a hot-dog stand in the park...it is to allow someone to control and operate a significant portion of the land in the park. 



> It's being implied that profit is bad and that a private operator would somehow restrict access. As it stands today, the government restricts non-skiers from accessing 264 acres of the park.


 
From what I have seen, you are the only one making that implication and it is to support your ideology. 



> Different forests have different forest plans, so I don't know how the GMNF ski area leases were set up. For the WMNF, you may contact Susan Matheison of the USFS. As paraphrased from a January 2011 inquiry, "those who snowshoe up and down a ski trail should be able to do so at no charge. They should use the side of the trail. She said this should be well understood by management. If anyone is told otherwise by ski area personnel they should clearly state they are not going to ski down and that they have the right to use USFS land. If that fails they should get the name of the person or persons from the ski area that are telling them otherwise and pass them on to her. Those who snowshoe up, or use ski skins to get up, and then ski down on the trails, may be required to get a $15 trail pass. This is apparently due to liability issues. A lift ticket is not required."


 
In your attempt to bob and weave, you proved my point: 



> Leasing it out gives a private entity the right to control who accesses the land and when.


 
This happens in lease arrangements because of, (1) theft of services concerns, and (2) liability, private operators can restrict access to public land that they lease from the national forest system by charging a fee or requiring people to do certain things. Cannon is no different.

Granted a lease can stipulate what kind of public access can be allowed, but it is not going to demand that the private operator pay to operate the resort and then (1) be on the hook for those who enter on their own, and (2) force the operator to allow people to access the areas it pays to operate for free.  If anything, it goes against your pro-business ways to have such a restrictive lease in the first place!


----------



## threecy (Jun 8, 2011)

thetrailboss said:


> Fair enough. But again they are a non-profit operation running a single building in the middle of the park. Not controlling access to the land.


Firstly, this "non profit" pays its Executive Director over $300,000 a year.

Secondly, the AMC indeed controls access to the facilities.





thetrailboss said:


> Correct, but it is not allowing someone to run a hot-dog stand in the park...it is to allow someone to control and operate a significant portion of the land in the park.


Again, 264 acres are closed to non-skiers, under government control.  A lease could actually *open* the land to free public use.




thetrailboss said:


> From what I have seen, you are the only one making that implication and it is to support your ideology.


You just tried to defend AMC as a non-profit.





thetrailboss said:


> In your attempt to bob and weave, you proved my point: Leasing it out gives a private entity the right to control who accesses the land and when.


Bob and weave?  Your premise is based upon a government operation that restricts the use of 264 acres.  A simple requirement can (and likely would) be written into the lease that would open the land to free use to non-skiers and snowboarders.


----------



## witch hobble (Jun 8, 2011)

Alright, it is too hot to work outside.  Guess I'll sit at the computer and jump back into the fray.  Wouldn't want that Bellayre/ORDA thread to catch up to this one in post counts.

Threecy, you down play how significant the acreage of Cannon is in relation to the whole park in one post, then throw around the same 264 acre figure in umbrage at the thought of the public not having access to the whole park later on the page.

I know you said about 40 pages ago that some prominent hikers had been shooed away or something.  Obviously your issue with Cannon as currently operated goes deeper than this, but let's slow down and take baby steps here.  Aside from signage, do we have any real documented evidence of hikers/snowshoers being harrassed by Cannon or FSP employees?  You have obviously worked in the ski indutry before, it is not all that uncommon for ski areas to restrict access to ski slopes, both in winter and the off season.  It would not be unreasonable for the operator or the "lessee" to require people traveling on foot to sign a liability release/acknowledgement of inherent risk.  Those trails cost money to mow and maintain.  How much are you willing to pay to use them? (and yeah, I know......it can be written into "the lease")

How much access can be granted or denied?  Can I have the keys to the lift shacks and the snack bar?


----------



## threecy (Jun 8, 2011)

witch hobble said:


> A
> I know you said about 40 pages ago that some prominent hikers had been shooed away or something.  Obviously your issue with Cannon as currently operated goes deeper than this, but let's slow down and take baby steps here.  Aside from signage, do we have any real documented evidence of hikers/snowshoers being harrassed by Cannon or FSP employees?



One example, ironically, is that a Vietnam veteran who doesn't ski, was told he could not walk/snowshoe on the ski slopes contained in the veterans memorial park.  He chooses not to participate in this forum, so I will not post his name.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 8, 2011)

threecy said:


> One example, ironically, is that a Vietnam veteran who doesn't ski, was told he could not walk/snowshoe on the ski slopes contained in the veterans memorial park. He chooses not to participate in this forum, so I will not post his name.


 
Veteran's Memorial Park, in Webster (I presume you are referring to), is not FNSP.


----------



## tjf67 (Jun 8, 2011)

I think they should just blow cannon off the map if it would help end this thread.


----------



## WWF-VT (Jun 8, 2011)

tjf67 said:


> I think they should just blow cannon off the map if it would help end this thread.



All of Cannon - or just the 264 acres of commercial ski trails?


----------



## witch hobble (Jun 8, 2011)

threecy said:


> One example, ironically, is that a Vietnam veteran who doesn't ski, was told he could not walk/snowshoe on the ski slopes contained in the veterans memorial park.  He chooses not to participate in this forum, so I will not post his name.



That sounds particularly terrible.  And, if true, would certainly warrant a push for an official apology and a clarification of the rules.  And I say that as a freedom loving, anti-lease New Hampshirite.


----------



## witch hobble (Jun 8, 2011)

tjf67 said:


> I think they should just blow cannon off the map if it would help end this thread.



It would be interesting to see where it would land.


----------



## witch hobble (Jun 8, 2011)

Threecy, would you be willing to pay a special use fee for ski trail hiking?

Would you be willing to wear a "day use" ticket with the legal jargon on the back?


----------



## threecy (Jun 8, 2011)

thetrailboss said:


> Veteran's Memorial Park, in Webster (I presume you are referring to), is not FNSP.


I was not referring to Veteran's Memorial Park in Webster.

The place we refer to today as Franconia Notch State Park (FNSP) was originally called "Franconia Notch Forest Reservation and Memorial Park," which was dedicated "as a memorial to the men and women of New Hampshire who served the nation in times of war."




witch hobble said:


> That sounds particularly terrible.  And, if true, would certainly warrant a push for an official apology and a clarification of the rules.  And I say that as a freedom loving, anti-lease New Hampshirite.


It is true, and there's more backstory to it that makes it even worse, but it has no place on these forums.



witch hobble said:


> Threecy, would you be willing to pay a special use fee for ski trail hiking?
> 
> Would you be willing to wear a "day use" ticket with the legal jargon on the back?


For a privately owned ski area?  Sure.  For a ski area on public land that is supposed to be free use, I don't agree to paying a special use fee.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 8, 2011)

threecy said:


> I was not referring to Veteran's Memorial Park in Webster.
> 
> The place we refer to today as Franconia Notch State Park (FNSP) was originally called "Franconia Notch Forest Reservation and Memorial Park," which was dedicated "as a memorial to the men and women of New Hampshire who served the nation in times of war."
> 
> It is true, and there's more backstory to it that makes it even worse, but it has no place on these forums.


 
I think you need to provide more context to this claim. I'd understand if the the guy was snowshoeing right up the middle of the trail during a busy holiday.

And with regards to special use fees, do you honestly think that a private operator is going to give away access for free?


----------



## witch hobble (Jun 8, 2011)

threecy said:


> For a privately owned ski area?  Sure.  For a ski area on public land that is supposed to be free use, I don't agree to paying a special use fee.



Where does the access stop?  Can you climb the towers?  Walk on the snowmaking pipe?  Should you have to sign in and out, and sign a liability release?

What is your opinion of the Flume? What are you paying for there?  The carpentry?


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 8, 2011)

thetrailboss said:


> do you honestly think that a private operator is going to give away access for free?



of course!!!

just write it in the lease

all the NH resident deals are going to be the same.  It's going to be the same ole' Cannon everyone seems to love because you write it in the lease!!!!   

the lease will make the experience for every visitor to Cannon better than they've ever experienced it before and the state will rake in the financial rewards.  Threecy says a lease guarantees it!!!!!

experience>money


----------



## threecy (Jun 8, 2011)

thetrailboss said:


> I think you need to provide more context to this claim. I'd understand if the the guy was snowshoeing right up the middle of the trail during a busy holiday.



The gentleman was not snowshoeing up the middle of a busy trail.  He has had no issues in snowshoeing and hiking at other areas, such as Waterville, Wildcat, Saddleback, etc.



thetrailboss said:


> And with regards to special use fees, do you honestly think that a private operator is going to give away access for free?



Responsible non skiing access?  Absolutely.

This past winter, I snowshoed on ski trails at Waterville, Saddleback, Wildcat, and Sugarbush (South) with no issues whatsoever.  Sugarbush's customer service in fact gave me a free map and directed me to where they recommended I start my ascent.  Saddleback provides a marked recommended route up their trails in the summer at no use (and in the winter the staff was helpful in recommending a suggested route).  Wildcat has in the past mowed the Polecat for easier foot use (and for a foot race they have as well).  Waterville's Sosman Trail literally empties onto the top of the ski area.


----------



## witch hobble (Jun 8, 2011)

threecy said:


> The gentleman was not snowshoeing up the middle of a busy trail.  He has had no issues in snowshoeing and hiking at other areas, such as Waterville, Wildcat, Saddleback, etc.



Wait.  So he was not specifically going to the war memorial "on the east side of Profile Lake" that has been referenced in the news recently.  You are telling me that this story is about a Vietnam vet, presumably dressed for outdoor winter travel, who was stopped from hiking up what most of us would call Cannon Mountain Ski Area? And what you are providing is some historical background of the naming of the whole park as a veteran's memorial park?
Unfortunately, politicians have long, long paid lip service to veterans and "the troops" in order to push their agenda.  Still goes on today, and will forever.  But I am less inclined to be sympathetic to him and his story if your opinion is that his veteran status should give him immunity.

Please provide more context.


----------



## threecy (Jun 8, 2011)

witch hobble said:


> Wait.  So he was not specifically going to the war memorial "on the east side of Profile Lake" that has been referenced in the news recently.  You are telling me that this story is about a Vietnam vet, presumably dressed for outdoor winter travel, who was stopped from hiking up what most of us would call Cannon Mountain Ski Area? And what you are providing is some historical background of the naming of the whole park as a veteran's memorial park?
> Unfortunately, politicians have long, long paid lip service to veterans and "the troops" in order to push their agenda.  Still goes on today, and will forever.  But I am less inclined to be sympathetic to him and his story if your opinion is that his veteran status should give him immunity.
> 
> Please provide more context.



The lease of the ski area has been recently called into question because the ski area is located in the "Franconia Notch Forest Reservation and Memorial Park," which was dedicated in 1928, a decade before the Tram was installed.  It has been said by some that a private operator should not be allowed to run the ski area, because the land is 'sacred.'

Under present government operational control, 264 acres of the 'sacred land' is closed year-round to non-skiers, veterans or otherwise.  The gentleman I was referring to was trying to access the summit of Cannon Mountain via the ski trails, as opposed to the rough Kinsman Ridge hiking trail.  He was told to leave.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 8, 2011)

Live for Free or Die man

can't wait for the lessee to takes over.  I'm sure it can be written into the lease that I can ride my snowmobile and four wheeler up the trails of Cannon


----------



## witch hobble (Jun 8, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> Live for Free or Die man
> 
> can't wait for the lessee to takes over.  I'm sure it can be written into the lease that I can ride my snowmobile and four wheeler up the trails of Cannon


He may be swilling the tea....but you must be on the sauce.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 8, 2011)

witch hobble said:


> He may be swilling the tea....but you must be on the sauce.



:lol:


----------



## witch hobble (Jun 8, 2011)

threecy said:


> The lease of the ski area has been recently called into question because the ski area is located in the "Franconia Notch Forest Reservation and Memorial Park," which was dedicated in 1928, a decade before the Tram was installed.  It has been said by some that a private operator should not be allowed to run the ski area, because the land is 'sacred.'
> 
> Under present government operational control, 264 acres of the 'sacred land' is closed year-round to non-skiers, veterans or otherwise.  The gentleman I was referring to was trying to access the summit of Cannon Mountain via the ski trails, as opposed to the rough Kinsman Ridge hiking trail.  He was told to leave.


So he was not specifically looking to commemorate his fallen comrades? He was trying to hike up open ski terrain? And was treated the same as if you or I had been spotted doing the same? 

Who is liable for the collision between the downhill skier and uphill hiker? Who assumes what inherent risk?


----------



## UVSHTSTRM (Jun 8, 2011)

threecy said:


> The lease of the ski area has been recently called into question because the ski area is located in the "Franconia Notch Forest Reservation and Memorial Park," which was dedicated in 1928, a decade before the Tram was installed.  It has been said by some that a private operator should not be allowed to run the ski area, because the land is 'sacred.'
> 
> Under present government operational control, 264 acres of the 'sacred land' is closed year-round to non-skiers, veterans or otherwise.  The gentleman I was referring to was trying to access the summit of Cannon Mountain via the ski trails, as opposed to the rough Kinsman Ridge hiking trail.  He was told to leave.



I don't necessarily disagree with a lot of your arguments, comments, etc, but this one bothers me.  I for one, no matter the situation, can understand why a ski resort may not allow people to hike ski trails during the winter.  If they do, so be it, but if they don't no big deal.  In this day and age of a litigated society I wouldn't allow people to hike on my ski trails (if I in another life with millions to piss away owned a ski resort).


----------



## threecy (Jun 9, 2011)

witch hobble said:


> So he was not specifically looking to commemorate his fallen comrades? He was trying to hike up open ski terrain? And was treated the same as if you or I had been spotted doing the same?


No, he was hiking for his own recreation in a park dedicated to veterans such as him.




witch hobble said:


> Who is liable for the collision between the downhill skier and uphill hiker? Who assumes what inherent risk?



Per the skiers responsibility code:


> -Always stay in control, and be able to stop or avoid other people or objects.
> -People ahead of you have the right of way. It is your responsibility to avoid them.


----------



## witch hobble (Jun 9, 2011)

Oh, I'm familiar with "the code".  But with uphill traffic in the equation, both of those tenets could be interpreted both ways.  And the hiker has likely not been issued a ticket with the commandments on it, and may not be familiar with ski area rules and ettiquette.


----------



## threecy (Jun 9, 2011)

witch hobble said:


> Oh, I'm familiar with "the code".  But with uphill traffic in the equation, both of those tenets could be interpreted both ways.  And the hiker has likely not been issued a ticket with the commandments on it, and may not be familiar with ski area rules and ettiquette.



A hiker would be moving at 1 to 2 MPH uphill.  A skier would be moving at perhaps 10 to 30 MPH downhill (or a lot more if tucking, racing, etc.).  Downhill object has the right of way.


----------



## witch hobble (Jun 9, 2011)

threecy said:


> Downhill object has the right of way.



That is not what the code says anymore, even if that is how we all interpret it.


----------



## threecy (Jun 9, 2011)

witch hobble said:


> That is not what the code says anymore, even if that is how we all interpret it.





> -Always stay in control, and be able to stop or avoid other people or objects.
> -People ahead of you have the right of way. It is your responsibility to avoid them.



That's a direct quote from the NSAA


----------



## witch hobble (Jun 9, 2011)

Always stay in control. 
People ahead of you have the right of way. 
Stop in a safe place for you and others. 
Whenever starting downhill or merging, look uphill and yield. 
Use devices to help prevent runaway equipment. 
Observe signs and warnings, and keep off closed trails. 
Know how to use the lifts safely. 


As I said, I know the code.  Your "downhill object has right of way" is an interpretation.  You'll find DMC holding forth on this topic in various threads here over the last few years since I joined up.

We are splitting some hairs on this, but should we assume that the hikers you are looking to unleash on Cannon know this code also?  Particularly the 3rd, 4th and 6th sentences.

Most casual skiers don't even know this stuff.


----------



## Cannonball (Jun 9, 2011)

witch hobble said:


> Always stay in control.
> People ahead of you have the right of way.
> Stop in a safe place for you and others.
> Whenever starting downhill or merging, look uphill and yield.
> ...



+1 
But actually I'd say it's the 2nd sentence that's most relevant here.  "People ahead of you have the right of way."  If you are hiking up, the 'people ahead of you' would be he skiers coming down hill.  That creates a conflict.  Threecy says its the faster skiers that have the responsibility.  But they don't expect to see hikers.  Hikers may be slower, but they should expect to see skiers coming down.  So the hikers would very much have responsibility here.  Which is why there are legitimate restrictions on allowing people to hike up ski trails when they are in operation.


----------



## threecy (Jun 9, 2011)

Cannonball said:


> +1
> Which is why there are legitimate restrictions on allowing people to hike up ski trails when they are in operation.



Hikers have been using the Polecat at Wildcat, year round, for as long as the trail has been around.  How many incidents have you heard of?  How many incidents have their been between skiers and hikers during the other 2/3ds of the year that Wildcat is closed for skiing?


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 9, 2011)

threecy said:


> How many incidents have their been between skiers and hikers during the other 2/3ds of the year that Wildcat is closed for skiing?


 
Yeah, there's lots of skiing in August.......  :lol:


----------



## witch hobble (Jun 9, 2011)

threecy said:


> Hikers have been using the Polecat at Wildcat, year round, for as long as the trail has been around.  How many incidents have you heard of?  How many incidents have their been between skiers and hikers during the other 2/3ds of the year that Wildcat is closed for skiing?



I hate to quote ads for mutual funds, but "Past performance cannot guarantee future results".

I have skied some designated hiking trails, and when I do I use extra caution with the knowledge that I'm the one who's activity is out of the normal range of usage, and that I might come across uphillers.  Likewise any knowledgeable hiker assumes that there would be people coming rapidly down open ski terrain and would act accordingly.  But FNSP is not just roadside, but Interstate HIghway-side.  Lowest common denominator type of tourist.  Unpredictable behavior.  I'm sure that is why the signage is there in the first place.


----------



## threecy (Jun 9, 2011)

thetrailboss said:


> Yeah, there's lots of skiing in August.......  :lol:



And in winter, the Polecat ski trail is the most popular hiking route to White Mountain 4,000 Footer "Wildcat D"


----------



## threecy (Jun 9, 2011)

Cross posted from SnowJournal.

The claim is that Cannon Mountain ski area has been profitable since the 2007-2008 season (FY08 ).

Check out what they started doing with their energy expenses that same year:


----------



## Cannonball (Jun 9, 2011)

threecy said:


> Hikers have been using the Polecat at Wildcat, year round, for as long as the trail has been around.  How many incidents have you heard of?  How many incidents have their been between skiers and hikers during the other 2/3ds of the year that Wildcat is closed for skiing?



I have no idea.  I would have to assume that there have been very few incidents.  I'm only basing that on the fact that (as discussed before) as a frequent skier AND hiker of Cannon at all times of year I have NEVER had an incident.  In fact the only incidents I've ever heard about anywhere between hikers and anyone else are stories you seem to have a connection to.


----------



## WWF-VT (Jun 9, 2011)

threecy said:


> Cross posted from SnowJournal.
> 
> The claim is that Cannon Mountain ski area has been profitable since the 2007-2008 season (FY08 ).
> 
> Check out what they started doing with their energy expenses that same year:




What is the data source for the information presented in that chart ?


----------



## threecy (Jun 9, 2011)

WWF-VT said:


> What is the data source for the information presented in that chart ?



Department of Resources and Economic Development Franconia Notch State Park Ski Operations Statement of Income and Expenses, FY00-FY09.


----------



## Puck it (Jun 9, 2011)

threecy said:


> Cross posted from SnowJournal.
> 
> The claim is that Cannon Mountain ski area has been profitable since the 2007-2008 season (FY08 ).
> 
> Check out what they started doing with their energy expenses that same year:


 
Could this be an error that was not corrected?


----------



## threecy (Jun 9, 2011)

Puck it said:


> Could this be an error that was not corrected?



I have heard that the accounting changes were via a directive that was issued.


----------



## threecy (Jun 9, 2011)

Also crossposted from SnowJournal:

6 out of the last 11 seasons, Cannon's ski school account has shown a loss.


----------



## Puck it (Jun 9, 2011)

threecy said:


> I have heard that the accounting changes were via a directive that was issued.


 

That chart makes no sense. The summer operation now has the highest energy cost. Red flag!!!!!


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 9, 2011)

My question regarding the electrical usage chart is whether or not the mountain is not only reporting the expense in the summer months, but shifting the expense under the Tram or Flume.  

 The profitability of the mountain is based upon the entire year.  It really doesn't matter when the energy expenses are recorded.  Still a little weird to see.


----------



## threecy (Jun 9, 2011)

Puck it said:


> That chart makes no sense. The summer operation now has the highest energy cost. Red flag!!!!!


Indeed.


----------



## Puck it (Jun 9, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> My question regarding the electrical usage chart is whether or not the mountain is not only reporting the expense in the summer months, but shifting the expense under the Tram or Flume.
> 
> The profitability of the mountain is based upon the entire year. It really doesn't matter when the energy expenses are recorded. Still a little weird to see.


 

The total looks right.  The ski school one looks funky also.  Wild swings in gain and loss.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 9, 2011)

Puck it said:


> That chart makes no sense. The summer operation now has the highest energy cost. Red flag!!!!!


 
Well it does make sense if they are pre-buying fuel or electricity (somehow) in the summer and hedging the market.  

It is also possible that the expenses and reporting year was altered.


----------



## Puck it (Jun 9, 2011)

thetrailboss said:


> Well it does make sense if they are pre-buying fuel or electricity (somehow) in the summer and hedging the market.
> 
> It is also possible that the expenses and reporting year was altered.


 

How does the ski school have 204K in fuel expenses.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 9, 2011)

Puck it said:


> How does the ski school have 204K in fuel expenses.


 
Yeah good question.....  :blink:

Which year was that?  Could it be accounting for the rebuilding of the ski school building or something?


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 9, 2011)

And where is the PDF or link to the actual report?


----------



## threecy (Jun 9, 2011)

thetrailboss said:


> And where is the PDF or link to the actual report?



The State does not make the Statements of Income and Expenses available online.  Data can be purchased at a per-page fee from Concord.


----------



## snoseek (Jun 9, 2011)

Here's the thing.

I'll start by saying I grew up on this mountain, skied it hard up until about seven or eight years ago. I'm 38.

Most of this conversation doesn't really matter all that much to me. Cannon will always have some form of adventure or stuff worth exploring. Cannon will always be cold as %# and windier than %$##. It will always have good pitch, get good snow (For nh anyway), and always be mellow for the most part, even on the weekend sometimes. It will always be beloved for skiers that just know.....

It probably will not attract a completely different clientele. It won't be a city of hotels and condos, complete with the overpriced fake village selling silly stuff and marginal trendy food. Prices will always be in check as they will always need to attract skiers. It would make a terrible luxery or exclusive destination.

I don't want to see any lease happen. I think its good for the state to be involved with recreation in all available. This is one of the times I'm o.k. with bigger govt. but in the end I bet it doesn't really affect all that much to most skiers


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 9, 2011)

threecy said:


> The State does not make the Statements of Income and Expenses available online. Data can be purchased at a per-page fee from Concord.


 
Nice try. How about posting the PDF of the entire report that you have rather than cherry picking items that support your POV? If it is what you say it is, then you have nothing to worry about. 

And I only suggest that because sometimes passion and emotions can cloud what is really going on.  Let's have the real facts for us to interpret.


----------



## jack97 (Jun 9, 2011)

threecy said:


> I have heard that the accounting changes were via a directive that was issued.





Puck it said:


> That chart makes no sense. The summer operation now has the highest energy cost. Red flag!!!!!



Did other NH state parks or NH departments do this as well? 

Sometimes, a consumer with large buying power can leverage better terms for purchase. I recall several years back, i could of have purchase oil at rates determed in fall but for use during winter. Moreover, I constantly hear deals where you can purchase items and pay portions of this in the future. This way, the sellers can ensure revenue streams during the slow/non peak months.......kind of radical thinking if you asked me.


----------



## threecy (Jun 9, 2011)

thetrailboss said:


> Nice try. How about posting the PDF of the entire report that you have rather than cherry picking items that support your POV? If it is what you say it is, then you have nothing to worry about.


Nice try?  If you want to see the statements posted in a downloadable format, purchase them from Concord and post them.  Otherwise, I assume they'll eventually make their way online.


----------



## threecy (Jun 9, 2011)

jack97 said:


> Did other NH state parks or NH departments do this as well?



My understanding is that this is a parks division decision.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 9, 2011)

threecy said:


> Nice try? If you want to see the statements posted in a downloadable format, purchase them from Concord and post them. Otherwise, I assume they'll eventually make their way online.


 
Why not give us the raw information that you obviously have to let us decide? You're stalling here and on NELSAP. 

It just seems odd that you insist on putting out the facts but when asked for the whole story, be it a very vague story about a "Vietnam War vet" trying to hike on the ski trails or now these income reports that are public records that you have "but are not available," you balk.  

It seems clear that you are spinning things and slanting them to advance your view point rather than engaging in a worthwhile discussion by bringing all the facts to the table for folks to discuss. In the end you insist on always being right and it really erodes your credibility. 

Hell, at one point yesterday you were calling me and others a communist and anti-capitalist and then you got upset about the head of the AMC getting paid $300k a year. That's quite a contradiction!


----------



## jack97 (Jun 9, 2011)

threecy said:


> My understanding is that this is a parks division decision.



Do you have data to which supports your understanding?


----------



## Cannonball (Jun 9, 2011)

threecy said:


> Cross posted from SnowJournal.
> 
> The claim is that Cannon Mountain ski area has been profitable since the 2007-2008 season (FY08 ).
> 
> Check out what they started doing with their energy expenses that same year:



Way to go Cannon!!  It's great to see a large ski area reigning in their energy usage.

Also, thanks for pointing out the cross-post.  It's nice to see that people on all sites disagree with you.


----------



## threecy (Jun 9, 2011)

thetrailboss said:


> Why not give us the raw information that you obviously have to let us decide? You're stalling here and on NELSAP.


If you wish to acquire the raw data in a downloadable format, I have suggested you purchase it from Concord.  Otherwise, have patience.



thetrailboss said:


> Hell, at one point yesterday you were calling me and others a communist and anti-capitalist and then you got upset about the head of the AMC getting paid $300k a year. That's quite a contradiction!


It's a shame you're getting to the point in this thread in which you're accusing me of calling you a communist.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 9, 2011)

threecy said:


> If you wish to acquire the raw data in a downloadable format, I have suggested you purchase it from Concord.  Otherwise, have patience.



You obviously didn't pay for that info did you?  I mean when Cannon loses $1M in a season it costs you about 66 cents, so if you're that uptight about such a small amount of money, I'd imagine giving Concord money for information on a public park is the last thing you'd really do.  

So, I'm guessing you know someone.

You really get off on having 'insider info' don't you? 

but what I really want to know is why you care so much about Cannon costing you 66 cents a year when they lose a million and saving you 33 cents a year if a lease produces the revenue for the state that Sunapee does.   There has to be a personal ax to grind somewhere in this situation for you to be so concerned over a dollar a year.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 10, 2011)

threecy said:


> If you wish to acquire the raw data in a downloadable format, I have suggested you purchase it from Concord. Otherwise, have patience.


 
That's the third time that you have stalled. Doesn't matter to me...in 60 pages you've lost pretty much all credibility.



> It's a shame you're getting to the point in this thread in which you're accusing me of calling you a communist.


 
You post like clockwork. Honestly, if you stopped and thought before making a knee jerk reaction, or at least read what you wrote, you'd go further in winning friends and influencing people. Here is the implication that you made:



threecy said:


> There was no commercial ski area when the park was created. There also doesn't appear to be an issue with the AMC making money off the Lonesome Lake Hut, located at the southern foot of Cannon Mountain, nor does there seem to be an issue with a private operator making money off concessions at Cannon Mountain. I'm pretty sure my father fought Communists during the Cold War because, in part, the US believed profit wasn't a bad thing (as compared to the opponents).


 
It's pretty clear that you state that anyone who is opposed to profit, or in this case the lease, is a communist. 

And then you go on to complain about how AMC's CEO makes $300k a year:



threecy said:


> Firstly, this "non profit" pays its Executive Director over $300,000 a year.
> 
> You just tried to defend AMC as a non-profit.


 
That's a contradiction, amongst the many you've made. Hate to tell you but in a capitalist system good talent, be it for charitable non-profits or Fortune 500 Companies, comes at a price. That's how it works. You can't be flying the flag of capitalism to support your argument for the lease and then bit%6ing about how much money a non-profit pays its CEO via a private contract. 

It makes sense of course to you because you only care about always being right.  That's fine.  Have at it because that's all you want to convey.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 10, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> There has to be a personal ax to grind somewhere in this situation for you to be so concerned over a dollar a year.


 
This is just *an educated guess from threecy's own site.* Looks like a dispute between private landowners and folks who want to use their land. The State got involved.  Some folks were selling and distributing trail maps directing folks to portions of privately owned property.


----------



## Puck it (Jun 10, 2011)

thetrailboss said:


> This is just *an educated guess from threecy's own site.* Looks like a dispute between private landowners and folks who want to use their land. The State got involved. Some folks were selling and distributing trail maps directing folks to portions of privately owned property.


 


I would not say ax.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 10, 2011)

So, threecy was illegal cutting trails on Public lands and posting trail maps online?  Is this true Threecy?


----------



## Puck it (Jun 10, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> So, threecy was illegal cutting trails on Public lands and posting trail maps online?  Is this true Threecy?



Uh,oh!


----------



## Black Phantom (Jun 10, 2011)

thetrailboss said:


> This is just *an educated guess from threecy's own site.* Looks like a dispute between private landowners and folks who want to use their land. The State got involved.  Some folks were selling and distributing trail maps directing folks to portions of privately owned property.



Why not ask him if he still beats his wife?


----------



## AdironRider (Jun 10, 2011)

Black Phantom said:


> Why not ask him if he still beats his wife?





I brought this up back around page 40. 

Threecy was cutting illegal trails then posting up maps and stuff. Resulted in a couple hundred acres (maybe thousands ... not sure) getting shut down to public access. 

He goes by Rocket21 on other boards. Needless to say, his character rings true there as well.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 10, 2011)

Black Phantom said:


> Why not ask him if he still beats his wife?


 
DHS asked why it seemed that he had a serious issue with the State. I went to threecy's own page and found that information. As to what he did I don't know exactly, but I do know that he has a very strong opinion about that situation.


----------



## Black Phantom (Jun 10, 2011)

thetrailboss said:


> That was not the intent.  DHS asked why it seemed that he had a serious issue with the State.  I went to threecy's own page and found that information.  As to what he did I don't know exactly, but I do know that he has a very strong opinion about that situation.



What exactly is _your_ intent? He has supplied info to support his postition and has done so quite calmly against those with a rather circular argument to say the least. This is not a trial. 

_Your _speculation is rather suspect. Are you going to go so far as to put his name out here and continue your charade? You are getting close.

His stance has been quite clear and is supported by many in the State of NH.


----------



## jack97 (Jun 10, 2011)

Black Phantom said:


> His stance has been quite clear and is supported by many in the State of NH.



His stance includes spin, which reminds of the political talking heads that are so prevalent these days. I truly wish this privatization issue would go to a state ballot instead of it getting ram rodded for (a yay or a nay) by either political party.


Full disclosure.... I'm a registered independent, I trust neither of the two major parties.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 10, 2011)

I don't think there's anything wrong with questioning the motives behind someone's stance on this issue.  If the allegations are true, then I would conclude that this is about politics, not money and that his feelings are so strong because he's got a saw to sharpen with Concord.   

As mentioned, we are talking 66 cents per resident if Cannon loses a million.  66 cents.  Quite frankly, I'm a bit pissed my representatives are even spending any time at all discussing 66 cents per resident.  Not even a drop in the bucket of the state budget.  Of course, Threecy throws out scare tactics saying other programs will need to be cut over that 66 cents.  give me a break


----------



## Black Phantom (Jun 10, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> I don't think there's anything wrong with questioning the motives behind someone's stance on this issue.  If the allegations are true, then I would conclude that this is about politics, not money and that his feelings are so strong because he's got a saw to sharpen with Concord.
> 
> As mentioned, we are talking 66 cents per resident if Cannon loses a million.  66 cents.  Quite frankly, I'm a bit pissed my representatives are even spending any time at all discussing 66 cents per resident.  Not even a drop in the bucket of the state budget.  Of course, Threecy throws out scare tactics saying other programs will need to be cut over that 66 cents.  give me a break


----------



## Black Phantom (Jun 10, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> I don't think there's anything wrong with questioning the motives behind someone's stance on this issue.  If the allegations are true, then I would conclude that this is about politics, not money and that his feelings are so strong because he's got a saw to sharpen with Concord.
> 
> As mentioned, we are talking 66 cents per resident if Cannon loses a million.  66 cents.  Quite frankly, I'm a bit pissed my representatives are even spending any time at all discussing 66 cents per resident.  Not even a drop in the bucket of the state budget.  Of course, Threecy throws out scare tactics saying other programs will need to be cut over that 66 cents.  give me a break



Who the hell are you to judge intent? Is this a witch hunt? You are quickly turning it into one. 

Why the hysterics?


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 10, 2011)

Black Phantom said:


> Who the hell are you to judge intent? Is this a witch hunt? You are quickly turning it into one.
> 
> Why the hysterics?



settle down Francis

The fact that he's spun this every which way and completely disregarded very reasonable opinions of others makes me question his motives.  There's nothing wrong with that.


----------



## Black Phantom (Jun 10, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> settle down Francis
> 
> The fact that he's spun this every which way and completely disregarded very reasonable opinions of others makes me question his motives.  There's nothing wrong with that.



Don't call me Francis.

He has spun the discussion "every which way"? You have got to be kidding. 

Again, is this not an open forum? You don't like his position and can not refute his points. Not agreeing is one thing. Questioning his motives? You are going down a wrong path. 

What are your motives? 66 cents per citizen? One could quickly draw that conclusion to an undesirable end. 66 cents adds up pretty quickly when uncontested.

That approach was used in MA. It's just a cup of coffee. A sandwich and a side.

Now there is Prop 2 1/2.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 10, 2011)

yes it is an open forum.  hence I have every right to question his motives.  I question it, just like the motives of the politicians sitting at the table.  

sorry you have such a problem with that


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 10, 2011)

yes it is an open forum.  hence I have every right to question his motives.  I question it, just like the motives of the politicians sitting at the table.  

sorry you have such a problem with that


----------



## threecy (Jun 10, 2011)

AdironRider said:


> I brought this up back around page 40.
> 
> Threecy was cutting illegal trails then posting up maps and stuff. Resulted in a couple hundred acres (maybe thousands ... not sure) getting shut down to public access.



You seem to have no problem with committing libel, which you have just done.



deadheadskier said:


> So, threecy was illegal cutting trails on Public lands and posting trail maps online?  Is this true Threecy?



What does this have to do with Cannon Mountain?

The alleged illegal trails in the Ossipees were cut before I ever set foot in the range.  I defended a retired gentleman who was accused of environmental destruction in the Ossipees.  The retired gentleman produced an excellent map of the hiking trails (of which, only 1/4 mile was actually closed, unrelated to his alleged actions), which I agreed to host for free on my web space.

Logging roads were included on the map (as are displayed on other maps, including USGS).  A logging company decided to close a large tract of land that they had collected over a million dollars in Federal funds to keep open to public use.  The land has since been reopened.


----------



## threecy (Jun 10, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> You obviously didn't pay for that info did you?



Obviously?  Considering I've spent over a month tracking down the data, for which I am paying the per page fee...


----------



## Cannonball (Jun 10, 2011)

Black Phantom said:


> He has supplied info to support his postition and has done so quite calmly against those with a rather circular argument to say the least. This is not a trial.



Although I disagree with Threecy's point of view, I do agree that he has been very calm and persistent in this discussion.  I would say that the WHOLE argument is circular on both sides (in fact, why I am still contributing?).



Black Phantom said:


> His stance has been quite clear and is supported by many in the State of NH.



His stance has been quite clear.  It is supported by many in NH.  Although I still think that many more don't support it and that it took political hijacking to get it where it is right now.



Black Phantom said:


> That approach was used in MA. It's just a cup of coffee. A sandwich and a side.
> 
> Now there is Prop 2 1/2.



And you bring up red herrings?  IF we were to go down this inappropriate sidetrack you've brought up, we'd find that the mere mention of prop 2 1/2 is in exact contradiction to your point.  But it would make no sense to go down that completely unrelated red herring path.


----------



## bobbutts (Jun 10, 2011)

I don't think Threecy is an illegal trail cutter or map seller
He's certainly not "The Trail Bandit" Bob Garrison


----------



## witch hobble (Jun 10, 2011)

Yeah.  As frustraing as this thread can be at times, it has been very timely in regards the fluid Cannon political situation.  And as offensive as I find threecy's view of the "lease", some of the comments here actually make me feel some sympathy for the (presumably) human person behind the internet handle.  Let's stay on point here.  His argument and his graphs are not so watertight that we need to resort to personal attacks.  Kill the message he attempts to deliver, not the messenger.


----------



## witch hobble (Jun 10, 2011)

As an aside, I always wondered why there were not  more official hiking trails on the Ossipee massif.


----------



## Angus (Jun 11, 2011)

bump...can't let this thread go a day without a new response. I'm expecting this thread to carry me through to the beginning of the 2011/12 ski season!!


----------



## threecy (Jun 11, 2011)

Angus said:


> bump...can't let this thread go a day without a new response. I'm expecting this thread to carry me through to the beginning of the 2011/12 ski season!!



There have been some more charts and a file posted over at SnowJournal


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 12, 2011)

keep buying documents off of Concord.  It doesn't change the big picture for me.

NH State budget is 10.2 Billion dollars.  10.2 Billion. 

yet, your so passionate about 600K in revenue a year IF Cannon matches Sunapee's lease

What is that 600K in the grand scheme of things for the state? 

Not even SIX ONE THOUSANDTHS of a percent of the state budget.  SIX ONE THOUSANDTHS of a percent

It's a freaking joke that our State Senators are taking more than a coffee break in discussing how to add SIX ONE THOUSANDTHS of one percent to the bottom line.

I've been called out for being a jerk for my character assassination of you instead of focusing on the merits of the lease argument.  I can handle being called a jerk for that.  I hate political bullshit, which is all this Cannon lease discussion is.  It's a freaking joke that our Senators are spending any time at all discussing it.  They all should be fired for even discussing something that amounts to six one thousandths of a percent of the budget.  If this were a family budget, this is literally discussing how to save 4.8 sheets a toilet paper a year.

4.8 sheets of toilet paper a year is what you're going to war for Threecy.  4.8 sheets of toilet paper a year.  Think about it.


----------



## threecy (Jun 12, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> keep buying documents off of Concord.  It doesn't change the big picture for me.
> 
> NH State budget is 10.2 Billion dollars.  10.2 Billion.
> 
> ...


You clearly don't understand the state budget or the millions of dollars that have been funnelled into Cannon Mountain in recent years.




deadheadskier said:


> It's a freaking joke that our State Senators are taking more than a coffee break in discussing how to add SIX ONE THOUSANDTHS of one percent to the bottom line.
> 
> I've been called out for being a jerk for my character assassination of you instead of focusing on the merits of the lease argument.  I can handle being called a jerk for that.  I hate political bullshit, which is all this Cannon lease discussion is.  It's a freaking joke that our Senators are spending any time at all discussing it.  They all should be fired for even discussing something that amounts to six one thousandths of a percent of the budget.



For the sake of our state, I hope you stay a forum moderator (perhaps with a more professional tone) and never as Legislator responsible for the New Hampshire budget.  I'm glad that my State Senator has shown her support for the lease.


----------



## jack97 (Jun 12, 2011)

threecy said:


> .....
> For the sake of our state, I hope you stay a forum moderator (perhaps with a more professional tone) and never as Legislator responsible for the New Hampshire budget.  I'm glad that my State Senator has shown her support for the lease.....




hmm.....just my opinion. It's getting to the point your threads are becoming unsolicited given the denial of data to backup; your statements, the graphs you have posted here and at snowjournal.  I can sympathize with the mods frustrations since your post seems like SPAM to me, as defined below . 

Spam is the use of electronic messaging systems (including most broadcast media, digital delivery systems) to send unsolicited bulk messages indiscriminately.


----------



## threecy (Jun 12, 2011)

jack97 said:


> hmm.....just my opinion. It's getting to the point your threads are becoming unsolicited given the denial of data to backup; your statements, the graphs you have posted here and at snowjournal.  I can sympathize with the mods frustrations since your post seems like SPAM to me, as defined below .
> 
> Spam is the use of electronic messaging systems (including most broadcast media, digital delivery systems) to send unsolicited bulk messages indiscriminately.



Ah, so now the tactic will be to call the data 'spam.'  This thread has probably been the largest ad revenue generators for AZ this spring.  The thread on SnowJournal has been the most viewed on that site since it was posted.

There are perhaps more people than you're aware of following this on the sidelines...for some reason, they choose not to post here and receive a bunch of personal attacks.


----------



## jack97 (Jun 12, 2011)

threecy said:


> Ah, so now the tactic will be to call the data 'spam.'  This thread has probably been the largest ad revenue generators for AZ this spring.  The thread on SnowJournal has been the most viewed on that site since it was posted.
> 
> There are perhaps more people than you're aware of following this on the sidelines...for some reason, they choose not to post here and receive a bunch of personal attacks.



this is not a tactic.... just my opinion. Show me the data, maybe you can call me a splinter group since I'm not a mod but I would like to see the data, like the politcal group called the  "birthers"

I think the amount of hits this thread has is more for about entermainment.


----------



## AdironRider (Jun 12, 2011)

threecy said:


> You seem to have no problem with committing libel, which you have just done.




Sue me.


----------



## witch hobble (Jun 12, 2011)

Can libel be committed to an internet handle with an avatar?  Would that hold up anywhere?


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 12, 2011)

jack97 said:


> this is not a tactic.... just my opinion. Show me the data, maybe you can call me a splinter group since I'm not a mod but I would like to see the data, like the politcal group called the "birthers"


 
+ 1.  I want to see all the data, including the footnotes and explanations as to why NH says that the expenses were recategorized rather than someone's own proffered explanations, with or without ulterior motives.


----------



## threecy (Jun 12, 2011)

thetrailboss said:


> + 1.  I want to see all the data, including the footnotes and explanations as to why NH says that the expenses were recategorized rather than someone's own proffered explanations, with or without ulterior motives.



No one's stopping you from getting the answers firsthand if you don't like what's been posted.


----------



## Northernflight (Jun 12, 2011)

> No one's stopping you from getting the answers firsthand if you don't like what's been posted.



But if you already have all the data why don't you just post it so we can see it and discuss it? You very well may not be spinning it, and if your not than what do you have to lose?


----------



## Puck it (Jun 13, 2011)

I will say it again

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.


----------



## threecy (Jun 13, 2011)

Northernflight said:


> But if you already have all the data why don't you just post it so we can see it and discuss it? You very well may not be spinning it, and if your not than what do you have to lose?



There are plenty of charts, as well as two PDFs, posted/linked on SnowJournal


----------



## Cannonball (Jun 13, 2011)

threecy said:


> There are plenty of charts, as well as two PDFs, posted/linked on SnowJournal



Great.  Thank you for that.  That's all we've been asking for.  I'm happy to pitch in my share of the per/page fee for this page if you like.

So this full balance sheet shows net profit for both years. 

You've questioned some of the accounting.  I agree it is weird how it's shown here.  BUT, now that you've provided all of the numbers it's pretty clear that those costs didn't just get hidden in some random other part of the State budget (as you implied).  It looks like they stayed in the overall FNSP statement. It's hard to tell if it was an error which column they are in, or some other reason. But the bottom line is the same...all costs are shown and FNSP is a profitable state run operation.


----------



## St. Bear (Jun 13, 2011)

Ah, too bad.  I was hoping that this thread would stay on 666 posts.


----------



## Puck it (Jun 13, 2011)

Couple of things stick as rather wierd.

Zero cost for snowmaking and liability insurance and fuel for 09.

Insurance cost jumps by $130K in one year.  

I think I am reading this right.  I hope insurance costs do not do that.


----------



## threecy (Jun 13, 2011)

Cannonball said:


> BUT, now that you've provided all of the numbers it's pretty clear that those costs didn't just get hidden in some random other part of the State budget (as you implied).  It looks like they stayed in the overall FNSP statement.



Where do you see Depreciation and Interest?  They are indeed in other accounts.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 13, 2011)

OK, so assuming arguendo that the lease goes through, who would be waiting in the wings to lease it?  I can't really think of anyone in good financial health ready to take it on.


----------



## Puck it (Jun 13, 2011)

He is the insider, but he won't tell!!!!!:dunce:


----------



## Cannonball (Jun 13, 2011)

threecy said:


> Where do you see Depreciation and Interest?  They are indeed in other accounts.



IF they are in different accounts they are likely to stay there.  How will the lease change that?


----------



## threecy (Jun 13, 2011)

Cannonball said:


> IF they are in different accounts they are likely to stay there.  How will the lease change that?



They are in different accounts.  Bond payments are recognized in a separate account and thus conveniently not included in published Cannon earnings.  Depreciation is calculated on a statewide basis and thus also not figured into Cannon's published performance.

Going forward, there would be no new capital investments by the state.  As such, depreciation and interest expenses would be sunset (as was the case with Sunapee).


----------



## Cannonball (Jun 13, 2011)

threecy said:


> They are in different accounts.  Bond payments are recognized in a separate account and thus conveniently not included in published Cannon earnings.  Depreciation is calculated on a statewide basis and thus also not figured into Cannon's published performance.
> 
> Going forward, there would be no new capital investments by the state.  As such, depreciation and interest expenses would be sunset (as was the case with Sunapee).



Wait, I thought the Mittersill lift was overpric...... never mind, I give up   Good luck with your mission, what ever that turns out to be.


----------



## Black Phantom (Jun 14, 2011)

*Veterans get special nod at Profile ceremony*

http://www.unionleader.com/article/20110613/NEWS/706139981

By SARA YOUNG-KNOX
Union Leader Correspondent

FRANCONIA NOTCH — Just before the 8th annual Profile Awards ceremony Sunday, the Old Man of the Mountain Legacy Fund dedicated the Old Man of the Mountain Monument and Profiler Plaza in Franconia Notch State Park to the men and women who have served the country.

Later came the name of the winning organization — the Vietnam Veterans of America–New Hampshire State Council.

“It is fitting to recognize the Vietnam Veterans of America-New Hampshire State Council for this year's organization award,” said Union Leader Corp. President Joseph McQuaid, who serves on the Profile Awards' selection committee. “March 30, 2011 was declared ‘Welcome Home Vietnam Veterans Day,' 38 years after troops were withdrawn from Vietnam.”

McQuaid said the award also honors the 46,000 Vietnam-era veterans living in New Hampshire, he said, and remembers 227 New Hampshire soldiers who lost their lives during the Vietnam War.

This year's individual recipient was Rusty McLear of Meredith. The city of Rochester was the municipality honored with the award named after the Old Man of the Mountain.

The awards honor a person, organization, and municipality who work to preserve or conserve those elements that give the state its unique heritage, whether in the form of its scenic beauty and natural resources, or cultural, social or political history in the spirit of the state's icon.

Those at the event at Peabody Lodge at Cannon Mountain also witnessed the unveiling of the profilers that recreate a view of the Old Man up on his perch again.

Prior to handing out the awards, McQuaid noted the recent passing of former Gov. Walter Peterson, who was the first recipient of the individual award in 2004. He called Peterson “as durable as the Old Man himself,” saying he was “a benchmark against which all others are measured.”

Meredith businessman Rusty McLear was recognized for his work and dedication in revitalizing Meredith over the past 20 years.

“Rusty has been an outstanding leader in preservation and economic development in his community, turning vacant asbestos mills to premier hotels and helping to inspire others in preserving their own properties,” McQuaid said. “Rusty's ability to inspire others has brought state and local officials, non-profit and civic organizations, volunteers, and local businesses together in efforts to maintain and continually increase the preservation of historic buildings and land conservation.”

The city of Rochester, long known as the Lilac City, has become one of the fastest growing cities in New Hampshire, and the city has undertaken protection of its historic, scenic and cultural assets, while attracting high quality commercial, residential and industrial development.

“Rochester residents have a strong sense of volunteerism, supporting causes that make the city a livable and friendly place,” McQuaid said. “Keep a watch on Rochester. It is a special community with a bold vision for its future.”

Starting soon after noon, members of the American Legion Riders of Conway and Red Knights and Blue Knights strode into the memorial plaza, after having taken part in the Watching Over Us Motorcycle Ride from Laconia. The ride honored victims of 9/11, fallen police and firefighters.

Col. Richard Martell, commander of the NH Air National Guard, said that he had been to the park as a child and had seen the Old Man, but hadn't realized the park was dedicated to veterans in 1928.

To commemorate this, children from Lafayette Elementary School in Franconia sang “The Old Man of the Mountain,” first performed at that 1928 ceremony.

John DeVivo, emcee of the first event and general manager of Franconia State Park, said his brother had served two tours in Iraq, and asked people to thank servicemen and women whenever they see them.

Several spoke about the Old Man of the Mountain, and what New Hampshire's iconic symbol meant to state and area before it slid off the mountainside in 2003.

Legacy Fund Chairman Dick Hamilton noted the work on the plaza, with its granite pavers and profilers, was done without any state or federal funds, Hamilton added.

The plaza is laid with more than 250 engraved granite blocks purchased by people, companies and organizations who are now a part of the enduring legacy for future generations of the Old Man of the Mountain.


----------



## threecy (Jun 14, 2011)

Black Phantom said:


> Col. Richard Martell, commander of the NH Air National Guard, said that he had been to the park as a child and had seen the Old Man, but hadn't realized the park was dedicated to veterans in 1928.



This is something I've found very interesting.  Apart from a small plaque mounted on a rock that's sinking into Profile Lake (adjacent to the new Old Man memorial).

The park was dedicated as "Franconia Notch Forest Reservation and Memorial Park" in 1928.

It appears that, circa the late 1950s, the name was simplified to "Franconia Notch State Park."


----------



## Puck it (Jun 14, 2011)

threecy said:


> This is something I've found very interesting. Apart from a small plaque mounted on a rock that's sinking into Profile Lake (adjacent to the new Old Man memorial).
> 
> The park was dedicated as "Franconia Notch Forest Reservation and Memorial Park" in 1928.
> 
> It appears that, circa the late 1950s, the name was simplified to "Franconia Notch State Park."


 
Show me the proof! I want to see the data!!!


----------



## threecy (Jun 14, 2011)

This is the extent of the honoring of veterans with the park:


----------



## threecy (Jun 14, 2011)

Cross-posted from SnowJournal


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 14, 2011)

would debt payments go away with a lease?


----------



## Black Phantom (Jun 14, 2011)

witch hobble said:


> Can libel be committed to an internet handle with an avatar?  Would that hold up anywhere?



Yes. And Yes.

You are not immune from the law because you are using an internet handle.


----------



## threecy (Jun 14, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> would debt payments go away with a lease?



Good question...it depends upon how the lease is handled.  In the very least, the debt payments would decrease as the bonds roll off the books.  No new bonds would be needed, as further investment would come out of the pockets of the private sector operator (as was the case with the quad chairlifts and lodge at Sunapee).

It should also be noted that there is additional debt not included in that chart, as it was treated as a direct taxpayer back bond, rather than a Cannon Capital Account backed bond.


----------



## AdironRider (Jun 14, 2011)

Black Phantom said:


> Yes. And Yes.
> 
> You are not immune from the law because you are using an internet handle.



Good luck. Try proving someone was on a given computer at any given time.


----------



## SIKSKIER (Jun 15, 2011)

*Sorry Threecy*

I can't find anything online to back this up but my sister just came back from lunch and said she heard on NPR that the state had dropped the Cannon lease out of that bill.That's all I have right now but it looks like smarter heads prevailed in this round.I hope.

After further searching here is one article I found.This is the link and I won't make you search for it or pay for it.
http://www.firsttracksonline.com/20...f-proposal-to-lease-cannon-mountain-ski-area/

New Hampshire Lawmakers Back Off Proposal to Lease Cannon Mountain Ski Area
June 15, 2011
By First Tracks!! Online Media
Concord, NH - New Hampshire state lawmakers on Wednesday passed a state budget that funds Cannon Mountain Ski Area through 2013, and in so doing removed a Senate proposal to lease the state-owned resort in Franconia Notch to a private operator.

Negotiators from both the state House and Senate agreed that the matter should be debated in a new bill to be introduced next year.


(photo: Cannon Mountain)
The issue of privatizing Cannon Mountain, part of Franconia Notch State Park has been discussed in hushed tones for years, but facing necessary budget cuts the legislature this year introduced a bill in an attempt to force the issue. While in years past the ski area consistently lost money, its operations have resulted in annual profits in recent years and by some accounts visitation in 2010-11 set a record. Advocates for privatization argue that while the ski area earned a $1 million profit this winter, the state can’t afford to shell out for necessary capital improvements to the resort. Proponents advocate pumping the proposed lease payments for Cannon Mountain back into the state’s park system. New Hampshire Governor John Lynch has previously voiced his opposition to privatizing Cannon.

The State of New Hampshire actually owns two ski areas. The second, Mount Sunapee in the southern town of Newbury, has been leased since 1998 to Triple Peaks LLC, the family owned conglomerate that owns and operates Okemo Mountain in Ludlow, Vt., and Crested Butte Mountain Resort in Colorado. Profits from that lease are reinvested into Cannon Mountain.

Related stories:

1.N.H. Lawmakers Propose Privatizing Cannon Mountain Ski Area
2.Second Death in a Week on New Hampshire’s Cannon Mountain
3.Cannon Mountain Breaks Ground for New Mittersill Double Chairlift
4.Cannon Mountain Opens Mittersill Lift
5.Mass. Man Killed While Skiing in New Hampshire
Leave a Reply Cancel replyYou must be logged in to post a comment.


----------



## threecy (Jun 15, 2011)

SIKSKIER said:


> I can't find anything online to back this up but my sister just came back from lunch and said she heard on NPR that the state had dropped the Cannon lease out of that bill.That's all I have right now but it looks like smarter heads prevailed in this round.I hope.



The Cannon Mountain lease will likely be removed from HB1 and HB2 and instead be debated separately at a later time.  

http://www.unionleader.com/article/20110615/NEWS06/110619956


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 15, 2011)

From Twitter:  



> *NHPRNews* NHPR News
> 
> 
> 
> *#nhbudget* Budget negotiators have stripped leasing Cannon Mtn from budget. Agree the plan should be introduced as bill next year.


----------



## SIKSKIER (Jun 15, 2011)

While I was searching I saw this statement from John DeVivo.If it has been poted before I apologize.

News & Media
Email Newsletter
Cannon Cam Shot
Photo Gallery
Video
Press Releases
Proposed Cannon Lease

Proposed Cannon Lease 
Proposed Leasing of Cannon Mountain Ski Operations - Updated June 10, 2011

The NH Senate recently introduced an amendment to the State's current budget bill - HB2. That amendment would require the State to lease the ski operations of Cannon Mountain, effective July 1, 2012.

The State Budget, which includes the amendment regarding the leasing of Cannon, is currently being deliberated by members of the House and Senate.

Below is a statement from Cannon's General Manager, regarding our position:

As the General Manager at Cannon Mountain Ski Area and Franconia Notch State Park, I think it's time for the general public to hear our official position on the leasing amendment that was attached to the State's 2012/13 budget currently under consideration by the Legislature.

Our mission since 2007 at Cannon has been very simple: rebuild the company from the inside out; establish and maintain a long-term plan for profitability while providing a value-based recreation experience for in-state and out-of-state visitors; and vigilantly protect the character and integrity of Franconia Notch. 

We've made vast improvements upon our terrain diversity, our management and marketing, our snowmaking and grooming, our service and infrastructure, and our community relations and business partnerships. The public has responded very well, and the numbers don't lie. Our skier visits, season pass sales, total revenue and net profits have risen steadily, and we’ve turned a nearly $1.5 Million deficit into a nearly $1 Million surplus within just four years... a 250% improvement. We’ve also revitalized Mittersill and added 50% more terrain to the ski area. We’ve done all of this with value in mind, and have scored the top ranking in the East for value for four years running in the SKI Magazine Readers’ Poll.

We've been successful thus far, and we aim to continue. We have a lot to do over the next few years before we’ve maximized upon our potential, and we relish the challenge. Our goal is to attract 25% more visitors to the ‘Notch over the next several years while maintaining its pristine character. Many of us on the management team have either come to work in the ‘Notch or returned here for the same reason – we love it here, and we’re privileged to work in what we feel is “New Hampshire’s most beautiful office.” We operate Cannon Mountain and Franconia Notch State Park (FNSP) as a singular operating unit, with shared assets, resources, personnel, costs, maintenance and infrastructure. Cannon/FNSP operates unlike any other park within the State's Division of Parks and Recreation, and it generates nearly sixty percent of the annual revenue of the entire park system. 

Cannon is the epicenter of New Hampshire's flagship State Park, and to separate the Ski Area from the State Park itself would have serious negative long-term operational, logistical and financial effects on both the Park and the Division. The Park’s headquarters, IT infrastructure, management team and primary maintenance facilities are located at Cannon. Additionally, the costs associated with freezing our rates, zeroing our budget and entering a lease may very quickly add up to nearly $2 Million during fiscal years 2012 and 2013. We’re also concerned over the millions in potential losses in discounts and philanthropy that may affect New Hampshire residents and organizations over several decades during a leasing agreement.

In short, we're a self-funded, self-managed, State-owned success story that has utilized all means available to reinvest in itself, revitalize the North Country economy, draw visitors from around the world, and make New Hampshire proud, and we've done so with no negative impact upon the State's general fund. Over the last four years, Cannon’s average annual net profit has exceeded the Mount Sunapee lease payment to the State, yet there are many who point to the leasing of Mount Sunapee as the business model of choice. We’ve shown that for a great many operational, logistical and financial reasons, a leasing model simply will not work at Cannon/FNSP.

With due respect and trust toward the effort and support offered to the State and its residents by the Legislature, we feel that the leasing of Cannon Mountain Ski Area is not what's best for the overall long-term health of Cannon/FNSP, the New Hampshire Division of Parks and Recreation, or Franconia Notch itself, and that it’s not what’s best for New Hampshire. We've made this position clear to the Legislature, and felt it’d best be made clear to the general public.

John DeVivo, General Manager
Cannon Mountain Ski Area and Franconia Notch State Park

I couldn't agree more JD


----------



## threecy (Jun 15, 2011)

Where did you see this?  _Edit, nevermind, they posted it using state funds on a state-owned web site:  http://www.cannonmt.com/lease.html_



SIKSKIER said:


> In short, we're a self-funded, self-managed


We know this to be an incorrect statement, as millions have been poured into the mountain in recent years from non-Cannon-generated-funds.




SIKSKIER said:


> Over the last four years, Cannon’s average annual net profit has exceeded the Mount Sunapee lease payment to the State, yet there are many who point to the leasing of Mount Sunapee as the business model of choice.


Amazing.  Firstly, the Sunapee lease money is used within Cannon's results (sort of like someone saying that our two paychecks combined are more than your paycheck).  Secondly, it's an interesting statement, even when using Cannon's incomplete operating numbers:


----------



## SIKSKIER (Jun 15, 2011)

threecy said:


> Where did you see this?  _Edit, nevermind, they posted it using state funds on a state-owned web site:  http://www.cannonmt.com/lease.html_



Well ya.And imagine the nerve of the guy that posted it was being paid by the state.Hey,while you at busting him for using state money funds,I'll say those legislature have the nerve to be wasting my money trying to backdoor this lease and piggyback on this bill.Give me a break will you.

Here's your link.I should tell you to go find it yourself like you tell other menmbers here.
http://www.cannonmt.com/lease.html


----------



## jack97 (Jun 15, 2011)

SIKSKIER said:


> Well ya.And imagine the nerve of the guy that posted it was being paid by the state.Hey,while you at busting him for using state money funds,I'll say those legislature have the nerve to be wasting my money trying to backdoor this lease and piggyback on this bill.Give me a break will you.



+1...  At least some in the state leg has some common sense in that they will bring up the Cannon lease as a seperate bill for future debate. Morse doing this backdoor trick was a big a money waste. Hope the voters have long memories.


----------



## Black Phantom (Jun 15, 2011)

SIKSKIER said:


> Well ya.And imagine the nerve of the guy that posted it was being paid by the state.Hey,while you at busting him for using state money funds,I'll say those legislature have the nerve to be wasting my money trying to backdoor this lease and piggyback on this bill.Give me a break will you.
> 
> Here's your link.I should tell you to go find it yourself like you tell other menmbers here.
> http://www.cannonmt.com/lease.html



NH State Legislature is not a full time paid position.


----------



## jack97 (Jun 15, 2011)

Black Phantom said:


> NH State Legislature is not a full time paid position.



this is what I found.....

Senators are paid $100 a year, as stipulated by the New Hampshire Constitution. Senators also receive mileage reimbursement for officially related travel. 

Factor in the housing for them to meet and debate such issues, the electricity and fuel bill to perform such debate. Hopefully these cost are are place in the proper summer/winter operations columns of the spread sheet.

Now we have to compare this cost to the cost of posting the FNSP's position on thier own web site..... sounds petty to me.


----------



## AdironRider (Jun 15, 2011)

Black Phantom said:


> NH State Legislature is not a full time paid position.



Theres more to the cost than just the 100 bucks a state legislator makes. This little backdoor attempt at a deal probably has cost the state thousands once you break it all down. Shit, just the paper it was printed on for all the state folks whove handled the thing probably cost more than that.


----------



## threecy (Jun 15, 2011)

jack97 said:


> this is what I found.....
> 
> Senators are paid $100 a year, as stipulated by the New Hampshire Constitution. Senators also receive mileage reimbursement for officially related travel.
> 
> Factor in the housing for them to meet and debate such issues



Housing?  Which Senators get housing?

They do, however, get free skiing for themselves and a guest at Cannon.


----------



## threecy (Jun 15, 2011)

jack97 said:


> +1...  At least some in the state leg has some common sense in that they will bring up the Cannon lease as a seperate bill for future debate. Morse doing this backdoor trick was a big a money waste. Hope the voters have long memories.



Backdoor trick?  There's about $5 million per year in the budget for Cannon, not including the $500K or so they want draw from the Sunapee lease this year, or the $6.5 million they're requesting from the state capital budget...


----------



## hrstrat57 (Jun 17, 2011)

Wow, checking back in on my little pet here.

I guess I got what I asked for, opinions of NH residents......

(even tho I typo'd in my post #1)

Carry on


----------



## AdironRider (Jun 17, 2011)

threecy said:


> Backdoor trick?  There's about $5 million per year in the budget for Cannon, not including the $500K or so they want draw from the Sunapee lease this year, or the $6.5 million they're requesting from the state capital budget...



Which breaks down to a grand total of $.66 per person. Your argument here is getting old. You lost. Boo hoo.

Just made a charitable donation to the state for 1.32. Covers mine and your share Threecy, even put your name on it. The state appreciates your enthusiasm for keeping Cannon the way it is.


----------



## threecy (Jun 17, 2011)

AdironRider said:


> Which breaks down to a grand total of $.66 per person. Your argument here is getting old. You lost. Boo hoo.
> 
> Just made a charitable donation to the state for 1.32. Covers mine and your share Threecy, even put your name on it. The state appreciates your enthusiasm for keeping Cannon the way it is.



You left out one of your trademark personal attacks.


----------



## AdironRider (Jun 17, 2011)

That post was for charity.


----------



## MadPadraic (Jun 20, 2011)

threecy said:


> Housing?  Which Senators get housing?
> 
> They do, however, get free skiing for themselves and a guest at Cannon.



Do you think this is a needless perk considering they already get paid $100? 

More seriously, what effect would you have a privately manged Cannon having on the local competition?


----------



## threecy (Jun 21, 2011)

MadPadraic said:


> Do you think this is a needless perk considering they already get paid $100?



Fortunately, my State Senators have been in favor of putting the state ahead of their perks.


----------



## SIKSKIER (Jun 21, 2011)

Hmmm,sure is quiet on this thread now.A real nice quiet.


----------



## threecy (Jun 21, 2011)

SIKSKIER said:


> Hmmm,sure is quiet on this thread now.A real nice quiet.



I imagine things will be louder when a separate bill is introduced this winter.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 21, 2011)

threecy said:


> I imagine things will be louder when a separate bill is introduced this winter.


 
Meh.  I imagine that as long as Lynch is in office it will not happen once again.  They have bigger priorities.  If Cannon was losing lots of money, then maybe.  But he is opposed to the lease.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 21, 2011)

And looks like folks are using the ski trails in the off-season.  From Cannon's FB page:


----------



## threecy (Jun 21, 2011)

thetrailboss said:


> Meh.  I imagine that as long as Lynch is in office it will not happen once again.  They have bigger priorities.  If Cannon was losing lots of money, then maybe.  But he is opposed to the lease.



You're overestimating the power of the Governor in a state that has a Republican House, Senate, and Executive Council.



			
				Union Leader said:
			
		

> Senate Finance Committee chairman Sen. Chuck Morse, R-Salem, said he will pull a leasing requirement out of the pending budget bills.
> 
> The understanding with the House is that a bill dealing only with the leasing issue will come forward in January. With that agreement, the issue of a Cannon lease should no longer serve as a stumbling point in budget talks.



Also, Cannon is costing the state millions of dollars.  In FY11, for instance, Cannon is forecasting a $1M operating "profit."  The operating profit doesn't include $0.5M of Cannon capital account debt payments and $1.5M of state capital account spending in FY11, nor does it include an estimated depreciation expense of $300K.

Not only that, but DRED is preparing to ask the state for $6.5M in additional Cannon state capital spending in the next few years, in addition to more Cannon capital account debt spending.

New Hampshire can't afford to be in the ski business anymore.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 21, 2011)

but they can afford a 14.5M bath house and concert stage at Hampton Beach????

checked it out this past weekend.  going to be awesome.  North bathrooms are already done.  Nicer bathrooms than I've seen at any beach I've ever been to.


----------



## threecy (Jun 21, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> but they can afford a 14.5M bath house and concert stage at Hampton Beach????
> 
> checked it out this past weekend.  going to be awesome.  North bathrooms are already done.  Nicer bathrooms than I've seen at any beach I've ever been to.



I suspect if the $14.5M had requested during this legislative session, it would have been rejected.

The new budget looks to be a double digit percentage cut.


----------



## jack97 (Jun 21, 2011)

thetrailboss said:


> And looks like folks are using the ski trails in the off-season.  From Cannon's FB page:



hmmm..... I think the state should get out of the hang-gliding business.


----------



## Cannonball (Jun 21, 2011)

thetrailboss said:


> And looks like folks are using the ski trails in the off-season.  From Cannon's FB page:



Good thing they aren't_ respected figures in the hiking community_.


----------



## threecy (Jun 22, 2011)

Ah, so it's okay to hang-glide off the ski trails at Cannon, but it's dangerous and environmentally bad to walk on them?


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 22, 2011)

I'd imagine you and all of your respected hiking community friends are outraged.  Have you drafted a letter to JD over this evidence of blatant discrimination posted on their facebook page?


----------



## Black Phantom (Jun 22, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> but they can afford a 14.5M bath house and concert stage at Hampton Beach????
> 
> checked it out this past weekend.  going to be awesome.  North bathrooms are already done.  Nicer bathrooms than I've seen at any beach I've ever been to.



You hang out in public bathrooms or just cruizin' through?  Spending too much time in a public restroom can land you in a heap of trouble.

Watch the stance.:razz:


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 22, 2011)

If some stranger leans over next to you at the urinal and says "Nice Watch", it might be me


----------



## Black Phantom (Jun 22, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> If some stranger leans over next to you at the urinal and says "Nice Watch", it might be me


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 22, 2011)

threecy said:
			
		

> Ah, so it's okay to hang-glide off the ski trails at Cannon, but it's dangerous and environmentally bad to walk on them?


 


deadheadskier said:


> I'd imagine you and all of your respected hiking community friends are outraged. Have you drafted a letter to JD over this evidence of blatant discrimination posted on their facebook page?


 
In all seriousness this might be a sign that the policy is no more.


----------



## threecy (Jun 22, 2011)

thetrailboss said:


> In all seriousness this might be a sign that the policy is no more.



As of yesterday afternoon, the signs are still up, so the policy is still very much in effect.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 22, 2011)

Why not write JD and ask what's up?


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 22, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> Why not write JD and ask what's up?


 
+ 1.  Can't hurt.  With all the attention to the lease proposal it will be interesting to get his take.  Or you can ask him in the AZ Challenge.


----------



## threecy (Jun 22, 2011)

The question has been asked in recent months.  It would be interesting to see it posted publicly though.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 22, 2011)

Why they allow hang gliders and not hikers has been asked of JD?


----------



## threecy (Jun 22, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> Why they allow hang gliders and not hikers has been asked of JD?



Oh, no, I thought the question was in the context of trailboss's post.


----------



## Black Phantom (Jun 22, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> Why they allow hang gliders and not hikers has been asked of JD?



You speak of him as if you are old pals. If that is the case, and you are pals, why not give him a call and ask. 

Or would you prefer to just haggle with and harass the poster?


----------



## WWF-VT (Jun 22, 2011)

threecy said:


> Ah, so it's okay to hang-glide off the ski trails at Cannon, but it's dangerous and environmentally bad to walk on them?



They walk up and fly down so they do only 50% of the environmental damage of a hiker


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 22, 2011)

He's the only one in the thread that has a problem with hiking at Cannon.  I'd imagine he'd be quite pissed to see them advertising hang gliding from the slopes on facebook.  Seems logical he'd ask Cannon what's up no?


----------



## threecy (Jun 22, 2011)

Black Phantom said:


> Or would you prefer to just haggle with and harass the poster?



I think you nailed it!


----------



## ceo (Jun 22, 2011)

WWF-VT said:


> They walk up and fly down so they do only 50% of the environmental damage of a hiker



Less than that; I assume they take the tram up. A packed-up hang glider will fit in the tram, no problem. Strikes me as an ideal place for it, for that reason. And, there are a lot less hang-gliding people than there are hikers, so allowing the former strikes me as entirely consistent with a policy that (presumably) attempts to maximize recreational opportunities while protecting the trails from erosion.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 22, 2011)

threecy said:


> I think you nailed it!



nope

you've cried 47 times in this thread about how the mountain is off limits to hikers.  Figured pictures on Facebook showing hang gliders would be fairly upsetting to you.


----------



## bobbutts (Jun 22, 2011)

DHS is a pretty effective troll and clearly Threecy invites it as he'll continue to respond infinitely.  It's strange to see that behavior from a forum moderator, but I'm all for it as I'm dead bored.


----------



## threecy (Jun 22, 2011)

ceo said:


> a policy that (presumably) attempts to maximize recreational opportunities while protecting the trails from erosion.



Waterville and Wildcat are also located on 4,000 foot mountains.  The Polecat at Wildcat is heavily hiked year-round and shows virtually zero erosion.


----------



## jack97 (Jun 22, 2011)

I think the tax payers of NH is wasting money on the state park system...... the amount of visits to these places does not justify everyone in the state having to pay for it. 

Perhaps they can lease these parks to a private operator and use the Disney World model where everything in nature is emulated and geared for the tourist industry so that a revenue stream is ensured.  Imagine the money they can make from the Flumes with this model.


----------



## campgottagopee (Jun 22, 2011)

bobbutts said:


> DHS is a pretty effective troll and clearly Threecy invites it as he'll continue to respond infinitely.  It's strange to see that behavior from a forum moderator, but I'm all for it as I'm dead bored.



Careful, they don’t like the truth around here


----------



## snoseek (Jun 22, 2011)

campgottagopee said:


> Careful, they don’t like the truth around here



Troll, really?
He's just putting up an argument. At least that's how I feel.....


----------



## Black Phantom (Jun 23, 2011)

snoseek said:


> Troll, really?
> He's just putting up an argument. At least that's how I feel.....


----------



## Black Phantom (Jun 23, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> nope
> 
> you've cried 47 times in this thread about how the mountain is off limits to hikers.  Figured pictures on Facebook showing hang gliders would be fairly upsetting to you.



He has not "cried" once, never mind 47 times,  and has responded to your harassment quite calmly. It is obvious for all to see that you have it out for him.  Much to be said for his unwillingness to take your bait.

Leasing Cannon is a legitimate debate despite your attempts to vilify an opposing viewpoint.


----------



## hrstrat57 (Jun 23, 2011)

This is a pretty entertaining thread for a ski forum in the summer no?


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 23, 2011)

Black Phantom said:


> He has not "cried" once, never mind 47 times,  and has responded to your harassment quite calmly. It is obvious for all to see that you have it out for him.  Much to be said for his unwillingness to take your bait.
> 
> Leasing Cannon is a legitimate debate despite your attempts to vilify an opposing viewpoint.



Think what you want BP

Threecy has done his fair share of patronizing folks with opposing view points as well.  I'm sure Cannonball and Puck It would agree with me.  But, of course as a moderator, people like you will hold me to a higher decorum.  I am who I am, take it or leave it.  The title under my name does not change that.

but, my part of this entertaining thread has come to a close.  It's like discussing religion; people rarely change their beliefs.

waste of my time.  Cannon could show a billion dollar profit and threecy will still believe a private enterprise would earn a billion and one.  

So, it's a pointless discussion for me to be having with him.  If Cannon doesn't end up getting leased after it's revisited next year, I'll send threecy his $1.  State has far greater problems than Cannon.


----------



## AdironRider (Jun 23, 2011)

Man and I thought I killed this thread with a little charitible donation. I wasnt kidding about that by the way, although the closest I could reasonably come up with was donating towards a man on the mountain memorial. Eh well. 

Threecy's showed his true colors here, hes got beef extending back from the Ossipee trails thing, and will extend it to anything else that he disapproves that the state handles. 

He lost anyways, the lease rider was removed from the bill. He can continue to spout sour grapes if he so desires.


----------



## threecy (Jun 23, 2011)

AdironRider said:


> Threecy's showed his true colors here, hes got beef extending back from the Ossipee trails thing, and will extend it to anything else that he disapproves that the state handles.



No.  Rather, you've shown your true colors - you have a beef with me (which is actually pretty freaky, considering I don't believe we've ever so much as met) and have nothing of substance to provide to the discussion.



AdironRider said:


> He lost anyways, the lease rider was removed from the bill. He can continue to spout sour grapes if he so desires.


Once again, you show you have no clue what you're talking about and would rather fabricate things to further your agenda, whatever it is.


----------



## MadPadraic (Jun 28, 2011)

I wonder what a private operator would do with spring skiing? Cannon went just as long as Loon this year, but could have gone longer.  Sunapee closed a week earlier.


----------



## UVSHTSTRM (Jun 29, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> keep buying documents off of Concord.  It doesn't change the big picture for me.
> 
> NH State budget is 10.2 Billion dollars.  10.2 Billion.
> 
> ...



While this could be a small amount of change in the grand scheme of things, couldn't this also be the difference between keeping a few state troopers from being laid off? a few teachers  from being laid off?, etc?  On top of that it's not like the place is being shuttered and everyone laid off.  I find it to be a better alternative then actually cutting jobs in one spot to get $600g's so you can fund other positions for another part of the government, no?  This is completely hypothetical and if it were put to a statewide vote I really am not sure what way I would vote, both sides have very valid arguments.  I guess my greater concern, which I have stated before is, how or better yet who would want to take on Cannon Mountain from a private perspective?  From what I have gathered it is a financial loser now without having pay taxes, a lease fee, etc.  I would be curious to see if the leasees would be allowed to add a hotel, extra bars, housing properties, etc.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 29, 2011)

there's no right answer

threecy is right, I'm right, you're right.  No way to prove one belief is better than an other.

that's why we are on page 75 of the thread :lol:


----------



## threecy (Jun 29, 2011)

UVSHTSTRM said:


> While this could be a small amount of change in the grand scheme of things, couldn't this also be the difference between keeping a few state troopers from being laid off? a few teachers  from being laid off?, etc?  On top of that it's not like the place is being shuttered and everyone laid off.



If you look at how much Cannon has cost us over the past decade, and how much they're expected to ask for in the next 5-6 years, it's a pretty large sum - a $6.7M+ cost to the state over the past decade (above and beyond Cannon operating revenues) and a projected $9.5M+ cost to the state over the next 3 bienniums (assuming Cannon doesn't have a single bad snow year).

The Senate Finance Committee Chairman said on the floor that the state cannot afford the future spending requests.

Considering the state budget will be cut by 11%, now more than ever we cannot afford to keep funding a ski area.




UVSHTSTRM said:


> I guess my greater concern, which I have stated before is, how or better yet who would want to take on Cannon Mountain from a private perspective?  From what I have gathered it is a financial loser now without having pay taxes, a lease fee, etc.  I would be curious to see if the leasees would be allowed to add a hotel, extra bars, housing properties, etc.



Firstly, I don't think you'll ever see an real estate development with Cannon (aside from the already-built Mittersill complex).  The opponents to the lease have long been using this as a scare tactic, when they absolutely know the ski area is landlocked (the Sunapee debate was over expanding the ski area onto privately held, undeveloped property).

Secondly, private operators spend their own money, not OPM (other people's money).  I tend to go back to the $2.6M Mittersill lift - even the non-state funded portion could have significant improved Cannon's snowmaking (which, as far as the spending records I have show, hasn't been significantly expanded since the last average snow years, in which Cannon was deep in the red).  There are other things too - such as not having the state government allegedly pay a seasonal ski area employee $37,000 in benefits.  Or, perhaps, running a ski school at a normal industry high margin, rather than an annual loss.


----------



## bobbutts (Jun 29, 2011)

MadPadraic said:


> I wonder what a private operator would do with spring skiing? Cannon went just as long as Loon this year, but could have gone longer.  Sunapee closed a week earlier.



Sunapee has been good at keeping things open when snow allows in spring the last few years.  They extended for extra weekends a few years back when we had a bunch of snow.

Remember their summit is 2600', they are not too far north, and it's mostly low angle.  Not exactly a spring mecca, they do well with what they have imo.


----------



## Puck it (Jun 29, 2011)

bobbutts said:


> Sunapee has been good at keeping things open when snow allows in spring the last few years. They extended for extra weekends a few years back when we had a bunch of snow.
> 
> Remember their summit is 2600', they are not too far north, and it's mostly low angle. Not exactly a spring mecca, they do well with what they have imo.


 
Would the private operator open early.  They have the infrastructure in place all ready to compete with K-ton and SR.  It would be interesting if they would.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 29, 2011)

They definitely have the elevation and upper mountain lift to be an early player.  As good of a set up as anywhere really.  Do they have the right kind of snowmaking guns?  I though some worked better in warmer temps than others, but I no very little about snowmaking technology.


----------



## Puck it (Jun 29, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> They definitely have the elevation and upper mountain lift to be an early player. As good of a set up as anywhere really. Do they have the right kind of snowmaking guns? I though some worked better in warmer temps than others, but I no very little about snowmaking technology.


 
They do not have the latest tech for sure.  That would be a necessary investment for a private operator and one hindrance for opening early.


----------



## witch hobble (Jun 29, 2011)

This thread has legs.  I thought it might die off after the lease proposal was removed.

Alright, so in the interest of making this last all summer, lets make a list of our own personal, value added ideas that could be "written into the lease"!!!!

Do I hear a Nov. 1st opening?  Weather permitting of course.

First weekend of May closing?  Sounds possible.

WHat else?


----------



## Puck it (Jun 29, 2011)

witch hobble said:


> This thread has legs. I thought it might die off after the lease proposal was removed.
> 
> Alright, so in the interest of making this last all summer, lets make a list of our own personal, value added ideas that could be "written into the lease"!!!!
> 
> ...


 
Keep the liberal look away policy on runs.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 29, 2011)

$30 NH resident Sunday Afternoon special


----------



## threecy (Jun 29, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> Do they have the right kind of snowmaking guns?  I though some worked better in warmer temps than others, but I no very little about snowmaking technology.



Their snowmaking system is antiquated and, as far as I can tell, is no better equipped to deal with a bad winter than the last time they had a bad winter (and lost lots of money).

They're preparing to request $4M from State Taxpayers, as well as probably a few million dollars more in debt from the Cannon Capital Account, in the next few years, to fund a new snowmaking system.


----------



## Nick (Jun 29, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> Why they allow hang gliders and not hikers has been asked of JD?



Do they allow paragliders as well? Hmmm... I might have to head out there 

 I actually completely forgot about that. I think it's an advanced site since the launch is really restricted for PG's.


----------



## Northernflight (Jun 30, 2011)

As far as early season skiing goes, how well would the Canonball handle a large line? It seems like there would be no place to put a good number of people waiting for the lift? I would love to see Cannon open earl yer, they do tend to get open at a reasonable time but that would be pretty sweet.


----------



## bigbob (Jun 30, 2011)

Northernflight said:


> As far as early season skiing goes, how well would the Canonball handle a large line? It seems like there would be no place to put a good number of people waiting for the lift? I would love to see Cannon open earl yer, they do tend to get open at a reasonable time but that would be pretty sweet.



Proably better than the top of the triple at Sunday River!


----------



## Puck it (Jun 30, 2011)

bigbob said:


> Proably better than the top of the triple at Sunday River!



And no worse then the Glade chair at K-ton.


----------



## Puck it (Jun 30, 2011)

They also could have stayed opened to the last week of April possibly this year with just the upper mountain.


----------



## SIKSKIER (Jun 30, 2011)

witch hobble said:


> Do I hear a Nov. 1st opening?  Weather permitting of course.
> First weekend of May closing?  Sounds possible.



In the interest of the last few posts,it should be noted that the STATE opened Cannon on Oct 31st 1 year and also closed in May not too long after.I have the tickets somewhere.


----------



## Puck it (Jun 30, 2011)

SIKSKIER said:


> In the interest of the last few posts,it should be noted that the STATE opened Cannon on Oct 31st 1 year and also closed in May not too long after.I have the tickets somewhere.


 

What years were those?  I do not remember them in recent history.


----------



## MadPadraic (Jun 30, 2011)

SIKSKIER said:


> In the interest of the last few posts,it should be noted that the STATE opened Cannon on Oct 31st 1 year and also closed in May not too long after.I have the tickets somewhere.



Is it October yet is it? Darn it...

Maybe the lease could have a newly installed glacier written in as a clause?


----------



## snoseek (Jun 30, 2011)

Puck it said:


> What years were those?  I do not remember them in recent history.



It was 91 if I recall correctly.


----------



## MadPadraic (Jul 1, 2011)

snoseek said:


> It was 91 if I recall correctly.



they should do it again.


----------



## bigbob (Jul 2, 2011)

I wonder how much longer it will be before this thread hits 100 pages...


----------



## Northernflight (Jul 3, 2011)

> Proably better than the top of the triple at Sunday River!



It would be cool to see them do it then. I don't have much experience with early season skiing other than Waterville and they have a large flat area for their summit double....although the terrain up there is a little lacking compared to what Cannon could do. 

So in all seriousness and putting aside the pro and con lease and do and don't Mittersille expansion, what are everyone thoughts and experiences about Mittersille now that it is integrated into Cannons trail system? I experienced it for the first time last year, ended up hiking over about 3 days before the lift opened and then played around on the new double over spring break. I thought it was a cool area with a lot to explore and discover. The only negative about the place is it really wasn't that steep. Keeping it natural and ungroomed made it interesting in a way I don't think it could being groomed out everyday. I hope they keep it more natural. I agree it was lost in the backcountry sense...because no matter what Cannons says it is not backcountry anymore, but I feel like it has added positively to the area in regards to overall experience. It makes Cannon seem that much bigger and I think it has achieved what they were originally shooting for and in my eyes succeed in that sense.


----------



## threecy (Jul 3, 2011)

Northernflight said:


> The only negative about the place is it really wasn't that steep. Keeping it natural and ungroomed made it interesting in a way I don't think it could being groomed out everyday. I hope they keep it more natural. I agree it was lost in the backcountry sense...because no matter what Cannons says it is not backcountry anymore, but I feel like it has added positively to the area in regards to overall experience.



Cannon is requesting $4M in taxpayer funds over the next three budgets to put in snowmaking and a new base area in Mittersill.  Rather than being the alleged backcountry (groomed and lift served) area it is today, it will be an under-served (1 double chairlift) intermediate mini-Cranmore.


----------



## riverc0il (Jul 3, 2011)

Northernflight said:


> So in all seriousness and putting aside the pro and con lease and do and don't Mittersille expansion, what are everyone thoughts and experiences about Mittersille now that it is integrated into Cannons trail system?


The Mittersill skiing experience is significantly worse than it used to be due to the increased traffic. Before the lift, 5 or 6 Mittersill runs was a very big day. Now you can do that many runs in two hours. Baron's used to be the only trail that bumped up and even that only mildly and later in the season. Now Mittersill is top to bottom bumps on most trails. Rocks are uncovered quicker due to higher traffic, etc. Whereas before most skiers stayed right, now they go everywhere. Trees that used to preserve snow days after a storm are played out in a few hours. Nothing has really changed over there except the lift and the lift line. But that did change everything. It is still a fun pod.



threecy said:


> Rather than being the alleged backcountry (groomed and lift served) area it is today, it will be an under-served (1 double chairlift) intermediate mini-Cranmore.


Ludicrous and laughable. Mittersill may not have pitch but to suggest Mittersill could potentially be a mini-Cranmore is just a stupid statement. You normally argue well threecy but that statement is just ignorant. Even if they make snow and groom the main routes (of which I am in favor of), that would still leave more than half the mountain natural and more trees than Cranmore could shake a stick at, besides not being an over crowded family oriented operation with a high speed lift. You argue that Mittersill is under utilized (it is) but grooming the main three routes with snow making would increase traffic substantially.


----------



## threecy (Jul 3, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> Ludicrous and laughable. Mittersill may not have pitch but to suggest Mittersill could potentially be a mini-Cranmore is just a stupid statement. You normally argue well threecy but that statement is just ignorant. Even if they make snow and groom the main routes (of which I am in favor of), that would still leave more than half the mountain natural and more trees than Cranmore could shake a stick at, besides not being an over crowded family oriented operation with a high speed lift. You argue that Mittersill is under utilized (it is) but grooming the main three routes with snow making would increase traffic substantially.



Unless something changes, I think you may see some stuff in the near future that may alter your view on this.

In regard to the Cranmore comparison, the Mittersill chair is about the same vertical as Cranmore's summit chairs.  Mittersill's topography is certainly more rolly, however.


----------



## Puck it (Jul 3, 2011)

threecy said:


> Unless something changes, I think you may see some stuff in the near future that may alter your view on this.
> 
> In regard to the Cranmore comparison, the Mittersill chair is about the same vertical as Cranmore's summit chairs.  Mittersill's topography is certainly more rolly, however.



What are you alluding too?  You speak like you know things but never say them. Spill it?  

Also, if someone does not like things going on at Cannon. Then do not ski there, it sucks anyways.


----------



## witch hobble (Jul 3, 2011)

Yeah.  No need to be coy, Roy.  Just hop off the bus, Gus.

As for Mittersill, let me preface by saying I had very little time, effort or emotion invested in the place as it used to be.  I think the mountain calling it lift  serviced backcountry was silly.  I think anybody who used to climb up and then stick to the obvious re-claimed trails, and then talk about it as a "backcountry" experience is silly too.

It would have been ugly if it had not been such a good snow year.  The moguls were everywhere.  I had a bunch of good runs over there, natural bump bashing in the sunshine.  I like slow double chairs.  I think that there is a coziness that encourages conversation and reflection that are often lost at places where the focus is on uphill capacity and speed.  I like the view off to the left, looking at the peabody lodge and slopes and down into the notch.  But I definitely think, as I'm sure almost everybody now feels,  there is going to need to be some grooming and snowmaking going on over there to make it viable.

Threecy, I guess I'm a different kind of "Taxpayer for Cannon".


----------



## Cannonball (Jul 4, 2011)

threecy said:


> Cannon is requesting $4M in taxpayer funds over the next three budgets to put in snowmaking and a new base area in Mittersill.  Rather than being the alleged backcountry (groomed and lift served) area it is today, it will be an under-served (1 double chairlift) intermediate mini-Cranmore.



That's pretty far-fetched.  What makes Cranmore, "Cranmore" is 1) its location in a major tourist town with other attractions, 2) tubing and other family activities, 3) night skiing, 4) a huge family-focused approach, 5) massive grooming and trail maintenance.

The only way Mittersill is going to turn into a mini-Cranmore is if something completely bizarre happens.....like leasing to a private operator.  Even then it would have to be a private operator with the intention of investing huge money to create all of those aspects listed above.  And given the restrictions on the land, it couldn't happen anyway.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 4, 2011)

Agreed that Cranmore is a bad comparison.  Even if they added 100% snowmaking and grooming it would be a bad comparison.  With such changes a better comparison would be Sterling Mountain at Smugglers Notch.


----------



## jack97 (Jul 4, 2011)

Northernflight said:


> .... The only negative about the place is it really wasn't that steep. Keeping it natural and ungroomed made it interesting in a way I don't think it could being groomed out everyday. I hope they keep it more natural. I agree it was lost in the backcountry sense...because no matter what Cannons says it is not backcountry anymore, but I feel like it has added positively to the area in regards to overall experience. It makes Cannon seem that much bigger and I think it has achieved what they were originally shooting for and in my eyes succeed in that sense.



Since mid 2000, local businesses have constantly argued that the area does not maximize its potential. Whether its kept as a public or a leased, they only way to get the visit count high is to develop Mittersil for consistent intermediate trails. This blows from my point of view but keeping the ski area public still makes this place a high value option as compare to Bretton Woods and Loon.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 4, 2011)

Agree with Jack completely.  That's the #1 reason why I am anti-lease.  Cannon would just become a steeper Sunapee.  B-O-R-I-N-G and expensive.  Mind you, I do love the seeded bumps at Sunapee.  But, it's truly the only redeeming quality of the area.


----------



## MadPadraic (Jul 4, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> Agree with Jack completely.  That's the #1 reason why I am anti-lease.  Cannon would just become a steeper Sunapee.  B-O-R-I-N-G and expensive.  Mind you, I do love the seeded bumps at Sunapee.  But, it's truly the only redeeming quality of the area.



What about the view? Especially early season before the lake is frozen.


----------



## Puck it (Jul 4, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> Agree with Jack completely.  That's the #1 reason why I am anti-lease.  Cannon would just become a steeper Sunapee.  B-O-R-I-N-G and expensive.  Mind you, I do love the seeded bumps at Sunapee.  But, it's truly the only redeeming quality of the area.



And very conservative in opening terrain at Sunapee.  This one thing that a lease would do.


----------



## jack97 (Jul 4, 2011)

MadPadraic said:


> What about the view? Especially early season before the lake is frozen.



that is a great view.... even in mid winter blue sky conditions. 

I think DHS's B.O.R.I.N.G was talking about the over grooming at sunapee. I have to admit, except for the seeded bumps and the glades near the seeded bumps, I don't know my way around the mountain.... the rest looks the same to me.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 4, 2011)

jack97 said:


> I think DHS's B.O.R.I.N.G was talking about the over grooming at sunapee. I have to admit, except for the seeded bumps and the glades near the seeded bumps, I don't know my way around the mountain.... the rest looks the same to me.


 
It is a good mountain for what they have now. They don't have the pitch or the consistent snow depth to really do anything else. The one season I was a passholder there I was happy, but the next season I went elsewhere because it just got boring doing the same thing over and over again and also having to get there early to beat the crowds. It is run well.

As to Cannon becoming a steeper Sunapee, I don't know.  They get more snow than Sunapee, but not as much as Vermont.  I haven't skied there since JD took over, but from what I see and hear they groom and blow more snow now.  Cannon has great terrain that Sunapee doesn't...but for the upper intermediate and expert crowd.  Cannon's beginner area is nicer IMHO as well.  But Sunapee has more of the blue cruisers...as in the easy, groomed flat, wide, predictable interstate highway runs.


----------



## threecy (Jul 4, 2011)

Cannonball said:


> That's pretty far-fetched.  What makes Cranmore, "Cranmore" is 1) its location in a major tourist town with other attractions, 2) tubing and other family activities, 3) night skiing, 4) a huge family-focused approach, 5) massive grooming and trail maintenance.
> 
> The only way Mittersill is going to turn into a mini-Cranmore is if something completely bizarre happens.....like leasing to a private operator.  Even then it would have to be a private operator with the intention of investing huge money to create all of those aspects listed above.  And given the restrictions on the land, it couldn't happen anyway.



Again, the vertical and steepness of Mittersill is comparable to Cranmore.  If snowmaking is installed and grooming continues, the main trails at Mittersill will be glorified intermediate trails, underserved by a double chairlift.



thetrailboss said:


> I haven't skied there since JD took over, but from what I see and hear they groom and blow more snow now.



The last time Cannon had average snowfall was prior to the new management taking over (the last 4 years have been significantly above average snowfall-wise per their metrics).

No significant sum has been invested in the snowmaking system (it is being requested from taxpayers in the next half decade).  If 2011-2012 ends up being bad weatherwise, I suspect conditions will be similar to what was experienced in the last set of average winters.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 4, 2011)

threecy said:


> Again, the vertical and steepness of Mittersill is comparable to Cranmore.  If snowmaking is installed and grooming continues, the main trails at Mittersill will be glorified intermediate trails, underserved by a double chairlift.
> .



Threecy,

You've got several Cannon regulars here stating Mittersill would be nothing like Cranmore, even with expanded snowmaking and grooming.

Spare us the hyperbole.  

Outside of their comparable vertical, the two areas are NOTHING alike.

This is almost as bad as your comparison of old Crotched Mountain to Sunday River.


----------



## Cannonball (Jul 4, 2011)

threecy said:


> Again, the vertical and steepness of Mittersill is comparable to Cranmore.  If snowmaking is installed and grooming continues, the main trails at Mittersill will be glorified intermediate trails, underserved by a double chairlift.



This thread has turned into a complete farce.  Can we all agree to just end it?


----------



## threecy (Jul 4, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> You've got several Cannon regulars here stating Mittersill would be nothing like Cranmore, even with expanded snowmaking and grooming.


The same Cannon regulars who denied anything was done to the upper Taft Trail?  And then they started grooming over the saddle?



deadheadskier said:


> Outside of their comparable vertical, the two areas are NOTHING alike.


Oh, so Cranmore is flat as a pancake and Mittersill is as steep as Castlerock?



deadheadskier said:


> This is almost as bad as your comparison of old Crotched Mountain to Sunday River.


Which comparison?  Perhaps one you're taking out of context?  No, you're too classy for that.


----------



## bobbutts (Jul 4, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> Agree with Jack completely.  That's the #1 reason why I am anti-lease.  Cannon would just become a steeper Sunapee.  B-O-R-I-N-G and expensive.  Mind you, I do love the seeded bumps at Sunapee.  But, it's truly the only redeeming quality of the area.



What a garbage post.. Cannon will never ever turn into Sunapee no matter who manages it.  Say what you want about Sunapee but before lease it was a B-O-R-I-N-G hill with bad lifts, bad snowmaking, bad marketing, etc.. Post it's the same B-O-R-I-N-G terrain, but with better snow and faster lifts.  Nobody is going to keep it from getting busy and scraped off on weekends, prices are reasonable, especially midweek passes, there are good specials.  Yes, it's just a tier below the most expensive places on weekends, but what do you want them to do? the demand is clearly there.  It seems like the people who work there and visit all love it, you are obviously too good for Sunapee busy hitting the extreme high peaks of Ragged and Gunstock and Shawnee peak or wherever else you go.


----------



## threecy (Jul 5, 2011)

bobbutts said:


> What a garbage post.. Cannon will never ever turn into Sunapee no matter who manages it.



I agree...it's funny that I'm called out for comparing the vertical and length of Cranmore vs. Mittersill, yet someone can say Cannon's terrain will become Sunapee's if privately run.


----------



## Puck it (Jul 5, 2011)

It does have legs.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 5, 2011)

bobbutts said:


> you are obviously too good for Sunapee busy hitting the extreme high peaks of Ragged and Gunstock and Shawnee peak or wherever else you go.



:lol:

yup, got me pegged


----------



## SIKSKIER (Jul 5, 2011)

*Things that are less painfull than this thread*

You'll excuse me while I have a couple root canals.We get it Threecy.You are not going to change any of the members minds here that don't agree with your position.The reverse is true also.If you feel that to continue down this road here helps your case,I think you are mistaken and the opposite is true.I think you need to find another outlet to unload your agenda on fresh ears.Mine have become deaf.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 5, 2011)

close the thread?

I think every angle that can be covered, has been covered.  Sikskier is correct.


----------



## bobbutts (Jul 5, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> close the thread?
> 
> I think every angle that can be covered, has been covered.  Sikskier is correct.



might as well just close down the whole forum while you're at it
I think we've discussed all the possible things there are to discuss about NE skiing


----------



## cannonist (Jul 5, 2011)

http://www.taxpayersforcannon.com/

Are you serious???


----------



## UVSHTSTRM (Jul 5, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> close the thread?
> 
> I think every angle that can be covered, has been covered.  Sikskier is correct.



Don't close it, it helps move the summer along, keeps the board alive while things are hot.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 5, 2011)

bobbutts said:


> might as well just close down the whole forum while you're at it
> I think we've discussed all the possible things there are to discuss about NE skiing



I asked a simple question.  

It is not uncommon for message forums to close topics when they reach a point where the only thing that the topic continues to generate are flame wars.  I've been guilty of it in this thread.  Threecy has and so have you.

There's really nothing more to accomplish with the thread as sikskier pointed out.


----------



## from_the_NEK (Jul 5, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> I asked a simple question.
> 
> It is not uncommon for message forums to close topics when they reach a point where the only thing that the topic continues to generate are flame wars.  I've been guilty of it in this thread.  Threecy has and so have you.
> 
> There's really nothing more to accomplish with the thread as sikskier pointed out.



Even though I have nothing of value to contribute to the content of this thread, I think closing threads that have devolved into a circular argument that has no resolution/agreement is bad idea for this forum. It does help pass the dull summer months. Just let the thread die out naturally (only to be resurrected the next time someone in NH gov decides to bring up leasing ).


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 5, 2011)

That's the feedback I was looking for.


----------



## threecy (Jul 5, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> It is not uncommon for message forums to close topics when they reach a point where the only thing that the topic continues to generate are flame wars.  I've been guilty of it in this thread.  Threecy has and so have you.



Ah, so responding to your flames means I'm guilty of participating in a flame war.  Got it.

If closing this thread helps you with self control, go for it.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 5, 2011)

threecy said:


> Ah, so responding to your flames means I'm guilty of participating in a flame war.  Got it.
> 
> If closing this thread helps you with self control, go for it.



:lol: 

who has a self control issue?

That jab certainly came without instigation on my part.


----------



## UVSHTSTRM (Jul 5, 2011)

Actually you can close this one down....word has it that another unrelated Cannon topic has arisen:-D.  The way it looks now, this topic will some how be tied in to the new Cannon topic.  Welcome to CannonZone, I mean AlpineZone.........it's all Cannon all the time!


----------



## riverc0il (Jul 5, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> close the thread?
> 
> I think every angle that can be covered, has been covered.  Sikskier is correct.


I say keep the thread open. At this point, threecy is doing more harm to his own arguments than anything else. But I may be biased in seeing that continue.


----------



## riverc0il (Jul 5, 2011)

UVSHTSTRM said:


> Welcome to CannonZone, I mean AlpineZone.........it's all Cannon all the time!


Now that is what I am talking about!! Woo!!

:beer:


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 5, 2011)

I don't really see any need to close the thread either.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 5, 2011)

Looks like Cannon has sponsored a local racer:


----------



## threecy (Jul 5, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> It is not uncommon for message forums to close topics when they reach a point where the only thing that the topic continues to generate are flame wars.  I've been guilty of it in this thread.  Threecy has and so have you.





threecy said:


> Ah, so responding to your flames means I'm guilty of participating in a flame war.  Got it.
> 
> If closing this thread helps you with self control, go for it.





deadheadskier said:


> :lol:
> 
> who has a self control issue?
> 
> That jab certainly came without instigation on my part.



Let's see, you said I was guilty of flame wars.  You'll note that any 'flames' posted by me in your direction are direct responses to you calling me out.  It's actually quite humourous to me at this point that I'm even bothering to respond to your posts.


----------



## AdironRider (Jul 5, 2011)

Why dont you go for a hike in Ossipee. Oh wait, you already screwed yourself there, so lets work on doing the exact same thing at Cannon. 

Pretty soon you'll just have to move. Im sure the state wont miss you.


----------



## threecy (Jul 5, 2011)

AdironRider said:


> Why dont you go for a hike in Ossipee. Oh wait, you already screwed yourself there, so lets work on doing the exact same thing at Cannon.



How did I 'screw' myself there?  Last I checked, with the exception of a field that's been posted in the Larcoms, every hiking trail I've hiked in the Ossipees is open.


----------



## MadPadraic (Jul 5, 2011)

threecy said:


> The last time Cannon had average snowfall was prior to the new management taking over (the last 4 years have been significantly above average snowfall-wise per their metrics).
> 
> No significant sum has been invested in the snowmaking system (it is being requested from taxpayers in the next half decade).  If 2011-2012 ends up being bad weatherwise, I suspect conditions will be similar to what was experienced in the last set of average winters.



Where can I find the snowfall record and average number? The chances of having above average snowfall four years in a row are 1/16, which would begin to suggest that your estimate of average snowfall is wrong.


----------



## MadPadraic (Jul 5, 2011)

Cannonball said:


> This thread has turned into a complete farce.  Can we all agree to just end it?



Please don't end this thread until at least October. What are we supposed to do between now and then?


----------



## Nick (Jul 5, 2011)

thetrailboss said:


> I don't really see any need to close the thread either.



Ditto. 

Sent from my Thunderbolt via Tapatalk


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 5, 2011)

threecy said:


> No, you're too classy for that.



Direct flame at me.  Not a 'return serve'.  I was critical of your opinions on Mitt/Cran and Crocth/Sunapee.  I didn't attack you personally at all to bring on that response.



threecy said:


> Let's see, you said I was guilty of flame wars.  You'll note that any 'flames' posted by me in your direction are direct responses to you calling me out.  It's actually quite humourous to me at this point that I'm even bothering to respond to your posts.



see above.


----------



## UVSHTSTRM (Jul 5, 2011)

MadPadraic said:


> Where can I find the snowfall record and average number? The chances of having above average snowfall four years in a row are 1/16, which would begin to suggest that your estimate of average snowfall is wrong.



I think threecy may be correct on this one, well sort of.  Not sure if i would use significantly in all those years, but the past two years have been I believe either at or above 200 inches, which is 40 inches above their average.  And these are not Threecy's numbers to fudge, these were posted by Cannon.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 5, 2011)

Cannon itself says annual average is 160 inches.  

http://www.cannonmt.com/cannon_info.html


----------



## Northernflight (Jul 5, 2011)

They also were the only ones getting decent snowfall early season last year in NH, The snow definitely had a positive effect on there profit but I don't think it is as much as Threecy is making it out to be. Well have to wait and see how Cannon does in a bad snow year with all the changes made in management. I think they'll do significantly better than the last string of snowless years.


----------



## MadPadraic (Jul 6, 2011)

UVSHTSTRM said:


> I think threecy may be correct on this one, well sort of.  Not sure if i would use significantly in all those years, but the past two years have been I believe either at or above 200 inches, which is 40 inches above their average.  And these are not Threecy's numbers to fudge, these were posted by Cannon.



In this case, I don't doubt that he's going on good historical data, but I wonder if what was average in the past is going to be very different from the future. 

I also wonder if above/below snow years have a tendency to repeat or revert idea: serial correlation). If so, do other ski regions exhibit this?


----------



## witch hobble (Jul 7, 2011)

Cannonball said:


> This thread has turned into a complete farce.  Can we all agree to just end it?



Sorry Cannonball.  The other thread is now the farce.  This one's title is not a rhetorical wedge like that one, with it's follow up pictures being "released" in soap opera format.  I'll continue to post over here.

Here are the points I am willing to concede to threecy, in order of their relative importance:

1 - They should clean up that debris and build some water bars in problem areas (with my tax dollars!! Me!Me!)

2 - They should offer more discounts to residents of NH.  But you know who might not be to keen on that idea?  Private ski area operators of NH.

3 - They should allow hiking on ski trails unless there is a specific, clear and present danger from the ski area operation.

4 - People can sometimes act like dicks toward you here on Alpine Zone, but I'm only a little sympathetic.  I believe it was that great philosopher Timothy Leary who said:"If you want to change the way people respond to you, change the way you respond to people."


Threecy's idea that many of the constituents of our elected reps view skiing as a sport of the wealthy elite is probably true.  But which is honestly a better vehicle to provide a more egalitarian ski experience, private industry or the state?  By leasing the area to a private operator you are essentially writing off big mountain skiing as a potential recreational activity for the budget conscious ski family, handing them over to the "see what the market will bear" mind set.

Cannon and the state of NH could definitely do a better job of promoting downhill skiing as a fun, healthy and affordable way to enjoy the cold, short days of winter.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 8, 2011)

AWESOME post Witch :beer:

couldn't have said it better


----------



## MadPadraic (Jul 12, 2011)

witch hobble said:


> 2 - They should offer more discounts to residents of NH.  But you know who might not be to keen on that idea?  Private ski area operators of NH.



I feel like they already offer a lot. They are 12% cheaper than Loon, Sunapee, or Bretton woods on weekends, and effectively offer three midweek half price days a week. How much cheaper do they need to go? This also ignores the free bunny slope lift and the heavily discounted beginner area, which compares very well to beginner areas at more commercial mountains. They also have a midweek special for old New Hampshire types that might go too far....FREE!


----------



## bobbutts (Jul 12, 2011)

MadPadraic said:


> I feel like they already offer a lot. They are 12% cheaper than Loon, Sunapee, or Bretton woods on weekends, and effectively offer three midweek half price days a week. How much cheaper do they need to go? This also ignores the free bunny slope lift and the heavily discounted beginner area, which compares very well to beginner areas at more commercial mountains. They also have a midweek special for old New Hampshire types that might go too far....FREE!



NH residents specifically.. we're paying the same as Mass folks for day tickets most of the time

the season's pass deals are a significant discount for residents though


----------



## threecy (Jul 13, 2011)

bobbutts said:


> NH residents specifically.. we're paying the same as Mass folks for day tickets most of the time



The only time in which NH adult residents can get a day ticket discount is when the tram is not running.


----------



## riverc0il (Jul 13, 2011)

threecy said:


> The only time in which NH adult residents can get a day ticket discount is when the tram is not running.


Since you are a former ski area employee and very familiar with the business as an insider... does that not make sense to not discount your product on the busiest days of the week? Is this not fairly standard business practice? And wouldn't (as DHS noted) discounting weekends hurt private for profit businesses (in reference to your issue with the state hurting private businesses by competing against them)? Wouldn't a leased Cannon be even less likely to offer weekend discounts?


----------



## threecy (Jul 13, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> Since you are a former ski area employee and very familiar with the business as an insider... does that not make sense to not discount your product on the busiest days of the week? Is this not fairly standard business practice? And wouldn't (as DHS noted) discounting weekends hurt private for profit businesses (in reference to your issue with the state hurting private businesses by competing against them)? Wouldn't a leased Cannon be even less likely to offer weekend discounts?



In other words, there is no financial benefit for the vast majority of the current owners of Cannon Mountain who have to continue to sink millions in tax dollars into the place.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 13, 2011)

threecy said:


> In other words, there is no financial benefit for the vast majority of the current owners of Cannon Mountain who have to continue to sink millions in tax dollars into the place.



sweeping generalization

give me a figure as to how many people have days off on the weekends vs weekdays.  

Without data, stating 'vast majority' is hyperbole.  

Of course not just the vast majority, but ALL residents of NH can appreciate a major cost savings in a Season Pass if they choose to do so.  Is that available to them at Sunapee? NO.  

Oh right, they'll just write that discount into the least.  BS.  There's no way pro-lease supporters like yourself have any concern at all with providing value to NH resident skiers and riders.  Your only concern is generating profits from land owned by the people of NH.


----------



## threecy (Jul 13, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> Without data, stating 'vast majority' is hyperbole.



Even if the 130,000 skier visits were 100% state residents who only skied one day a year, that would mean 90% of the state doesn't ski there.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 13, 2011)

threecy said:


> Even if the 130,000 skier visits were 100% state residents who only skied one day a year, that would mean 99% of the state doesn't ski there.



There are many, many, tax funded projects/services in the State that have low overall use percentage by residents.

I'll bring up Hampton Beach State Park again.  State is spending 14M there for improvements.  Does every resident of the State of NH use that park?  Hell no. But they could if they wanted to.


----------



## threecy (Jul 13, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> I'll bring up Hampton Beach State Park again.  State is spending 14M there for improvements.



Approved by the same people who approved spending $2.6M+ on the double chairlift at Mittersill.  Fortunately, voters decided to change things shortly thereafter.


----------



## UVSHTSTRM (Jul 13, 2011)

Quick question, with all the talk in this very heated debate, people for pro lease have stated that the status quo hurts surrounding ski resorts, but has any privately held ski area complained about it?


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 13, 2011)

.......yup, voters like you, have elected officials who are now taking away public funding from the State University system resulting in higher tuition costs and giving it directly to private for profit institutions like Dartmouth and Colby Sawyer who already have massive endowments.

If you'd like, I can show you a newspaper article on it.  Something you can't show us concerning the Environmental 'catastrophe' going on at Cannon.


----------



## UVSHTSTRM (Jul 13, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> There are many, many, tax funded projects/services in the State that have low overall use percentage by residents.
> 
> I'll bring up Hampton Beach State Park again.  State is spending 14M there for improvements.  Does every resident of the State of NH use that park?  Hell no. But they could if they wanted to.



Did Theercy say he supported such a expenditure?  I am asking this in all seriousness.  My thinking is that he probably doesn't support such a waste.  Not sure why he would mention it here though as this is a ski forum.  If he does support the Hampton Beach waste then fine, I am curious to know why.

In regards to Hampton Beach I do feel their should be a life guard station and bathrooms (not of the 14 million dollar variety).....all things that really can't be leased out....where as Cannon could be leased....if there are takers.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 13, 2011)

I believe he has stated that he is/was against the Hampton expenditures. 

I was just giving one of many, many examples where big investments of public money are made towards projects and services that are used by only a small percentage of NH residents.


----------



## Black Phantom (Jul 13, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> I believe he has stated that he is/was against the Hampton expenditures.
> 
> I was just giving one of many, many examples where big investments of public money are made towards projects and services that are used by only a small percentage of NH residents.



Rather dubious comparison comparing the beach to a ski area, which brings throngs of visitors throughout the summer daily to the beach and surrounding communities. I think it can be fairly stated that an extremely large amount of NH residents, as well as vacationers throughout the region, enjoy these attractions pumping large amounts of revenue into the local economy.

I would imagine that Hampton brings in more tourists daily throughout the summer than Cannon does in an entire season. Let's not even factor in the costs between the two activities and the revenue received by the State.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 13, 2011)

you'll get no argument from me on rooms and meals tax revenues and that the operating costs of Hampton Beach are significantly lower.  It's definitely a bigger economic engine than Cannon.

The Revenue the state receives from the park is only parking revenue and is much less than Cannon.  But, the secondary income is higher yes.


----------



## Black Phantom (Jul 13, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> you'll get no argument from me on rooms and meals tax revenues and that the operating costs of Hampton Beach are significantly lower.  It's definitely a bigger economic engine than Cannon.
> _
> The Revenue the state receives from the park is only parking revenue and is much less than Cannon.  But, the secondary income is higher yes._



I do not think that this parking revenue is anything to sneeze at. It does not require much recurring investment or maintenance from the State to reap significant financial reward.

Here is a pdf from a quick search out lining parking fees from 2010. No NH discount either!

http://www.hamptonbeach.org/pdf/PARKINGLETTERtoBUSINESS2011.pdf



> OUR PARKING RATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:
> WEEKLY $75---24hr parking Saturday thru Friday night (Out by 10am Saturday)
> WEEKEND SPECIAL--$50--Friday after 3pm, until Sunday at midnight
> Does not include Forth of July or Seafood Weekends
> ...


----------



## Puck it (Jul 13, 2011)

It is NH. You know!


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 13, 2011)

Black Phantom said:


> I do not think that this parking revenue is anything to sneeze at. It does not require much recurring investment or maintenance from the State to reap significant financial reward.
> 
> Here is a pdf from a quick search out lining parking fees from 2010. No NH discount either!
> 
> http://www.hamptonbeach.org/pdf/PARKINGLETTERtoBUSINESS2011.pdf



Did I say it was something to sneeze at?  All I said was it's less revenue than Cannon. 

The operating expenses are low at Hampton and the profit margins are strong.  But if I recall correctly (not going to search through 77 pages of this thread to find the graph) it was something like 500K in profit annually.   So, it will take many years for the state to recoup a 14M investment at that kind of pay out.


----------



## Black Phantom (Jul 13, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> Did I say it was something to sneeze at?  All I said was it's less revenue than Cannon.
> 
> The operating expenses are low at Hampton and the profit margins are strong.  But if I recall correctly (not going to search through 77 pages of this thread to find the graph) it was something like 500K in profit annually.   So, it will take many years for the state to recoup a 14M investment at that kind of pay out.



I did not say that you sneezed.  If you did, gesundheit. And why not search? You have the tools at hand.:lol:

Hampton is showing true _earnings _revenue. Real money. Very limited expenses. Unlike ongoing capital and operational costs that are required to operate a ski area.

And don't forget the toll revenue that pours into NH daily heading to the beach that otherwise would not be traveling there.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 13, 2011)

There are numerous other State Parks that operate in the red every year including Mount Washington.  Cannon isn't the only state funded park that isn't produce the kind of return that Hampton does.  Should all of the parks in the red be leased?

And trust me, I'm well aware of that toll to get off of 95 and onto 101.  I use it 5 days a week. The beach helps that revenue, but I'd say for every car that goes East on 101 to that beach, 10 cars are locals heading west to Exeter, Stratham, Epping ect.  I'd put the number of cars staying on 95 to go to Maine at 100 to 1 compared to getting off for Hampton.  Anyone coming from the West and primary population center of the State doesn't use that toll booth at all.

Let's not forget, Cannon skiers have to go through tolls as well.

Go ahead and put the toll argument out there.  It's valid.  But, I don't think it really helps in justifying a 14M tax payer funded beach project.  Which by the way, I'm all for the 14M beach project.


----------



## Black Phantom (Jul 13, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> There are numerous other State Parks that operate in the red every year including Mount Washington.  Cannon isn't the only state funded park that isn't produce the kind of return that Hampton does.  Should all of the parks in the red be leased?
> 
> And trust me, I'm well aware of that toll to get off of 95 and onto 101.  I use it 5 days a week. The beach helps that revenue, but I'd say for every car that goes East on 101 to that beach, 10 cars are locals heading west to Exeter, Stratham, Epping ect.  I'd put the number of cars staying on 95 to go to Maine at 100 to 1 compared to getting off for Hampton.  Anyone coming from the West and primary population center of the State doesn't use that toll booth at all.
> 
> ...



So I take it you agree?


----------



## threecy (Jul 13, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> There are numerous other State Parks that operate in the red every year including Mount Washington.


How much is Mount Washington State Park losing?  Do you have recent data to back this up, especially after the lease renogiations?




deadheadskier said:


> Let's not forget, Cannon skiers have to go through tolls as well.
> 
> Go ahead and put the toll argument out there.  It's valid.



How many Cannon skiers go through the Hooksett tolls (83 miles away)?


----------



## AdironRider (Jul 13, 2011)

threecy said:


> How much is Mount Washington State Park losing?  Do you have recent data to back this up, especially after the lease renogiations?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Id be willing to wager at least 50% go through. Where else would they come from? VT? Doubtful. Anyone who goes up 16 is most likely skiing the Mt. Washington area resorts.


----------



## Black Phantom (Jul 13, 2011)

AdironRider said:


> Id be willing to wager at least 50% go through. Where else would they come from? VT? Doubtful. Anyone who goes up 16 is most likely skiing the Mt. Washington area resorts.



Many NH residents drive south to Cannon.


----------



## AdironRider (Jul 13, 2011)

Black Phantom said:


> Many NH residents drive south to Cannon.



From where exactly? Colebrook, Pittsburg? I see Littleton and Franconia, but those arent HUGE population bases. 50% is not an unrealistic number for the Hooksett tolls.


----------



## Black Phantom (Jul 13, 2011)

AdironRider said:


> From where exactly? Colebrook, Pittsburg? I see Littleton and Franconia, but those arent HUGE population bases. 50% is not an unrealistic number for the Hooksett tolls.



Not everyone that skis Cannon is from the metro MA/Boston area.


----------



## AdironRider (Jul 13, 2011)

Yeah, but everyone from Southern NH that does goes that route, as well as all the Massholes. I grew up in Exeter and was a passholder at Cannon. 101 to 93 the whole way. Ive probably paid that toll a couple hundred times at least, and Im just one NH resident skiing Cannon.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 13, 2011)

Black Phantom said:


> Many NH residents drive south to Cannon.


 
Yeah, got to disagree with this point as well.  There is not much north of Cannon in NH.  True that folks from Littleton, Bethlehem, and even my part of the NEK come down to Cannon, but most of the traffic is from the south.


----------



## AdironRider (Jul 13, 2011)

I think Black is still practicing trolling.


----------



## Northernflight (Jul 13, 2011)

Id put the number of Cannon skiers going through the hookset tolls somewhere over 50%, I don't even want to know how much Ive spent on them in my life. A large base of the NH population, Nashua, Manchester, Salem, Seacoast, Keene, would most likely be going through them as well as all the Boston traffic. Ive meet a lot of Massachusetts people who ski at Cannon, but that is just based on experience after all. 



> I was just giving one of many, many examples where big investments of public money are made towards projects and services that are used by only a small percentage of NH residents.



I agree. Wouldn't we agree that the point of governments is to provide what the market will not? I'm all for losses on public goods, how else would you look at education expenses based souly on cost to the state?.  It seems that overall the park system wasn't loosing a drastic amount.


----------



## MadPadraic (Jul 14, 2011)

threecy said:


> In other words, there is no financial benefit for the vast majority of the current owners of Cannon Mountain who have to continue to sink millions in tax dollars into the place.



Well, there is that whole being 12% cheaper than similar mountains aspect. If 12% is trivial, how would feel about your income taxes going up by 12%? 

Also, while I do live in the socialist utopia of Mass :smash:, I don't know of a single person who is employed on weekdays but unable to take a day off midweek. Hence, I can only assume that the free market utopia of NH has employers offering their employees vacation time and personal days due to the simple market pressure of having MA employers so close.


----------



## MadPadraic (Jul 14, 2011)

threecy said:


> Even if the 130,000 skier visits were 100% state residents who only skied one day a year, that would mean 99% of the state doesn't ski there.



When did NH's population grow more than 10 fold?


----------



## Northernflight (Jul 14, 2011)

> Even if the 130,000 skier visits were 100% state residents who only skied one day a year, that would mean 99% of the state doesn't ski there



130,000 * 100 = 13,000,000 residents 
According to http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s0012.pdf NH state residence is 1,325,000

I'm assuming you were just using that to exaggerate your point. No not every NH resident skis there. No not every NH skier skis there. But enough do to care about the area and want to see it continue to operate at the highest possible offering to the skier and not the business which seems to be where Cannon is different from other resorts. Of course they want to make money but they seem to care about their customers and provide a product that people who oppose a lease seem to like. The problem with this argument is one cant put it soley as a state run business, being situated and integrated into Franconia Notch state park. This is why people can say it is faulty to base an argument on leasing Cannon because it is not making money because that would be the same as saying Ahern State Park should be leased off. Sure not a lot of people use it but it is a beautiful place that provides access to Lake Winnisquam and does not make a dime. On the other hand it is a ski area so saying it soly provides a product people cant get elsewhere isn't really true either but Cannon is Cannon because it is all that and its integration with the state has defined it and shaped it. Cannon is a historical resort as far as skiing goes and it and I feel like Franconia Notch would not be the same if it were leased, and the change would not be for the better. My main point of concern is Francoina Notch State Park because this situation is different then Sunapee. Okemo didn't get key State park attractions like it seems the Cannon Leese would. Also Cannon is much more built up than Sunapee seems to have been when it was leased out.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 14, 2011)

His numbers make sense and check out.  You've got 1.3M residents in NH.  130K skier visits a year at Cannon.  If 10% of those visits are by NH residents and they only ski 1 day per year, that would equal 13K residents, or 1% of the population.

His 13K number for NH resident usage is probably pretty accurate.  You can get a close approximation of the number if you knew roughly what the skier day visit split was between NH residents and non Residents and factor in the average skier days per participant.  The average skier skis 11 days a season.  Many folks ski multiple areas in a season, so say 4 of those 11 days are spent at Cannon.

http://www.skiareacitizens.com/Demographics_Trends_2008.pdf

If the skier visit split was 50/50, that means there are 65K skier visits a year from 16.25K NH residents.

So, ultimately what this is about is potentially (definitely) screwing 16.25K NH residents out of some very good deals and potentially ruining the overall 'raw' experience those 16.25K state residents and an additional 16.25K non state residents love about skiing at Cannon.

All for 500K guaranteed revenue a year with zero liabilities for the State.

You look at those numbers and it's probably pretty likely the lease will happen.  It's what governments do when they need to save money.  Rather than addressing far greater spending issues or exploring ways to raise revenue other than selling out to private business, governments make numerous minimally impactful cuts in programs that have low overall usage / small voices because they know they can slam through the bills with minimal resistance.

I bet threecy has already popped the cork on a champagne bottle.  The writing is on the wall for what the outcome will be.  And it sucks for Cannon skiers.


----------



## threecy (Jul 14, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> Let's not forget, Cannon skiers have to go through tolls as well.
> 
> Go ahead and put the toll argument out there.  It's valid.



Still waiting to see data to prove your point.  How much money is New Hampshire making off Cannon skiers going through tolls?



deadheadskier said:


> I bet threecy has already popped the cork on a champagne bottle.



I don't drink, and the lease is far from a sure thing.  It has significant support in Concord, however it's definitely not a done deal.


----------



## Cannonball (Jul 14, 2011)

threecy said:


> How much money is New Hampshire making off Cannon skiers going through tolls?



Hard to say.  But here's one way to look at it.  If a 65 year from southern NH skied at Cannon Mon-Friday it would cost him more in tolls than in lift tickets.


----------



## riverc0il (Jul 14, 2011)

threecy said:


> Still waiting to see data to prove your point.  How much money is New Hampshire making off Cannon skiers going through tolls?


I can't provide data on numbers at the tolls but I can provide data on license plates at Cannon. Usually at least half of the plates in the parking lot are MA plates. They would have all come through and gone back down through the tolls. Given the population centers of NH, it would seem logical to reason that perhaps as much (if not more) than half of NH Cannon skiers also come through the tolls each was as well.

Are we really discussing how tolls at this point??? :blink:


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 14, 2011)

threecy said:


> Still waiting to see data to prove your point.  How much money is New Hampshire making off Cannon skiers going through tolls?.



Why don't you go back and reread the context of my statement.

Black Phantom made a true statement; "The State makes money off of tolls from people visiting Hampton Beach."  I simply made another true statement; "The State also makes money off of tolls for people visiting Cannon."   

Even if I could provide you a dollar figure, it wouldn't matter.  If the State leased out the parking and Hampton Beach management to a private operator, they'd make the same money off of tolls.  Likewise, if Cannon were leased, the state would make the same money they currently do off of Tolls.  



threecy said:


> I don't drink, and the lease is far from a sure thing.  It has significant support in Concord, however it's definitely not a done deal.



fine Sparkling Cider if that's your preference.


----------



## Northernflight (Jul 14, 2011)

> His numbers make sense and check out. You've got 1.3M residents in NH. 130K skier visits a year at Cannon. If 10% of those visits are by NH residents and they only ski 1 day per year, that would equal 13K residents, or 1% of the population.
> 
> His 13K number for NH resident usage is probably pretty accurate. You can get a close approximation of the number if you knew roughly what the skier day visit split was between NH residents and non Residents and factor in the average skier days per participant. The average skier skis 11 days a season. Many folks ski multiple areas in a season, so say 4 of those 11 days are spent at Cannon.



Ok I miss read that. Thanks for pointing it out.


----------



## UVSHTSTRM (Jul 14, 2011)

threecy said:


> I don't drink, and the lease is far from a sure thing.  It has significant support in Concord, however it's definitely not a done deal.



I knew there was a reason why I couldn't fully back your arguments.  Never trust a person who doesn't drink.....:lol:


----------



## Geoff (Jul 14, 2011)

AdironRider said:


> Id be willing to wager at least 50% go through. Where else would they come from? VT? Doubtful. Anyone who goes up 16 is most likely skiing the Mt. Washington area resorts.



I'd wager it's much closer to 100% than 50% of Cannon skiers going through the Hooksett tolls.   Most of the population of New Hampshire lives in the bottom 20 miles of the state.   There's really no way of avoiding I-93 for most people and it's a bother to drive around the toll on Route 3A.   When I lived in Portsmouth, I'd take 101 to I-93 rather than drive Route 4 to Concord.   Much faster drive.

The EZpass lanes at the Hampton tolls are now high speed.   I've read that's coming in the next two years at Hooksett.   Now all I need is to be able to drive through the NHSLS to pick up my booze order and I-93 between Manchester and Concord is perfect.


----------



## AdironRider (Jul 14, 2011)

Geoff said:


> I'd wager it's much closer to 100% than 50% of Cannon skiers going through the Hooksett tolls.   Most of the population of New Hampshire lives in the bottom 20 miles of the state.   There's really no way of avoiding I-93 for most people and it's a bother to drive around the toll on Route 3A.   When I lived in Portsmouth, I'd take 101 to I-93 rather than drive Route 4 to Concord.   Much faster drive.
> 
> The EZpass lanes at the Hampton tolls are now high speed.   I've read that's coming in the next two years at Hooksett.   Now all I need is to be able to drive through the NHSLS to pick up my booze order and I-93 between Manchester and Concord is perfect.



I actually agree with you but was breaking character a bit and hedging my bets. 

To suggest that a majority of Cannon skiers arent paying the Hookset toll is pretty laughable.


----------



## SIKSKIER (Jul 14, 2011)

From Treecy's website:

Access Road Damage on Mittersill
An access road was constructed to the top of the Mittersill chairlift to facilitate staging for the installation. While the lift manufacturer appears to have taken caution to avoid erosion during the installation (much of the chairlift line was hayed and is now growing grass), it appears the work road was inadequately constructed and carelessly used bynon-lift-manufacturer employees,  including driving through and breeching waterbars. Significant gravel erosion has taken place in 2011.

I found this interesting.Statements made here claim the lift installer took procautions but of course whoever constructed the the work road was careless.The implication being the State was careless and not the lift manufacturer employess.

Are you saying the state had nothing to do with seeding the liftline and that was done by the lift manufacturer?How do you know this?And you know that the lift manufacturer didn't do any damage to the access road,only the state?Is his a "throw anything at the wall and see what sticks" statement or do you have facts to back this up?


----------



## Puck it (Jul 14, 2011)

SIKSKIER said:


> From Treecy's website:
> 
> Access Road Damage on Mittersill
> An access road was constructed to the top of the Mittersill chairlift to facilitate staging for the installation. While the lift manufacturer appears to have taken caution to avoid erosion during the installation (much of the chairlift line was hayed and is now growing grass), it appears the work road was inadequately constructed and carelessly used bynon-lift-manufacturer employees,  including driving through and breeching waterbars. Significant gravel erosion has taken place in 2011.
> ...



+1. I have been trying to get this put of him. But was to lazy to type a long response. Thanks.  

I also thought CTEC was responsible for reinstall of old and new lift.  So why would Cannon employees need heavy equipment up there?


----------



## riverc0il (Jul 14, 2011)

I'll echo the last two comments: I would like to know how threecy knows beyond a reasonable doubt that it was Cannon Mountain that caused the pictured tracks and not the lift install company. Further, I am still awaiting clarification of this "access road". Having skied Mittersill this past winter, there were no new trail cuts aside from the liftline being rehacked out of the regrowth. The only trails that make sense for the access road include the cross over at mid-mountain to Skyline. Is Skyline not that access road? Spill it.


----------



## AdironRider (Jul 14, 2011)




----------



## MadPadraic (Jul 14, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> His numbers make sense and check out.  You've got 1.3M residents in NH.  130K skier visits a year at Cannon.  If 10% of those visits are by NH residents and they only ski 1 day per year, that would equal 13K residents, or 1% of the population.
> 
> His 13K number for NH resident usage is probably pretty accurate.  You can get a close approximation of the number if you knew roughly what the skier day visit split was between NH residents and non Residents and factor in the average skier days per participant.  The average skier skis 11 days a season.  Many folks ski multiple areas in a season, so say 4 of those 11 days are spent at Cannon.



He said 100% though.

Also, from a purely financial aspect, I think that the tolls argument strengthens his case: a new operator would undoubtedly advertise more and try to bring in more skier visits. From "Cannon is a treasure don't destroy this wonderful public good" it is less so. Boo crowds. hurray beer.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 14, 2011)

You are correct.  My bad.  It would be 10% of the state's population (130K different people) using the mountain.  For some reason I must have thought I read 10%, not 100%.


----------



## riverc0il (Jul 14, 2011)

MadPadraic said:


> He said 100% though.
> 
> Also, from a purely financial aspect, I think that the tolls argument strengthens his case: a new operator would undoubtedly advertise more and try to bring in more skier visits. From "Cannon is a treasure don't destroy this wonderful public good" it is less so. Boo crowds. hurray beer.


I disagree. Those skiers would just be siphoned off from other areas. The tolls are south of the 93/89 split. So any additional skiers taken from 93 ski areas and VT ski areas north of Killington would not represent any shift in tolls. Skiers taken away from 95/16, maybe. Is it really going to amount to that much? Does anyone really think a private Cannon is going to pack em' in? You can change the management but you can't change the topography. Even the Muellers couldn't completely Sunapee Cannon. At least not the terrain....


----------



## MadPadraic (Jul 14, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> I disagree. Those skiers would just be siphoned off from other areas. The tolls are north of the 93/89 split. So any additional skiers taken from 93 ski areas and VT ski areas north of Killington would not represent any shift in tolls. Skiers taken away from 95/16, maybe. Is it really going to amount to that much? Does anyone really think a private Cannon is going to pack em' in? You can change the management but you can't change the topography. Even the Muellers couldn't completely Sunapee Cannon. At least not the terrain....



That's a good point about our hypothetical Cannon mostly taking visits from other areas rather than increasing the overall market size (though Cannon could market itself as big time skiing close to MA). But in terms of trying to turn Cannon into Okemo, I don't see that as being a good strategy. There seems to be a belief here that over groomed and unchallenging is the only way to appeal to the masses. If that's true, why are Jay, MRG,  Sugarbush, Stowe, Jackson Hole, Ajax, etc so successful? They all market themselves as being difficult and at least some of them brag about bumps and natural terrain.


----------



## threecy (Jul 15, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> The tolls are north of the 93/89 split. So any additional skiers taken from 93 ski areas and VT ski areas north of Killington would not represent any shift in tolls.



South of the 93/89 split, but same effect.


----------



## threecy (Jul 15, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> Why don't you go back and reread the context of my statement.
> 
> Black Phantom made a true statement; "The State makes money off of tolls from people visiting Hampton Beach."  I simply made another true statement; "The State also makes money off of tolls for people visiting Cannon."
> 
> Even if I could provide you a dollar figure, it wouldn't matter.



The context of my statement in this thread is that every time I so much as make a claim here, it is demanded (often by you) that I back it up.  Yet you are able to make claims with no support.  Got it.


----------



## riverc0il (Jul 15, 2011)

MadPadraic said:


> That's a good point about our hypothetical Cannon mostly taking visits from other areas rather than increasing the overall market size (though Cannon could market itself as big time skiing close to MA). But in terms of trying to turn Cannon into Okemo, I don't see that as being a good strategy. There seems to be a belief here that over groomed and unchallenging is the only way to appeal to the masses. If that's true, why are Jay, MRG,  Sugarbush, Stowe, Jackson Hole, Ajax, etc so successful? They all market themselves as being difficult and at least some of them brag about bumps and natural terrain.


I can't speak for the western resorts, but MRG markets itself just as much as a family mountain as an experts mountain. As a shareholder, I would argue our success is more due to families than die hards. While MRG has been successful as a coop, I MRG isn't exactly rolling in it and has to make careful choices on how to reinvest into its infrastructure. A mountain without the historic cache of MRG would not be able to survive, it is a unique area. As for Jay, having been a pass holder there, the number of families and joeys at Jay FAR outnumbers the hardcore and powder hounds. Jay isn't successful because of the powder hounds even though that is where it gets its reputation. Take away the groomer only crowd and Jay would fail. So would Sugarbush.


----------



## riverc0il (Jul 15, 2011)

threecy said:


> South of the 93/89 split, but same effect.


Thanks for the correction, that is what I meant and will fix it. If the toll was north of the split, there could be toll variances if I-93 ski areas stole from VT.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 15, 2011)

threecy said:


> The context of my statement in this thread is that every time I so much as make a claim here, it is demanded (often by you) that I back it up.  Yet you are able to make claims with no support.  Got it.



Not quite

When I can't offer you data, I admit it, such as with the tolls.

What I don't do is play politician and deflect away from the question and point people to my website or say, "that information is available from the State of NH for a fee if you are interested"


----------



## threecy (Jul 15, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> What I don't do is play politician and deflect away from the question and point people to my website or say, "that information is available from the State of NH for a fee if you are interested"



Right, you can't even be bothered to find out where the data to back your claim exists.


----------



## Cannonball (Jul 15, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> Not quite
> 
> When I can't offer you data, I admit it, such as with the tolls.
> 
> What I don't do is play politician and deflect away from the question and point people to my website or say, "that information is available from the State of NH for a fee if you are interested"



At least you get a response.  I've been asking him simple, direct, non-challenging questions (in the other Cannon thread) so I can understand the environmental issues better.  He ignores them.  Oh well.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 15, 2011)

threecy said:


> Right, you can't even be bothered to find out where the data to back your claim exists.



What more do you want threecy?

Black Phantom said the state makes money off of tolls from people visiting Hampton Beach.  True Statement.

I said, the state makes money off of tolls from people visiting Cannon as well. True Statement.

I have admitted to not knowing what the data is.  Doesn't make my statement false because I don't know.

If I were to give you an approximation of that revenue.  I'd suggest that probably 80% of the skier visits to Cannon pass through the Hooksett tolls.  So, 104K visits.  Factoring in buses, let's say the vehicles going through those tolls, average 6 passengers.  So, roughly 17K skier vehicles pass through the Hooksett tolls on the way to visit Cannon.

$1 a toll each way would equal approximately 34K in revenue to the state per season.

Happy?


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 15, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> When I can't offer you data, I admit it, such as with the tolls.
> 
> What I don't do is play politician and deflect away from the question and point people to my website or say, "that information is available from the State of NH for a fee if you are interested"





Cannonball said:


> At least you get a response.  I've been asking him simple, direct, non-challenging questions (in the other Cannon thread) so I can understand the environmental issues better.  He ignores them.  Oh well.



pretty much


----------



## threecy (Jul 15, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> I said, the state makes money off of tolls from people visiting Cannon as well. True Statement.
> 
> I have admitted to not knowing what the data is.  Doesn't make my statement false because I don't know.
> 
> ...



I guess that sets the precedent for backing up claims here moving forward.


----------



## MadPadraic (Jul 15, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> I can't speak for the western resorts, but MRG markets itself just as much as a family mountain as an experts mountain. As a shareholder, I would argue our success is more due to families than die hards. While MRG has been successful as a coop, I MRG isn't exactly rolling in it and has to make careful choices on how to reinvest into its infrastructure. A mountain without the historic cache of MRG would not be able to survive, it is a unique area. As for Jay, having been a pass holder there, the number of families and joeys at Jay FAR outnumbers the hardcore and powder hounds. Jay isn't successful because of the powder hounds even though that is where it gets its reputation. Take away the groomer only crowd and Jay would fail. So would Sugarbush.



I'll try to write a more thoughtful/detailed post later, but to get the idea out there... I would expect that the Joey/groomer crowd at Jay are attracted because of the marketing campaign, even if they don't actually make heavy use of that type of terrain. Sort of like owning an Porsche but driving slow or a 4wd SUV and never venturing off road (nor driving in blizzard).


----------



## Geoff (Jul 15, 2011)

MadPadraic said:


> I'll try to write a more thoughtful/detailed post later, but to get the idea out there... I would expect that the Joey/groomer crowd at Jay are attracted because of the marketing campaign, even if they don't actually make heavy use of that type of terrain. Sort of like owning an Porsche but driving slow or a 4wd SUV and never venturing off road (nor driving in blizzard).



No.   ...and it's not the "Joey" crowd.   It would be the Jean, Joseph, Louis, and Pierre crowd.   Jay has far more Quebec plates than southern New England/metro-NYC plates.   Like any other ski area, most of the customers are intermediates.

Other than Mad River which is an anomoly since it has a 600 person per hour single chair so it's crowded with 1000 people, the only place I can think of with a mostly expert customer base is Snowbird.   Even Jackson Hole is more than 50% intermediate terrain.   Whistler is certainly more than 50% intermediate.


----------



## AdironRider (Jul 15, 2011)

Geoff said:


> No.   ...and it's not the "Joey" crowd.   It would be the Jean, Joseph, Louis, and Pierre crowd.   Jay has far more Quebec plates than southern New England/metro-NYC plates.   Like any other ski area, most of the customers are intermediates.
> 
> Other than Mad River which is an anomoly since it has a 600 person per hour single chair so it's crowded with 1000 people, the only place I can think of with a mostly expert customer base is Snowbird.   Even Jackson Hole is more than 50% intermediate terrain.   Whistler is certainly more than 50% intermediate.



Have you been to Jackson? Our blues blow most blacks anywhere else out of the water. This is actually a pretty large complaint for alot of folks, but marketing keeps pushing it so people other than experts actually travel here.


----------



## MadPadraic (Jul 15, 2011)

Geoff said:


> No.   ...and it's not the "Joey" crowd.   It would be the Jean, Joseph, Louis, and Pierre crowd.   Jay has far more Quebec plates than southern New England/metro-NYC plates.   Like any other ski area, most of the customers are intermediates.
> 
> Other than Mad River which is an anomoly since it has a 600 person per hour single chair so it's crowded with 1000 people, the only place I can think of with a mostly expert customer base is Snowbird.   Even Jackson Hole is more than 50% intermediate terrain.   Whistler is certainly more than 50% intermediate.



 Joey wasn't my term, I actually don't like it. As long as they aren't endangering me, I don't really care how people enjoy their time on the slopes or what their skill levels are. 

That being said, I think the meat of your post proves my point. Most resorts make a big deal out of how authentic (whatever that means) their experience is and how difficult their terrain is. Every major resort I've ever been to has plenty of intermediate terrain, but only a handful emphasize it.


----------



## Geoff (Jul 15, 2011)

AdironRider said:


> Have you been to Jackson? Our blues blow most blacks anywhere else out of the water. This is actually a pretty large complaint for alot of folks, but marketing keeps pushing it so people other than experts actually travel here.



As you say, marketing is successful getting the tourists to show up.

At Snowbird, they can ski there one day and then go elsewhere rather than be banished to Chip's Run.   You  don't see much Texas Tuck there.


----------



## Geoff (Jul 15, 2011)

MadPadraic said:


> Joey wasn't my term, I actually don't like it. As long as they aren't endangering me, I don't really care how people enjoy their time on the slopes or what their skill levels are.
> 
> That being said, I think the meat of your post proves my point. Most resorts make a big deal out of how authentic (whatever that means) their experience is and how difficult their terrain is. Every major resort I've ever been to has plenty of intermediate terrain, but only a handful emphasize it.



Actually, I'm arguing the contrary point.

The most successful resorts are stuffed full of intermediate terrain and market the hell out of it.    Okemo is the poster child in the east.   Vail is really intermediate.   Steamboat is really intermediate.   Snowmass is really intermediate.   You make your money from the people paying retail prices at high season.   If it wasn't for them, there would be very few ski areas.   Ski areas would go broke if all they had was advanced skiers on season passes who ski 60 days per year.

Other than Mad River's "Ski It If You Can", nobody in the east markets themselves as the super-challenging ball crusher ski area of the east.   The biggest places like Sunday River and Killington market having something for everybody but nobody is going to do anything to chase away that $1,000/day family of 4 business or the car load of intermediate couples driving up from the flatlands business.   It's everybody's bread and butter.


----------



## hrstrat57 (Jul 15, 2011)

Geoff said:


> Actually, I'm arguing the contrary point.
> 
> The most successful resorts are stuffed full of intermediate terrain and market the hell out of it.    Okemo is the poster child in the east.   Vail is really intermediate.   Steamboat is really intermediate.   Snowmass is really intermediate.   You make your money from the people paying retail prices at high season.   If it wasn't for them, there would be very few ski areas.   Ski areas would go broke if all they had was advanced skiers on season passes who ski 60 days per year.
> 
> Other than Mad River's "Ski It If You Can", nobody in the east markets themselves as the super-challenging ball crusher ski area of the east.   The biggest places like Sunday River and Killington market having something for everybody but nobody is going to do anything to chase away that $1,000/day family of 4 business or the car load of intermediate couples driving up from the flatlands business.   It's everybody's bread and butter.



Well said!


----------



## riverc0il (Jul 15, 2011)

MadPadraic said:


> Every major resort I've ever been to has plenty of intermediate terrain, but only a handful emphasize it.


Say what? Every resort brags about their intermediate terrain. Even MRG loves to pump up their great groomers and terrain for everyone!


----------



## MadPadraic (Jul 15, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> I can't speak for the western resorts, but MRG markets itself just as much as a family mountain as an experts mountain. As a shareholder, I would argue our success is more due to families than die hards. While MRG has been successful as a coop, I MRG isn't exactly rolling in it and has to make careful choices on how to reinvest into its infrastructure. A mountain without the historic cache of MRG would not be able to survive, it is a unique area. As for Jay, having been a pass holder there, the number of families and joeys at Jay FAR outnumbers the hardcore and powder hounds. Jay isn't successful because of the powder hounds even though that is where it gets its reputation. Take away the groomer only crowd and Jay would fail. So would Sugarbush.



How much more direct than "Ski it if you can" can you get than marketing yourself as a challenging mountain? If the success is more due to families than die hards, then it just furthers my point.



Geoff said:


> Actually, I'm arguing the contrary point.
> 
> The most successful resorts are stuffed full of intermediate terrain and market the hell out of it.    Okemo is the poster child in the east.   Vail is really intermediate.   Steamboat is really intermediate.   Snowmass is really intermediate.   You make your money from the people paying retail prices at high season.   If it wasn't for them, there would be very few ski areas.   Ski areas would go broke if all they had was advanced skiers on season passes who ski 60 days per year.
> 
> Other than Mad River's "Ski It If You Can", nobody in the east markets themselves as the super-challenging ball crusher ski area of the east.   The biggest places like Sunday River and Killington market having something for everybody but nobody is going to do anything to chase away that $1,000/day family of 4 business or the car load of intermediate couples driving up from the flatlands business.   It's everybody's bread and butter.



I know that you are arguing the contrary, but I think there is a subtle difference: what a mountain has vs how it sells itself. Okemo is the poster child in the East for being flat and overgroomed, but it is most certainly not the the poster child of east coast skiing. That would be Killington or Stowe. Killington's most famous trails are Devil's Fiddle and Outer Limits. Stowe is known for it's front four. You can argue that the front four aren't what they were (I wouldn't know, I've never been), but that doesn't detract from my point.

Jay sells its woods and Sugarloaf its snowfields. 

Vail's primary attraction is the back bowls, which it marks mostly black and double black. Crystal and Baker are famous for their back country. In fairness, I think of Steamboat as marketing their "special" snow first and foremost.


----------



## Cannonball (Jul 16, 2011)

MadPadraic said:


> How much more direct than "Ski it if you can" can you get than marketing yourself as a challenging mountain? If the success is more due to families than die hards, then it just furthers my point.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm not sure how we got from Cannon Leasing to Tolls & Back Bowls.  But for the sake of props to a good post I give this one 2 thumbs up.  You hit the nail on the head about the perception of unique/challenging terrain as being the marketing focus for many mountains even if it's not what the typical skier actually utilizes.   It's a 'vibe' that defines many mountains - whether it's Mary Jane's bumps, or Steamboat's birch glades, or MRG's purist approach.  That's why the "No Pain No Jane" and "Ski it if You Can" bumper stickers abound.

And I guess that brings us back to the point.  Cannon's vibe is low-key, state-run, challenging terrain, no-frills, back-to-basics, hardcore, local scene, brutal weather, potentially amazing conditions, frequently horrid conditions, good deals, etc.  Not everyone skis Tramline.  Not everyone knows the hidden tree lines.  Not everyone gets there for Tuesday 2fers on a powder day.  Not everyone makes it to the 8:15 tram.  Not everyone prefers hiking to Mitty since it is still better than taking the lift.  Not everyone recognizes the tai chi lift bump on the cannonball.  But EVERYONE who skis Cannon likes to know that those things are there and that they were skiing at a place where that is possible and they are therefore a part of it.  

As Riverc0il has pointed out in the past, not much will change under a lease.  The terrain can't change.  The snowmaking and services can only improve.  But that 'vibe' WILL change.  It will loose the grass-roots appeal (real or perceived) that exists now.  Maybe it can thrive under a new model....who knows.  But I do know it won't be the same.


----------



## jack97 (Jul 16, 2011)

Cannonball said:


> And I guess that brings us back to the point.  Cannon's vibe is low-key, state-run, challenging terrain, no-frills, back-to-basics, hardcore, local scene, brutal weather, potentially amazing conditions, frequently horrid conditions, good deals, etc.  Not everyone skis Tramline.  Not everyone knows the hidden tree lines.  Not everyone gets there for Tuesday 2fers on a powder day.  Not everyone makes it to the 8:15 tram.  Not everyone prefers hiking to Mitty since it is still better than taking the lift.  Not everyone recognizes the tai chi lift bump on the cannonball.  But EVERYONE who skis Cannon likes to know that those things are there and that they were skiing at a place where that is possible and they are therefore a part of it.
> 
> As Riverc0il has pointed out in the past, not much will change under a lease.  The terrain can't change.  The snowmaking and services can only improve.  But that 'vibe' WILL change.  It will loose the grass-roots appeal (real or perceived) that exists now.  Maybe it can thrive under a new model....who knows.  But I do know it won't be the same.




After spending my family ski time at various "intermediate resorts", a couple of things a private will consider to make the ski count high and to minimize their liability.

1. During early season and snow droughts, focus the snowmaking on the trails that has the highest traffic. Most likely the widest and lowest pitch trails. What's ever left of the narrow and steep stuff (on the map) would get lowest priority. Especially a private that stays disciplined to their  budget, why throw money at trail that doesn't bring in the high visits.

2. Plenty of rope...... those hidden lines, say goodbye to them. The more visits you get,   the more Joeys will try to venture to those hidden treasures. If for some reason one gets hurt, then comes the lawsuits.  Doesn't have to be a joey, say  pre-teen(s) venturing on the own for first time can cause this mess. I bet the ambulance chasers are chomping at the bit for this; no rope ==> higher settlement.


----------



## Puck it (Jul 16, 2011)

jack97 said:


> After spending my family ski time at various "intermediate resorts", a couple of things a private will consider to make the ski count high and to minimize their liability.
> 
> 1. During early season and snow droughts, focus the snowmaking on the trails that has the highest traffic. Most likely the widest and lowest pitch trails. What's ever left of the narrow and steep stuff (on the map) would get lowest priority. Especially a private that stays disciplined to their  budget, why throw money at trail that doesn't bring in the high visits.
> 
> 2. Plenty of rope...... those hidden lines, say goodbye to them. The more visits you get,   the more Joeys will try to venture to those hidden treasures. If for some reason one gets hurt, then comes the lawsuits.  Doesn't have to be a joey, say  pre-teen(s) venturing on the own for first time can cause this mess. I bet the ambulance chasers are chomping at the bit for this; no rope ==> higher settlement.



Let's hope not on number 2. That is what brings me to Cannon.


----------



## witch hobble (Jul 18, 2011)

Cannonball said:


> Not everyone recognizes the tai chi lift bump on the cannonball.  QUOTE]
> 
> I'm hip to the tai chi lift bump.  That is a great name for it.  Zen and the art of lift operation.


----------



## Puck it (Jul 18, 2011)

Cannonball said:


> Not everyone recognizes the tai chi lift bump on the cannonball.


 

I am still trying to figure it out. I am sure I know what it is but not by that name though.

Are talking about how the liftie loads at the bottom?


----------



## bobbutts (Jul 18, 2011)

jack97 said:


> After spending my family ski time at various "intermediate resorts", a couple of things a private will consider to make the ski count high and to minimize their liability.
> 
> 1. During early season and snow droughts, focus the snowmaking on the trails that has the highest traffic. Most likely the widest and lowest pitch trails. What's ever left of the narrow and steep stuff (on the map) would get lowest priority. Especially a private that stays disciplined to their  budget, why throw money at trail that doesn't bring in the high visits.
> 
> 2. Plenty of rope...... those hidden lines, say goodbye to them. The more visits you get,   the more Joeys will try to venture to those hidden treasures. If for some reason one gets hurt, then comes the lawsuits.  Doesn't have to be a joey, say  pre-teen(s) venturing on the own for first time can cause this mess. I bet the ambulance chasers are chomping at the bit for this; no rope ==> higher settlement.



#2 is a straw man argument.. many private areas including have boundary to boundary policies.  I saw some unnecessary rope at Cannon this season too.  It seems far to presumptive to try and guess if it would change or if it would become more or less liberal under a different operator.


----------



## witch hobble (Jul 18, 2011)

Puck it said:


> I am still trying to figure it out. I am sure I know what it is but not by that name though.
> 
> Are talking about how the liftie loads at the bottom?



That is what I was talking about.  Dude gets into it, absorbs the chair with the whole body.  Some sort of martial art.  I always appreciate a good bump from a liftie who takes some pride in their job.  Doesn't always happen like that over on Zoomer.


----------



## witch hobble (Jul 18, 2011)

bobbutts said:


> #2 is a straw man argument.. many private areas including have boundary to boundary policies.  I saw some unnecessary rope at Cannon this season too.  It seems far to presumptive to try and guess if it would change or if it would become more or less liberal under a different operator.



True.  

You can't put the genie back in the bottle at this point anyway.


----------



## Cannonball (Jul 19, 2011)

witch hobble said:


> That is what I was talking about.  Dude gets into it, absorbs the chair with the whole body.  Some sort of martial art.  I always appreciate a good bump from a liftie who takes some pride in their job.  Doesn't always happen like that over on Zoomer.



You got it man.  Glad to see true appreciation for art.


----------



## Puck it (Jul 19, 2011)

Cannonball said:


> You got it man.  Glad to see true appreciation for art.



Thought so. The lifties at Sunapee do a good job on the Sun bowl quad too.


----------



## bobbutts (Jul 19, 2011)

Puck it said:


> Thought so. The lifties at Sunapee do a good job on the Sun bowl quad too.



I've had nothing but good experiences with all the employees I've dealt with at Sunapee.  Donno if it applies to the Cannon argument really, but it would be very hard to argue that leasing causes bad customer service if you use Sunapee as an example.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 19, 2011)

bobbutts said:


> I've had nothing but good experiences with all the employees I've dealt with at Sunapee. Donno if it applies to the Cannon argument really, but it would be very hard to argue that leasing causes bad customer service if you use Sunapee as an example.


 
Sunapee, in my experience, did have great service. I think that is in part because they are run by the Muellers and are in a very competitive region. Plus they are the feeder to Okemo and the Mueller's other resorts.


----------



## witch hobble (Jul 19, 2011)

A liftie who is in his own zone, doing his own thing and bumping chairs proper is way preferable to some goob, who has been trained in "service" and how to smile, kissing your ass as the chair wallops your boot top.

Lifties are factory workers, functionaries,  and we paying customers are the widgets or whatever.  Some unit of measurement for the bureaucracy to bore us with their stats. How is that for a dystopic state run paranoid delusion?

Full disclosure: I was a lift operator for three weeks in 1993.  I couldn't handle it.


----------



## Puck it (Jul 19, 2011)

Love that bump  on the Tram.  Especially the 8:15 one.


----------



## MadPadraic (Jul 19, 2011)

witch hobble said:


> Lifties are factory workers, functionaries,  and we paying customers are the widgets or whatever.  Some unit of measurement for the bureaucracy to bore us with their stats. How is that for a dystopic state run paranoid delusion?



Horrible, that's how it is. Most lifties are employed by private enterprise, so trashing on the job and calling it "dystopic state run" is particularly inappropriate in a thread meant to discuss privatizing a state run mountain. Oh, by the way,  earlier posts pointed out that the lifties at the state run mountain are awesome. 

Sorry to trash on you, because you've had great posts otherwise, and I know the point of your post was to highlight the mundaneness of the job, but be careful of language. (I know I've set myself up here for a rip..)


----------



## witch hobble (Jul 19, 2011)

MadPadraic said:


> Horrible, that's how it is. Most lifties are employed by private enterprise, so trashing on the job and calling it "dystopic state run" is particularly inappropriate in a thread meant to discuss privatizing a state run mountain. Oh, by the way,  earlier posts pointed out that the lifties at the state run mountain are awesome.
> 
> Sorry to trash on you, because you've had great posts otherwise, and I know the point of your post was to highlight the mundaneness of the job, but be careful of language. (I know I've set myself up here for a rip..)


No rip. We are all entitled to our perceptions.  

Most factory workers making widgets are private sector too. Bumpin' ain't easy.

After 90 pages we have to watch our language? Talk about dystopian quagmires!


----------



## MadPadraic (Jul 19, 2011)

witch hobble said:


> No rip. We are all entitled to our perceptions.
> 
> Most factory workers making widgets are private sector too. Bumpin' ain't easy.
> 
> After 90 pages we have to watch our language? Talk about dystopian quagmires!



Time to read Rivet Head.


----------



## jack97 (Jul 20, 2011)

bobbutts said:


> #2 is a straw man argument.. many private areas including have boundary to boundary policies.  I saw some unnecessary rope at Cannon this season too.  It seems far to presumptive to try and guess if it would change or if it would become more or less liberal under a different operator.



i agree, but I would add that anyplace that has more joeys would have more rope. 

and yes..... the genie is out of the bottle, exactly the time they did the land swap deal to get Mittersill.


----------



## jack97 (Jul 20, 2011)

Puck it said:


> Thought so. The lifties at Sunapee do a good job on the Sun bowl quad too.



 they always have the coolest people working that lift.


----------



## MadPadraic (Jul 23, 2011)

Cannonball said:


> I'm not sure how we got from Cannon Leasing to Tolls & Back Bowls.  But for the sake of props to a good post I give this one 2 thumbs up.  You hit the nail on the head about the perception of unique/challenging terrain as being the marketing focus for many mountains even if it's not what the typical skier actually utilizes.   It's a 'vibe' that defines many mountains - whether it's Mary Jane's bumps, or Steamboat's birch glades, or MRG's purist approach.  That's why the "No Pain No Jane" and "Ski it if You Can" bumper stickers abound.
> 
> And I guess that brings us back to the point.  Cannon's vibe is low-key, state-run, challenging terrain, no-frills, back-to-basics, hardcore, local scene, brutal weather, potentially amazing conditions, frequently horrid conditions, good deals, etc.  Not everyone skis Tramline.  Not everyone knows the hidden tree lines.  Not everyone gets there for Tuesday 2fers on a powder day.  Not everyone makes it to the 8:15 tram.  Not everyone prefers hiking to Mitty since it is still better than taking the lift.  Not everyone recognizes the tai chi lift bump on the cannonball.  But EVERYONE who skis Cannon likes to know that those things are there and that they were skiing at a place where that is possible and they are therefore a part of it.
> 
> As Riverc0il has pointed out in the past, not much will change under a lease.  The terrain can't change.  The snowmaking and services can only improve.  But that 'vibe' WILL change.  It will loose the grass-roots appeal (real or perceived) that exists now.  Maybe it can thrive under a new model....who knows.  But I do know it won't be the same.



Thanks for the props and bringing it back to Cannon. Here's a general question. Many of us on this forum love Cannon. How much of that is the vibe and how much is the terrain? Can the two be separated? For me at least, it comes from a few very fun trails and less so from the facilities (though I think this is true of each and every ski area, facilities are either acceptable or not...very few bonus points). Sure, I tend to meet nice people on the mountain, but I don't think that is nearly as important as the sheer fun factor on any given run.


----------



## riverc0il (Jul 23, 2011)

I think the vibe and terrain could very easily be separated. I was first attracted to Cannon for its vibe long before I could ski all of its terrain.

Look at how the vibe changed at Killington under three different ownerships. The could easily happen at Cannon. The terrain... hard to change that. They can make more snow, groom more, and have less bumps. But more snow making is good and they already don't leave much for bumps (thank goodness for lots of woods). But the vibe is a critical thing that management can have a massive effect on.


----------



## witch hobble (Jul 25, 2011)

Cool people who come, seeking the terrain hang around and help create "the vibe".

Seperate question: Were the bidders for Cannon in the late '90s made public?  Can anyone point me to a list of who bid and how much?


----------



## MadPadraic (Aug 2, 2011)

jack97 said:


> I agree.....in addition, the glades at Sunapee are way harder than Crotched. Going to repeat... only trail that has any pitch is the main trail under the quad lift.



What about the hike to terrain at Crotched?


----------



## Puck it (Aug 3, 2011)

This has been quiet.  Guess he is too busy over on Snowjournal not answering questions.


----------



## Northernflight (Aug 4, 2011)

NHBR article http://www.nhbr.com/politicsflotsam/921862-288/flotsam--jetsam.html



> No way to treat a commissioner
> 
> In a legislative session loaded with backroom deals and super-secret projects, add the push to lease the state-run Cannon Mountain ski area to the list.
> 
> ...



Looks like the legislators proposing the lease are only looking at the monetary side of things and haven't been bothered too see the whole picture here; only the cost on paper to balance the budget.

Anyone come across the answer to Witch Hobbles question? Ive been looking but havent been able to come up with anything yet.


----------



## jack97 (Aug 5, 2011)

MadPadraic said:


> What about the hike to terrain at Crotched?



I have heard about that section but never tried it...... maybe this season if they keep a bump field going.


----------



## jack97 (Aug 5, 2011)

Northernflight said:


> NHBR article http://www.nhbr.com/politicsflotsam/921862-288/flotsam--jetsam.html
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like the legislators proposing the lease are only looking at the monetary side of things and haven't been bothered too see the whole picture here; only the cost on paper to balance the budget.



"warning Will Robinson warning".........imo, any career politician who gets $100/year will be heavily influence by constituents or groups with deep pockets. They need the money to keep there own political campaigns and lifestyles going.

The true source or motivation of the lease will be seen by following the money trail.... or who will reap the most money from this plan.


----------



## MadPadraic (Aug 16, 2011)

Loon's tree island cutting just made the lease more valuable.


----------



## riverc0il (Aug 17, 2011)

jack97 said:


> "warning Will Robinson warning".........imo, any career politician who gets $100/year will be heavily influence by constituents or groups with deep pockets. They need the money to keep there own political campaigns and lifestyles going.
> 
> The true source or motivation of the lease will be seen by following the money trail.... or who will reap the most money from this plan.


I find it hard to believe any NH Rep would be interested in money for votes. Usually in a stage this small, money gets given to campaigns based on the politician's stance on issues, not issues changed for money. My concern with state Reps only being paid $200/year is that it likely naturally selects only those that can afford to be a state Rep rather than that they will trade votes for campaign contributions. From what I have seen locally, not a lot of money is being invested in NH Rep campaigns. I suspect being a state rep in NH is something (generally speaking) only the well to do are going to be able to afford.



MadPadraic said:


> Loon's tree island cutting just made the lease more valuable.


How so? I would say it points towards the dangers of leasing. What if Cannon were leased to Boyne? Would the same decision makes cut the tree islands of Mittersill (there are a lot)? Would all of the Mittersill trails be cut back to their original width (as they can be per the land swap agreement)? Would decisions made based on the "majority" of skiers be applied to all trails universally so the area could have more trails available to cater to the average skier?


----------



## jack97 (Aug 17, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> I find it hard to believe any NH Rep would be interested in money for votes. Usually in a stage this small, money gets given to campaigns based on the politician's stance on issues, not issues changed for money.



Given how much money is needed to keep the politically machinary going to keep state reps and senators in office, you need to take care the to poeple or groups that put you in and keep you in. And yes.... the amount of money is not chump change. Thats why I'm interested in the money trail which sparks this issue that comes up every 4-5 years.


----------



## AdironRider (Aug 17, 2011)

Are you even from NH? 

New Hampshires system is one of the better ones in the country, and at least from the area I grew up in, the reps elected couldnt give a shit about the money. They just want to do it.

Frankly, you sound like a guy whos just pissed off a government and is going to stick to his argument regardless, go hang with Threecy or something. 

End politics discussion.


----------



## Nick (Aug 17, 2011)

Hopefully we will hear from Cannon for the AZ challenge  Emails went out today.


----------



## jack97 (Aug 18, 2011)

AdironRider said:


> Are you even from NH?
> 
> New Hampshires system is one of the better ones in the country, and at least from the area I grew up in, the reps elected couldnt give a shit about the money. They just want to do it.
> 
> ...



Here's the facts as I read it; NH state senate finance committee trys a backdoor trick to privatized a ski area. Because of this, JD post an opinion statement on their web site and Bald is essentially saying wtf. Due to a stalemate on the budget, it becomes a proposed topic for open debate for the upcoming legislation,  where in my opinion where it should have been in the first place.

BTW, I'm from MA where state level corruption has evolved to an art form. Those apathetic to government corruption will be consumed by it and basically deserve what they get. 

If that's too politcal then I'm out.


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 18, 2011)

This topic can't be discussed without at least some political content.  I'm fine with that given that it's related to the ski business.

NH politicians are certainly interwined in the ski business.  Chris Sununu is on the Executive Council for the State.  He's also the owner and CEO of Waterville Valley.

What an interesting turn of events it would be if the Sununu family took on the lease of Cannon.  A Cannon/Waterville partnership would certainly offer a very compelling season pass offering.


----------



## Puck it (Aug 18, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> This topic can't be discussed without at least some political content. I'm fine with that given that it's related to the ski business.
> 
> NH politicians are certainly interwined in the ski business. Chris Sununu is on the Executive Council for the State. He's also the owner and CEO of Waterville Valley.
> 
> What an interesting turn of events it would be if the Sununu family took on the lease of Cannon. A Cannon/Waterville partnership would certainly offer a very compelling season pass offering.


 
And would be about a $1K for no black outs.  That would suck the big one.


----------



## Cannonball (Aug 18, 2011)

Puck it said:


> And would be about a $1K for no black outs.  That would suck the big one.



A Cannon/WV pass at $1K would great!.....for Burke's business


----------



## Puck it (Aug 18, 2011)

Cannonball said:


> A Cannon/WV pass at $1K would great!.....for Burke's business


 

Come to think of it,  I got 2 WV passes when I bought my season pass this year.

Coincidnence or what?


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 18, 2011)

what are the prices for the Boyne no blackout or the Peaks Granite no black out passes?

I would imagine at least to start, a Cannon/Waterville pass would be priced below those two passes to try and gain market share.  According to the most recent data I've seen, Waterville and Cannon only do about 300K skier visits combined.

For the record, I'm not in favor of Waterville partnering with Cannon.


----------



## thetrailboss (Aug 18, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> what are the prices for the Boyne no blackout or the Peaks Granite no black out passes?
> 
> I would imagine at least to start, a Cannon/Waterville pass would be priced below those two passes to try and gain market share. According to the most recent data I've seen, Waterville and Cannon only do about 300K skier visits combined.
> 
> For the record, I'm not in favor of Waterville partnering with Cannon.


 
While it makes some sense that Sununu might like Cannon, they have their hands full with WV right now. 

Since Cannon has little real estate development potential, if any, and is only a ski area operation, I would see it as a prime target for...wait for it...POWDR. 

Killington and Cannon threads unite.    Dance puppets, dance!  :lol:


----------



## jimmywilson69 (Aug 18, 2011)

at a minimum, it would stream line the complaining...


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 18, 2011)

:lol:

Jimmy

you and I need to tip back a few beers. :lol:


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 18, 2011)

thetrailboss said:


> While it makes some sense that Sununu might like Cannon, they have their hands full with WV right now.
> 
> Since Cannon has little real estate development potential, if any, and is only a ski area operation, I would see it as a prime target for...wait for it...POWDR.
> 
> Killington and Cannon threads unite.    Dance puppets, dance!  :lol:



I look at it more from a competition issue for the Sununus.  Threecy has made numerous arguments that subsidized State Run Cannon puts private ski areas out of business.  As both a ski area owner and a man with political power, I could see Chris wanting to prevent Cannon from taking away skier visits from Cannon and using his political sway to make that happen.  

I do think Waterville would benefit greatly from having a dual ticket with Cannon.  Loon has SR/SL to attract season pass holders.  Attitash and Wildcat are partnerned up.  As an individual area, Waterville will have a very difficult time competing with those ownership groups.  Cannon would be a huge benefit for them.  It might actually help drive real estate sales at Waterville.


----------



## riverc0il (Aug 18, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> This topic can't be discussed without at least some political content.  I'm fine with that given that it's related to the ski business.
> 
> NH politicians are certainly interwined in the ski business.  Chris Sununu is on the Executive Council for the State.  He's also the owner and CEO of Waterville Valley.
> 
> What an interesting turn of events it would be if the Sununu family took on the lease of Cannon.  A Cannon/Waterville partnership would certainly offer a very compelling season pass offering.


Here is an interesting notion: supposedly (according to those advocating for a lease and using Sunapee as an example...) if Cannon is leased, its skier visits would increase. Let's say that skier visits are more Zero Sum than not. So would the owner of a for profit ski area about to launch a major expansion be in favor of leasing a state run ski area and risking lost skier visits and revenue due to Cannon being supposedly better run and drawing more skier visits? Inquiring minds, and those interested in intellectual honesty want to know...


----------



## riverc0il (Aug 18, 2011)

Cannonball said:


> A Cannon/WV pass at $1K would great!.....for Burke's business


lolz

Cannon already partners with BW for mid-week season pass. I can't imagine BW would be in favor of Cannon also partnering with WV and retaining partnership with Cannon at the same time. That would lead to more WV visits and fewer BW visits.


----------



## Rikka (Aug 18, 2011)

Some minor news:

Amy and her crew have been hard at work with trail improvements on Cannon  - we took out the hard sharp turn so it would hold snow and traffic a little better. We also did some work to the top of Short Fuse, the runout from Upper Hardscrabble, the narrow bottom of Lower Hardscrabble, and lower Gremlin. Between those projects and attending to last winter's work around the Mittersill Double Chair, we will have thrown, tossed and spread 2000 bails of hay!


----------



## thetrailboss (Aug 18, 2011)

Rikka said:


> Some minor news:
> 
> Amy and her crew have been hard at work with trail improvements on Cannon - we took out the hard sharp turn so it would hold snow and traffic a little better. We also did some work to the top of Short Fuse, the runout from Upper Hardscrabble, the narrow bottom of Lower Hardscrabble, and lower Gremlin. Between those projects and attending to last winter's work around the Mittersill Double Chair, we will have thrown, tossed and spread 2000 bails of hay!


 
Nice!  Keep us posted!


----------



## Edd (Aug 18, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> lolz
> 
> Cannon already partners with BW for mid-week season pass. I can't imagine BW would be in favor of Cannon also partnering with WV and retaining partnership with Cannon at the same time. That would lead to more WV visits and fewer BW visits.



If I'm remembering correctly BW has been in partnership with WV along with Cranmore on a pass.  That happened after Loon was sold to Boyne.  That arrangement lasted 2 seasons, ending last season when Cranmore and WV parted ways, ownership-wise.

I don't know if BW considered that a beneficial relationship or not.


----------



## threecy (Aug 19, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> Here is an interesting notion: supposedly (according to those advocating for a lease and using Sunapee as an example...) if Cannon is leased, its skier visits would increase. Let's say that skier visits are more Zero Sum than not. So would the owner of a for profit ski area about to launch a major expansion be in favor of leasing a state run ski area and risking lost skier visits and revenue due to Cannon being supposedly better run and drawing more skier visits? Inquiring minds, and those interested in intellectual honesty want to know...



Circa 1990, Waterville was skiing 300,000 a year.  At that time, Loon was skiing over 300,000 a year and Cannon was skiing 100,000, give or take a few 10K.

Circa 2010, Waterville was skiing 170,000 a year, Loon still around 300,000 a year, and Cannon around 100,000, give or take a few 10K.


----------



## Cannonball (Aug 19, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> Here is an interesting notion: supposedly (according to those advocating for a lease and using Sunapee as an example...) if Cannon is leased, its skier visits would increase. Let's say that skier visits are more Zero Sum than not. So would the owner of a for profit ski area about to launch a major expansion be in favor of leasing a state run ski area and risking lost skier visits and revenue due to Cannon being supposedly better run and drawing more skier visits? Inquiring minds, and those interested in intellectual honesty want to know....





threecy said:


> Circa 1990, Waterville was skiing 300,000 a year.  At that time, Loon was skiing over 300,000 a year and Cannon was skiing 100,000, give or take a few 10K.
> 
> Circa 2010, Waterville was skiing 170,000 a year, Loon still around 300,000 a year, and Cannon around 100,000, give or take a few 10K.



And Sunapee jumped from <100K to ~375K in the same time frame.  Basically the same increase as Waterville's decrease over the same time period.  Back to Riverc0il's concept/question: if overall skier numbers are a zero sum, are we just moving the same skiers around?  Did increases at Sunapee come at the expense of decreases at WV?  Would increases at WV and/or Cannon come at the expense of Sunapee?  If so what are the implications for all three areas as 1)  WV expands and 2) as potential collaborations   
form under a Cannon-lease scenario?


----------



## threecy (Aug 19, 2011)

Cannonball said:


> And Sunapee jumped from <100K to ~375K in the same time frame.



Sunapee's at 288K, not 375K.  Waterville had already dropped to the 200K range by the time Sunapee was leased.


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 19, 2011)

Since 1990 I think Waterville has probably lost more skiers to Okemo and Sunday River than Sunapee.


----------



## Cannonball (Aug 19, 2011)

Cannonball said:


> And Sunapee jumped from <100K to ~375K in the same time frame.





threecy said:


> Sunapee's at 288K, not 375K.  Waterville had already dropped to the 200K range by the time Sunapee was leased.



Roger that: typo.

So WV lost ~100K skiers/yr between ~1990 to 1998.  Then lost ~30K/yr over the next 12 years.  While Loon and Cannon held steady.  (Impressive stat for Loon and Cannon).  That suggest the WV skiers either dropped out altogether or started going somewhere else.  Okemo and SR have been suggested.  I'd guess Sunapee got some portion considering their rise in numbers.

Doesn't change the question though.  Would new skiers come to WV following an expansion?  If not, then it's a major failure.  If so, from where?  Would the same base come back from Sunapee, Okemo, and SR?  What are the implications for those areas?  Or would they pull from Loon and Cannon?  If they pull from Cannon it would make a lease considerably less appealing for an investor.  Unless Cannon & WV were part of the same operation.  But that would take a pretty big and bold company to take on the Cannon lease AND all of those WV improvements at the same time.


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 19, 2011)

I think there is opportunity for NH to steal a number of Boston Market skier visits from the Southern Vermont Family resorts; Mt Snow, Stratton, Bromley and Okemo.  Also from Sunday River. 

Outside of Mt. Snow, Waterville is a closer drive for the Boston skier than all those other areas.  I just think they need another 100 acres or so of terrain as what they currently have skis rather small IMO.


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 19, 2011)

actually, Mt. Snow is even a farther drive from Boston proper.  Western suburbs it's about the same to get to Mt. Snow as Waterville.


----------



## thetrailboss (Aug 19, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> I think there is opportunity for NH to steal a number of Boston Market skier visits from the Southern Vermont Family resorts; Mt Snow, Stratton, Bromley and Okemo. Also from Sunday River.
> 
> Outside of Mt. Snow, Waterville is a closer drive for the Boston skier than all those other areas. I just think they need another 100 acres or so of terrain as what they currently have skis rather small IMO.


 
When you factor in how easy it is to get to WV compared to some of the Southern VT areas from Boston, there is a lot of potential for WV.


----------



## jack97 (Aug 19, 2011)

Along the 93 corridor, have to factor in Bretton Woods, they cater to the family crowd... Most of the time its the best compromise for everyone in the family. The word I hear was that they were not doing well in the 90s but turn things around late 90s and early 00. I have no numbers to back this up tho.


----------



## thetrailboss (Aug 19, 2011)

jack97 said:


> Along the 93 corridor, have to factor in Bretton Woods, they cater to the family crowd... Most of the time its the best compromise for everyone in the family. The word I hear was that they were not doing well in the 90s but turn things around late 90s and early 00. I have no numbers to back this up tho.


 
This is a very good point.  BW ate much of WV's lunch.  The ownership changed in 1999 or so and they made massive improvements.  It went from a low key family ski area for kids to the Okemo of NH with ego cruisers, high speed lifts, and lots of snowmaking.  They brought up the folks that WV would otherwise have taken.


----------



## jack97 (Aug 19, 2011)

thetrailboss said:


> When you factor in how easy it is to get to WV compared to some of the Southern VT areas from Boston, there is a lot of potential for WV.



Travel time from metro west, boston and the border town (Nashua/Hudson), the difference between going to WV and Sunapee has to favor the later. 

From metro west, mnt snow and Sunapee is a wash for travel time but lift tickets in vermont is more expensive.


----------



## Puck it (Aug 19, 2011)

Cannon is great for me.  I live a bout a mile of 93 and then right off 93 in the notch.  No dealing with speed traps in Bradford, Newbury or others.  Set cruise at 75mph and I am there in 105 minutes tops.


----------



## thetrailboss (Aug 19, 2011)

Puck it said:


> Cannon is great for me. I live a bout a mile of 93 and then right off 93 in the notch. No dealing with speed traps in Bradford, Newbury or others. Set cruise at 75mph and I am there in 105 minutes tops.


 
Just watch out on 93 in Manchester!


----------



## Puck it (Aug 19, 2011)

thetrailboss said:


> Just watch out on 93 in Manchester!


 
Did you miss the part about setting cruise at 75mph. They do not bther you.  I have been doing it for years.


----------



## thetrailboss (Aug 19, 2011)

Puck it said:


> Did you miss the part about setting cruise at 75mph. They do not bther you. I have been doing it for years.


 
No, I got that, but the speed limit drops down to 55 where 101 and 93 merge and that is an infamous spot.  You can zoom through there at 75, but you will get a ticket!


----------



## Puck it (Aug 19, 2011)

thetrailboss said:


> No, I got that, but the speed limit drops down to 55 where 101 and 93 merge and that is an infamous spot. You can zoom through there at 75, but you will get a ticket!


 

Yes it does, but never see any cars slower then 65. And stay in the right two lanes.

It also slows to 55mph in Concord, but no one does that there either.


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 19, 2011)

I see more folks get pulled over North of Concord coming south with the speed limit change than I do at the change of 101/93.  Same thing on 89 before you get to 93


----------



## Puck it (Aug 19, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> I see more folks get pulled over North of Concord coming south with the speed limit change than I do at the change of 101/93. Same thing on 89 before you get to 93


 
As you go up the hill to 89 especially.  

CHiP (not Ponch) gave me the recommendation years ago when I lived in CA.  They are not concentrating on the right lanes.


----------



## jack97 (Aug 19, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> Here is an interesting notion: supposedly (according to those advocating for a lease and using Sunapee as an example...) if Cannon is leased, its skier visits would increase. Let's say that skier visits are more Zero Sum than not. So would the owner of a for profit ski area about to launch a major expansion be in favor of leasing a state run ski area and risking lost skier visits and revenue due to Cannon being supposedly better run and drawing more skier visits? Inquiring minds, and those interested in intellectual honesty want to know...



Given it is close to zero sum..... i would think privates nearby would be concern about a lease deal. However, they should know that in order for Cannon to seriously take visitors away, they would need to develop the Mittersill area. 

If I was a private operator nearby (maybe in NH in general), I would want them remain public and stymie any development plans for Mittersill. That area has the potential to be an intermediate paradise.


----------



## witch hobble (Aug 19, 2011)

Cannonball said:


> And Sunapee jumped from <100K to ~375K in the same time frame.  Basically the same increase as Waterville's decrease over the same time period.  Back to Riverc0il's concept/question: if overall skier numbers are a zero sum, are we just moving the same skiers around?  Did increases at Sunapee come at the expense of decreases at WV?  Would increases at WV and/or Cannon come at the expense of Sunapee?  If so what are the implications for all three areas as 1)  WV expands and 2) as potential collaborations
> form under a Cannon-lease scenario?



WV is entrenched in the "Bermuda traiangle of guvment ski areas", so they are lucky to have a pot to piss in at this point  .

This thread lives!  It is good to take a week off in the summer.  Collect your thoughts.


----------



## riverc0il (Aug 19, 2011)

Puck it said:


> It also slows to 55mph in Concord, but no one does that there either.


People get bagged in Concord all the time. My SO used to commute to Concord daily. Entering the 55 zone was one of the few times she always did the speed limit. They love to camp out right where the trees end/begin on the northern edge of the city right where the limit changes. I've seen so many people bagged there. Same on the south side of the city. Just before the Route 3 exit in Concord on Northbound side I see tons of folks pulled over. Staties like to sit in the median just before the 89 split (as you go northbound) and pounce on cars where it goes to 55. Manchester... I've seen people nailed in the area right before it goes back up to 65 (northbound). They usually don't catch up and get the car pulled over until the long flat part where there is a bridge (currently under construction, so probably not bagging people there now) where it has already gone to 65 though they catch people before that. You have good luck if you blow through the 55 zones at 75. I've gotten warned for doing 75 in a 65 on I-93 before. I keep it at 70 myself. But bottom line is I probably see someone pulled over in the 55 zones at least once per round trip. But I am driving through there at different times than you would be....


----------



## bobbutts (Aug 19, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> I see more folks get pulled over North of Concord coming south with the speed limit change than I do at the change of 101/93.  Same thing on 89 before you get to 93



they also like to hide at the top of the overpass on 93 @ 3/Manchester St in Concord
and several spots on 89 between 202 and 93.  Seems like compared to the 90's though there's very little traffic cops on NH highways.. I got a ticket once clocked from an airplane even back then. 

Couple other replies without bothering to quote.
Waterville has a pretty big base of 2nd homeowners, homeowners, and seasonal renters, I'd guess that's who buys passes there for the most part.
Totally agree that Okemo and SR took alot of the types that would have gone to Waterville in 1990.


----------



## riverc0il (Aug 19, 2011)

bobbutts said:


> Waterville has a pretty big base of 2nd homeowners, homeowners, and seasonal renters, I'd guess that's who buys passes there for the most part.


I am a little skeptical of real estate expansion suggestion of WV because of the already massive 2nd home owner development in the Route 49 area. Some better built up scale new homes might move, though. When I was shopping for a home in the area, my real estate agent specifically told us to avoid the WV Estates area, for example. Poor build quality and poor value were both cited. There are tons of units for sale in the WVE all the time. I don't know if there is enough demand for even more development, especially in this economy. 

I was being a little facetious with my post regarding zero sum, outsourcing Cannon drawing against private areas, and intellectual honesty. I don't think a leased Cannon would draw much against WV's share. As threecy noted, they have already taken a beating. It does seem likely they lost a lot to the Boyne pass (and also ASC A41). I think Sunapee awakening also drew against them for sure. Part of the Waterville Raison d'etre is close proximity to Boston. Although it is no closer than Loon or Cannon due to the length (and speed traps) of Route 49, folks in Boston metro view WV as the closest big mountain to that area. Sunapee is about the same drive and offers essentially the same product. Just with more people and higher prices. Marketing and a fresh face does wonders for a place. That was my serious inquiry regarding a leased Cannon hurting privates. I think my Sunapee example (pushing back on some of threecy's past suggestions and examples) has weight in both reality and philosophical value.




> This thread lives! It is good to take a week off in the summer. Collect your thoughts.


I certainly took some time away from this thread. Glad to see some evolving discussion instead of the mud slinging and posturing.


----------



## bigbob (Aug 21, 2011)

Why is the speed limit set so low and the speed traps so numerous on Rt 49? It in my opinion would have an overall net loss of revenue for the valley. It turned me off from hitting Waterville back in the original Threedom Pass days, I would rather go to Loon. I would ski WV maybe twice a season.


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 21, 2011)

cop factor on 49 = most over zealous ticket giving access point to a ski area in New England.  Speed limits are ridiculously low on that road for the amount of traffic/development in the area.  

2nd place is route 4 in Bridgewater, VT.


----------



## BLESS (Aug 23, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> People get bagged in Concord all the time. My SO used to commute to Concord daily. Entering the 55 zone was one of the few times she always did the speed limit. They love to camp out right where the trees end/begin on the northern edge of the city right where the limit changes. I've seen so many people bagged there. Same on the south side of the city. Just before the Route 3 exit in Concord on Northbound side I see tons of folks pulled over. Staties like to sit in the median just before the 89 split (as you go northbound) and pounce on cars where it goes to 55. Manchester... I've seen people nailed in the area right before it goes back up to 65 (northbound). They usually don't catch up and get the car pulled over until the long flat part where there is a bridge (currently under construction, so probably not bagging people there now) where it has already gone to 65 though they catch people before that. You have good luck if you blow through the 55 zones at 75. I've gotten warned for doing 75 in a 65 on I-93 before. I keep it at 70 myself. But bottom line is I probably see someone pulled over in the 55 zones at least once per round trip. But I am driving through there at different times than you would be....





LOL  I got nailed there once....best part was that I was on my way to court in plymouth because a month earlier I got arrested in FNSP for being underage and drinking ( I was 18 and we took a camping trip after we graduated, it got a little rowdy) ....the cop was none too pleased to hear my answer when he asked me where I was going lol. As expected, everyone in court that day was a young kid who "coincidentally" was there for underage drinking.  Oh well, we had a great time that night hanging out in the Lincoln drunk tank or whatever the hell you wanna call it.  It ended up being just a violation.....not even a misdemeanor.    A bunch of fines & a couple months later I got a letter from the state basically telling me never to come there again.   Ive been back every year since.  


BTW, fwiw this thread is by far the best one Ive ever read on this site.  I cant really explain why...it just is.


----------



## hrstrat57 (Aug 26, 2011)

BLESS said:


> BTW, fwiw this thread is by far the best one Ive ever read on this site.  I cant really explain why...it just is.



Hey thanks fellow rhody guy!!!

I am hoping for 1000 posts!!!!! My kid goes to school in NH and this Cannon deal is a real hot topic on campus.

Hope to finally see you on the hill next year......hoping to get in more BEast vs. Wa next year!

Be safe Sunday!


----------



## BLESS (Aug 27, 2011)

hrstrat57 said:


> Hey thanks fellow rhody guy!!!
> 
> I am hoping for 1000 posts!!!!! My kid goes to school in NH and this Cannon deal is a real hot topic on campus.
> 
> ...



hahaha it figures 2 guys from rhody actually like it.  We're probably the only ones!   We are a strange bunch, us quahogs.  You're down at yawgoo?  I drive by there literally every weekend on my way to our summer cottage in Matunuck.....


to those of you wondering why, I suppose it certainly has to do with the fact that I love Cannon......and I love Cannon because the Loon & Bretton Woods types hate it ( at least here in RI)   and I want it to stay that way...the response I always get down here in rhody is "oh cannon, that mountain is too cold & icy"   I guess they dont realize the layering concept?  Shit Ive skied in -25 with a chill near -40 and was fine.  It wasnt the greatest day...but a day on snow anyway.  Anywhoo I guess I just liked the back & forth in the thread......everytime threecy started to win me over (just a tiny tiny bit)  someone was there to come back with a well thought out response, that ultimately IMO he was never able to REALLY answer for.  No offense threecy, you had some good points, and I respect you're opinion on the matter...hell you're entitled to it, we all are.  Nice job all around by everyone involved.  I cant wait to see how things shake out in the future years to come.


----------



## hrstrat57 (Aug 27, 2011)

BLESS said:


> hahaha it figures 2 guys from rhody actually like it.  We're probably the only ones!   We are a strange bunch, us quahogs.  You're down at yawgoo?  I drive by there literally every weekend on my way to our summer cottage in Matunuck.....



Hope the Matunuck SK cottage makes it thru tomorrow....

I'm about a mile from Yawgoo Valley, taught skiing there for about 8 yrs as did 2 of my kids.

Prior to that I had a season pass for a couple of years.

I learned to ski at Pinetop tho, many moons ago.

Cannon Mountain is a very beautiful place even without the old man. I too have enjoyed the passionate discussion here, very glad I asked the question.


----------



## 2knees (Mar 10, 2016)

any updates?


----------



## Madroch (Mar 10, 2016)

Maybe a new thread devoted to cannon would work...


----------



## ExtremeRyan (Jan 16, 2018)

Ive heard Cannon has some great backcountry/unmarked , anyone have any beta on that they are willing to offer? Someone told me there was a way to ski the kinsmen ridge trail to an open treeless face that dumps you out in the lot. I also heard there were some good chutes off the saddle and something called south bowl on the backside. Anyone know about these spots? Dm me.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## Puck it (Jan 16, 2018)

ExtremeRyan said:


> Ive heard Cannon has some great backcountry/unmarked , anyone have any beta on that they are willing to offer? Someone told me there was a way to ski the kinsmen ridge trail to an open treeless face that dumps you out in the lot. I also heard there were some good chutes off the saddle and something called south bowl on the backside. Anyone know about these spots? Dm me.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone



Shit already gets tracked out way too fast to send anyone else.  So NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!


----------



## bdfreetuna (Jan 16, 2018)

ExtremeRyan said:


> Ive heard Cannon has some great backcountry/unmarked , anyone have any beta on that they are willing to offer? Someone told me there was a way to ski the kinsmen ridge trail to an open treeless face that dumps you out in the lot. I also heard there were some good chutes off the saddle and something called south bowl on the backside. Anyone know about these spots? Dm me.



SKI Magazine actually did a semi thorough expose on Cannon's sidecountry in one of their issues last winter.

You can figure out a lot of it by searching YouTube for "Cannon backcountry" and similar terms.


----------



## Vaughn (Jan 16, 2018)

Anyone been to Cannon since last Friday's rain disaster? Thinking about heading up Friday or Saturday.


----------



## SkiMom80 (Jan 17, 2018)

Vaughn said:


> Anyone been to Cannon since last Friday's rain disaster? Thinking about heading up Friday or Saturday.



I was there yesterday and it wasn't bad.  They were blowing snow, and had actually done a decent job grooming.  I was with my 4-year-old, so we stuck to blue trails only, but it was a great day of skiing. There was only 1 spot on just below the Cannonball lift on Middle Ravine that was terrible.

That said, there was no one there yesterday.  If it had been a weekend day it would have all been skied off by 11am.  They are continuing to blow snow to resurface, and they should be getting a few inches from mother nature today, so here's hoping the weekend is decent!


----------



## SIKSKIER (Jan 17, 2018)

Cannon is actually way better than I thought it was going to be after that rain event.As to the south bowl area,We would need a lot of snow to ski that.It dumps you down by Lafayette campground so you would need transportation back.You basically head off to the farthest skiers right from the top and aim towards 93 south.Total unmarked bushwacking.You need somebody to show you and even then its a real crapshoot even with big snow.You can see the South Bowl open exposure when headed north.It faces southeast before you get to the Cannon Cliffs.Very rarely skied.


----------



## Vaughn (Jan 17, 2018)

SIKSKIER said:


> You basically head off to the farthest skiers right from the top and aim towards 93 south.Total unmarked bushwacking.



If you find yourself hurtling through the air over a 200' cliff, you have gone too close to 93 South and should have gone a little more due south.


----------



## SIKSKIER (Jan 18, 2018)

This is South Bowl.The only reason I would show this on the internet is show how remote and forbidding this area is.Not for the casual skier but for somebody that has prepared for much bushwacking and route finding.Also,if you view on GE zoom in and see how much talus/scree rocks are in there to show how much snow is needed to fill it in.


----------



## bdfreetuna (Jan 18, 2018)

South Bowl is one thing but there's plenty of stuff that takes you back to the lift.

Search "Bear Guy" on YT ... also keep an eye out coming down the Saddle


----------



## Puck it (Jan 18, 2018)

bdfreetuna said:


> South Bowl is one thing but there's plenty of stuff that takes you back to the lift.
> 
> Search "Bear Guy" on YT ... also keep an eye out coming down the Saddle


Bear Gut


----------



## bdfreetuna (Jan 18, 2018)

save you some searching..


----------



## Puck it (Jan 18, 2018)

bdfreetuna said:


> save you some searching..


Sorry but that is Bear Gut not Guy. Dumps you out at the top of Jasper's


----------



## Puck it (Jan 18, 2018)

Save you a search


----------



## bdfreetuna (Jan 18, 2018)

I'm not debating you on it being Gut which we both know. Just providing key words for a YT search since most ppl on there call it "guy" for whatever reason.

Good way to find sidecountry / stashes on YT, find a local who posts a video of one stash... good chance their channel has other stashes

I find this a lot easier than asking people since I'm antisocial.


----------



## Puck it (Jan 18, 2018)

Save you a search


----------



## Monica (Feb 8, 2018)

Not my type of skiing! Scared of rocks and trees! But awesome to watch!


----------

