# Wildcat Lifetime Season Pass Controversy



## threecy (Nov 23, 2010)

According to the Conway Daily Sun, Peak Resorts has decided it will not honor lifetime season passes sold at Wildcat in the 1960s-80s.  About 1,400 lifetime passes were sold, according to the article.

The article does not state whether or not the passholders bought stock with benefits or an actual lifetime pass.

The USFS is supporting Peak Resorts, saying that lifetime passes cannot be sold for use of federally permitted land.


----------



## dmc (Nov 23, 2010)

uhhh ohh...


----------



## thetrailboss (Nov 23, 2010)

I think I called this as well.....


----------



## drjeff (Nov 23, 2010)

As the old addage goes, the only things certain in life are death and taxes.......


----------



## deadheadskier (Nov 23, 2010)

guess it will shake out based upon how the contract was written


----------



## dmc (Nov 23, 2010)

I wonder if the conversation will rival the KZone conversations..


----------



## thetrailboss (Nov 23, 2010)

dmc said:


> I wonder if the conversation will rival the KZone conversations..


 
Probably not.  

Makes it clear that Wildcat was an asset sale.


----------



## thetrailboss (Nov 23, 2010)

Here's the article:  http://www.infinews2.com/1002/cgi/cdsstory.pl?storyid=201011220810571002953

Sounds like there is more than meets the eye.


----------



## threecy (Nov 23, 2010)

thetrailboss said:


> Here's the article:  http://www.infinews2.com/1002/cgi/cdsstory.pl?storyid=201011220810571002953





> When Peak Resorts purchased Attitash from the American Ski Company, Graham said, American Ski Company included the long-term passes in the negotiations.


Funny that ASC included that provision with the Attitash sale, but not the Killington sale.

I'm curious to see of Peak and (presumably) EPT get trashed as much as SP/Powdr did here.


----------



## thetrailboss (Nov 23, 2010)

threecy said:


> Funny that ASC included that provision with the Attitash sale, but not the Killington sale.
> 
> I'm curious to see of Peak and (presumably) EPT get trashed as much as SP/Powdr did here.


 
Peak is not the problem; Franchi was the problem.  When you see that he and the passholders were already  :argue:  then you can understand the full context and what really happened.


----------



## severine (Nov 23, 2010)

Here we go again...


----------



## mondeo (Nov 23, 2010)

thetrailboss said:


> Probably not.
> 
> Makes it clear that Wildcat was an asset sale.


I thought Killington was clearly an asset sale?

I'm guessing the difference will be that was Killington. This is not.


----------



## threecy (Nov 23, 2010)

thetrailboss said:


> Peak is not the problem; Franchi was the problem.



Franchi allegedly didn't include a provision for the passholders to retain their passes in the P&S - neither did ASC with Killington.  Yet, on here, it seemed that most people were blaming the new owners/operators at Killington.


I'm still curious to see if those passes had to do with buying stock in Wildcat, or if they were sold as an actual product.  The cancelled ones at Killington were a stock benefit.


----------



## thetrailboss (Nov 23, 2010)

threecy said:


> I'm still curious to see if those passes had to do with buying stock in Wildcat, or if they were sold as an actual product. The cancelled ones at Killington were a stock benefit.


 
My sense from the article was that these were actual products.


----------



## threecy (Nov 23, 2010)

thetrailboss said:


> My sense from the article was that these were actual products.



Some of the Killington articles portrayed theirs as such.


----------



## threecy (Nov 23, 2010)

As a reminder, here's how the forums reacted when the Killington lifetime pass cancellation leaked out:

http://www.alpinezone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16360


----------



## thetrailboss (Nov 23, 2010)

Well, I think that one key distinction is that Killington/Sherburne Corporation was a publicly traded entity which issued stock subscriptions and bonds/debentures that included the lifetime pass a 'perk.'  People invested money into the resort into one of these vehicles with the intent of making money back from the interest.  As a perk, they got the passes.  Now some of these passes were transferrable and that is where the problem was.  These passes were sold on an uncontrolled market and folks who bought them were not the investors.  

Wildcat was a private family owned business.  While it too needed capital, it appears that they sold the lifetime pass product as the means to making the money.  The customer bought a lifetime pass and nothing else.


----------



## threecy (Nov 23, 2010)

thetrailboss said:


> Wildcat was a private family owned business.  While it too needed capital, it appears that they sold the lifetime pass product as the means to making the money.  The customer bought a lifetime pass and nothing else.



I believe the passes in question at Wildcat were sold/given prior to it being sold to the Franchi family.

From NESM:



> Malcolm McLane was an attorney as well as a competitive skier, and he drew up a prospectus outlining the structure of stock sales that carried lifetime pass privileges, and financing activities proceeded in 1956 and 1957. It’s unclear if Wildcat was the first ski area in the country to form this sort of financing structure, but McLane got inquires from other areas soon after his prospectus was approved by the government, and for years he could see his legalese from the Wildcat document repeated in stock offerings from new ski areas across the country.


----------



## thetrailboss (Nov 23, 2010)

threecy said:


> I believe the passes in question at Wildcat were sold/given prior to it being sold to the Franchi family.
> 
> From NESM:


 
And so the plot thickens.....interesting....


----------



## snowmonster (Nov 23, 2010)

thetrailboss said:


> Well, I think that one key distinction is that Killington/Sherburne Corporation was a publicly traded entity which issued stock subscriptions and bonds/debentures that included the lifetime pass a 'perk.'  People invested money into the resort into one of these vehicles with the intent of making money back from the interest.  As a perk, they got the passes.  Now some of these passes were transferrable and that is where the problem was.  These passes were sold on an uncontrolled market and folks who bought them were not the investors.
> 
> Wildcat was a private family owned business.  While it too needed capital, it appears that they sold the lifetime pass product as the means to making the money.  The customer bought a lifetime pass and nothing else.



I'm not as familiar with any of these situations, TB, and I'll defer to you on this but whether it is a public or private corporation should not matter. In either case, it seems the obligations were incurred by the corporation. If these obligations were excluded in an asset sale, the liability for them should not transfer to the buyer but should remain with the seller corporation.


----------



## marcski (Nov 23, 2010)

thetrailboss said:


> And so the plot thickens.....interesting....



It's always the damn lawyers who cause the problems....  :flag:


----------



## thetrailboss (Nov 23, 2010)

marcski said:


> It's always the damn lawyers who cause the problems.... :flag:


 
No, it is the damn people who don't understand us lawyers that cause the problem :wink: :lol:  

Just kidding.  

What I find is interesting was that Wildcat was the first resort to do the lifetime pass perk for stockholders and others, probably including Killington, took their model.  Very interesting.


----------



## threecy (Nov 23, 2010)

I'm still waiting to see when the deal actually closes and if it's an asset based transaction.  Nonetheless, if it's similar to the Killington issue, I would say Peak is justified in their actions.


----------



## BLESS (Nov 23, 2010)

why not just appease the 1400 people...most of them probably never use it anyway...do you think anymore than half actually are still around/able to use them?  If so, why not just let, say, the "700"  people just keep them instead of creating a shitstorm?


----------



## WWF-VT (Nov 23, 2010)

Looks like the definition of a "lifetime pass" is not your lifetime, but the lifetime of the corporate entity that runs the mountain that is selling you the "lifetime pass".


----------



## EPB (Nov 23, 2010)

BLESS said:


> why not just appease the 1400 people...most of them probably never use it anyway...do you think anymore than half actually are still around/able to use them?  If so, why not just let, say, the "700"  people just keep them instead of creating a shitstorm?



Because those people would basically contribute nothing to the bottom line if they were allowed to keep their passes.  If they brown bag, they would literally spend no money at Wildcat to ski.  Why allow them to keep skiing there if you aren't obligated to do so?  Any ticket/pass revenue from these skiers would create value that didn't exist otherwise. 

If I'm not mistaken, these pass holders have been skiing on their lifetime passes for the better part of 30 to 50 years, so they've clearly gotten their money's worth and more.  They put up money for some initial improvements, but have essentially been leeches ever since (which among other things, makes their "I played an integral role in the progression of x mountain" argument seem like a complete crock).

There's also a fairly strong legal precedent dictating that companies are not obligated to honor lifetime passes.  That would also make costs to fight pass holders down too.  Suing the mountain seems like a terrible idea unless you're one of the lawyers.  It also seems to contradict the idea that lifetime pass holders are somehow helpless victims of the mountain when they are able to pool the type of cash to move forward with litigation.  

To be more brief (sorry for ranting), it makes no sense for rational pass holders to sue the mountain, and many will return because they got a sweet deal during their time with a lifetime pass, and because they love their home mountain.


----------



## mondeo (Nov 23, 2010)

BLESS said:


> why not just appease the 1400 people...most of them probably never use it anyway...do you think anymore than half actually are still around/able to use them? If so, why not just let, say, the "700" people just keep them instead of creating a shitstorm?


Why would you? They get probably no profit out of the pass holders, where if even 100 out of 700 continue to ski Wildcat with season's passes, thats, what, $50,000 (or whatever a pass there costs.) Every year.

They aren't really customers if they aren't paying for a pass.


----------



## Smellytele (Nov 23, 2010)

I actually know someone who has one and has had one for 40 years. He actually skis there with his kids who are on the race team. So he does contribute some toward their profits with their season passes. And because of his free skiing tends to not brown bag it as much. So what I am saying is that he probably wouldn't have had his kids race there and be skiing there now with his kids if not for that pass. It built loyalty which he had past down to the next generation.


----------



## drjeff (Nov 23, 2010)

Smellytele said:


> I actually know someone who has one and has had one for 40 years. He actually skis there with his kids who are on the race team. So he does contribute some toward their profits with their season passes. And because of his free skiing tends to not brown bag it as much. So what I am saying is that he probably wouldn't have had his kids race there and be skiing there now with his kids if not for that pass. It built loyalty which he had past down to the next generation.



Chances are if you thought enough of a ski area to buy a "lifetime" pass there, you find the mountain/terrain quite enjoyable, especially considering the plethora of other options in that area.  To suddenly break ties with an area (and leave all those memories behind) isn't easy for many to do.


----------



## BLESS (Nov 23, 2010)

mondeo said:


> Why would you? They get probably no profit out of the pass holders, where if even 100 out of 700 continue to ski Wildcat with season's passes, thats, what, $50,000 (or whatever a pass there costs.) Every year.
> 
> They aren't really customers if they aren't paying for a pass.



I see what u mean...but Im sure those people buy food & berr there at some point...I dunno It just seemed easier than having to deal with those people, and then when those people get told their passes are no good, the inevitable bashing theyre gonna do to their friends, their friends friends, and so on.....its not like there were 20 thousand passes.....


----------



## threecy (Nov 23, 2010)

BLESS said:


> I dunno It just seemed easier than having to deal with those people, and then when those people get told their passes are no good, the inevitable bashing theyre gonna do to their friends, their friends friends, and so on.....its not like there were 20 thousand passes.....



What are they going to do, ski at Attitash instead?


----------



## Smellytele (Nov 23, 2010)

On another note I have no horse in the race and could care less. The guy I also know said it was a good ride while it lasted and wasn't angry.


----------



## EPB (Nov 23, 2010)

Smellytele said:


> On another note I have no horse in the race and could care less. The guy I also know said it was a good ride while it lasted and wasn't angry.



From what it sounds like, this is the sensible way to view the whole situation, especially considering that the passes were issued so long ago.  My hat's off to him.


----------



## kickstand (Nov 23, 2010)

eastern powder baby said:


> From what it sounds like, this is the sensible way to view the whole situation, especially considering that the passes were issued so long ago.  My hat's off to him.



+1


----------



## Breeze (Nov 23, 2010)

+2


----------



## Rogman (Nov 23, 2010)

The mountain will win. Just as the mountain will win over at Killington. Lawyers will take advantage of angered chumps, weasel them out of a few hundred dollars apiece, and then shrug their shoulders and blame the Judge when they lose. " Perhaps we'll have better luck with an appeal, get a judge sympathetic to our cause" and the cycle will begin again. Law is generally pretty black and white. Who wrote the fine print? The mountain. I can't believe anyone is so dumb as to fall for this. It was a good run, but it's over. Don't let anger fool you into throwing good money after bad.


----------



## random_ski_guy (Nov 24, 2010)

I agree with Rogman.  

The lesson here is never buy a "lifetime" anything.  There is only one form of contractual right that I am familiar with (offhand) that would secure a true lifetime benefit and that would be a recorded deed/right/easement.  Otherwise, "lifetime" = the company's lifetime and that is far more likely to be substantially less than your own lifetime.


----------



## Geoff (Nov 25, 2010)

Here's what I wrote here about this when E2M/SP Land did this at KMart:

It's an asset sale.   If you have a lifetime pass, it vaporizes.   At best, you can go after the previous owners since you have a contract with that corporation.   I doubt a judge would give you  a penny unless you just bought the thing and hadn't 'made your money back'.   

I agree with Rogman.   A suit against the new owners is just a waste of time and money.



Geoff said:


> It wasn't exactly a "purchase".  ASC defaulted on a large loan from a subsidiary of the Texas-based Eiger Fund called Ski Partners.  ASC ended up swapping a 75% interest in the land at the bottom of Killington they got in the land swap deal with the state for Parker's Gore.  Eiger created another subsidiary called SP Land to own this asset.  Last year, Eiger was reporting that they were in the process of selling a big chunk of that land to Centex, a big Texas property developer that does both huge residential developments and resorts in places like Hawaii and the Carolinas.  Centex backed out, I recall, last fall.
> 
> Last Friday, SP Land bought the remaining 25% of all that land plus all the Killington ski resort assets (allmost all on leased land).  If you read the SEC filing from ASC, there is a $3 million escrow account on this sale.  If the new owners refuse to honor the lifetime passes, those passholders can always get the Vermont attorney general's office to go after that $3 million sitting in the escrow account that is supposed to go to ASC if there are no other claims against Killington that aren't already accounted for.  The SEC filing says that the new owners are supposed to honor those passes but I don't have any idea if that is legally binding.





Geoff said:


> It makes complete sense that the Salt Lake Tribune would pick this up.  The American Skiing Company executives sit in Park City.  The new owners of Killington bought the assets from ASC-owned corporations (Sherburne Corp and Killington, Ltd).  The new owners also got the state of Vermont to transfer the land lease over to them.  The contract for these lifetime passes is between the individual and the Sherburne Corporation.  That makes ASC on the hook for breach of contract.
> 
> If you look at the SEC documents, there is a $3 million escrow account tied to this deal.  If no claims are made by the new owners, the money goes to ASC.  If I held a lifetime pass, I'd be going after a slice of that money and I imagine the Vermont Attorney General's office is taking a hard look at this right now.  It's poetic justice that ASC gets $3 million taken from them as their final kick in the pants out of the state of Vermont.
> 
> The other 'fact' here is that the letters to the lifetime passholders were sent by Allen Wilson before the sale.  He worked for ASC, not the new owners and was kicked out the door when the deal was done.  The new owners had nothing to do with this and it was actually pretty good PR to offer those people 2 years of skiing.


----------



## riverc0il (Nov 25, 2010)

There seems to be a lot less outrage here. Just a general sense that the new owners might be blowing the PR battle. But I think if the new owners kept all the other discounts that actually effect a lot of AZ skiers, I doubt we'd see any objection at all, limited as it might be. 

It seems like the Wildcat pass holders definitely got their monies worth. And we don't see any of the Killington issues in which the season pass had been transferred between parties for a price making it so that some folks could not get there monies worth. It was probably a good run for the initial pass holders who are probably old enough to get a senior discount... if the new ownership still offers one excepting Wednesdays. :lol:


----------



## Breeze (Nov 25, 2010)

I'm not SAYING that it is exactly the case here, or  what level of bearing it truly has  on the " discount"  and "lifetime pass" issues at this point in the game :  everyone has to remember that the USFS Federal Land Use  Permit comes with a 3+" thick Operation Procedures manual..   That is a whole lot of  fine print legalese, and it does get right down to the Dept. of Ag/USFS  being a  "silent partner" in  the policies and  procedures at Wildcat. 

  In many cases, it is surprising  what murky  differences can lurk within the  Permit vs what a completely private corp on completely private land  would be allowed.  

As the  USFS rep  said in that Conway Sun article, a Federal Land Use Permit is never "transferred" in a sale such as this, a New Permit is issued.   I'm extrapolating that to mean there may be fresh meat in the New  Agreement, too.

That said,  I'm thinking that Peak ought to get a little stretch room  from their most  vocal "loyal" skiers.    Let Peak and the onsite Wildcat management digest  the ramifications of a  new Federal Land Use  Permit agreement and see what happens going forward.

Lord knows  some of them  have dogged  the Franchi Management from day one in 1986, I guess  they can't be expected to bury the bone this time  either.

Breeze


----------



## threecy (Nov 25, 2010)

Breeze said:


> That said,  I'm thinking that Peak ought to get a little stretch room  from their most  vocal "loyal" skiers.



In regard to the lifetime passes, now is the time to cancel them.  If Peak were to honor them for a year (without saying anything about cancelling them), there's a chance they could get bound to honoring them beyond there in court.

We haven't seen the details, but if these passes were benefits from investing in the old Wildcat corporation, and if nothing was put in the P&S, there's no reason to honor them.


----------



## deadheadskier (Nov 25, 2010)

I wonder when the last time a mountain offered a lifetime pass?  The Killington and Wildcat passes were both decades ago. Also wonder what other mountains have offered them in the past besides Killington and Wildcat; and if so it would be interesting to see a situation where the pass is indeed good for life no matter if ownership changes.  If I were a lawyer in a case like Killington or Wildcat, I'd want to see what an iron clad contract for a lifetime season pass looked like if such existed.


----------



## riverc0il (Nov 26, 2010)

deadheadskier said:


> I wonder when the last time a mountain offered a lifetime pass?  The Killington and Wildcat passes were both decades ago. Also wonder what other mountains have offered them in the past besides Killington and Wildcat; and if so it would be interesting to see a situation where the pass is indeed good for life no matter if ownership changes.  If I were a lawyer in a case like Killington or Wildcat, I'd want to see what an iron clad contract for a lifetime season pass looked like if such existed.


I think Saddleback offered (or perhaps is still offering?) a ten year pass. That is the closest I have seen. It only made sense if you factor in high inflation. Otherwise, it seemed too risky and not enough savings compared to current season pass and ticket prices.

Those lifetime passes were probably a great way to get a big infusion of capital during the early days of development. But I can't see any fully built out area ever offering them. Which is to say, I don't see we'll ever see them offered again.


----------



## deadheadskier (Nov 26, 2010)

Agree with such a product being unlikely at fully built out areas.  An exception might be to use such a product as a tool in selling real estate?


----------



## Breeze (Nov 26, 2010)

Found some  of the pertinent  Federal USFS information online for  download at 

http://www.fs.fed.us/specialuses/special_directives.shtml

If you don't want to  download and wade through the whole  Forest Service Manual, or Chapter 2710 special use authorizations,  at least  take the time to look at the  Ski Fee Q and A.  Its an RTF  doc that loads  pretty  quickly and speaks  to the  specific accounting a ski area must use in paying the Feds their rightful due  under a Special Use Permit. 

It pops out pretty quickly that a Ski Area like Wildcat, under a Special Use Permit is paying the US Treasury  their cut of revenues  based  on the  MARKET value of many the "deals" they offer,  freebies, discounted tix, not on what  actually goes in the cash drawer.

A "lifetime ski pass" renewed  by the passholder for the season would be reported to the USFS at 
the actual market  value for a full season pass, not a  "comp" or a "gratuity".  

What may be  "free " to the customer isn't at all "free" to the ski area. 

Nice to  "offer" a military discount, but because a military discount is " exclusionary" ( not available to  ALL),  that ticket sale has to be reported at "market value".  

EISCL  members are up in arms because  they aren't being  given a "special" discount on  personal single day tickets purchased through their club, anymore.    Well, yeah, and that is because that discount is considered  "exclusionary"  and the  Market Value rule applies.   When it is a Special Event ( IE a race or a race clinic) held on mountain, a "group discount"  can apply  that is not considered  exclusionary IE  any group  meeting the parameters of  # of participants  will receive that rate, and the revenue is treated at actual value, not the higher Market value.

Can't escape  the hand of the  US Treasury, the third party at this table, and the hand that irate customers don't  see.

Breeze


----------



## AdironRider (Nov 26, 2010)

deadheadskier said:


> Agree with such a product being unlikely at fully built out areas.  An exception might be to use such a product as a tool in selling real estate?



I know Jackson employees get a lifetime pass after working there for 20 years. Im sure lots of mountains do this for long term employees. Not sure if they apply if the mountain was sold however....


----------



## threecy (Nov 30, 2010)

From a letter from Peak Resorts President Tim Boyd in today's Conway Daily Sun:



			
				Tim Boyd said:
			
		

> The purchase and sale agreement, in fact, contained a list of lifetime pass holders and the seller, Wildcat Ski Reserve, requested the purchaser, WC Acquisitions, Inc. honor the passes.  The United States Forest Service, which issued the permit to Wildcat Mountain will not recognize the lifetime passes.  Both parties to the transaction discussed the issue in detail and attempted to negociate an accommodation.  Ultimately, the parties could not reach agreement on the matter and only then did the parties contract for the sale without such a provision.


----------



## Breeze (Nov 30, 2010)

Conway Daily Sun doesn't make it easy to find nuggets like this.   Can you link?   I'd like to read the entirety.  

Breeze


----------



## threecy (Nov 30, 2010)

Breeze said:


> Conway Daily Sun doesn't make it easy to find nuggets like this.   Can you link?   I'd like to read the entirety.



I don't think they have a text version of the letter available online at the moment.  Their web site is at http://www.conwaydailysun.com.  They do offer a very large PDF download.


----------



## Breeze (Nov 30, 2010)

Thanks,  the PDF is huge!  Don't think I'll try it. 

Appreciate the comeback! 

Breeze


----------



## thetrailboss (Nov 30, 2010)

Click here and go to page 6:  

http://www.laconiadailysun.com/pdf/2010/11/30.pdf


----------



## gmcunni (Nov 30, 2010)

threecy said:


> From a letter from Peak Resorts President Tim Boyd in today's Conway Daily Sun:



so what is he saying? old owner asked that new owner take care of the people with lifetime passes and new owner said no so they did the deal anyway?    i don't get the part about shifting blame to the United States Forest Service.


----------



## dl (Nov 30, 2010)

Based on what I've read, my guess is Peak pushed back on Franchi to take care of the lifetime pass holders (by getting less money out of the sale) and he said screw that, they've already sued me several times.


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Nov 30, 2010)

So Boyd is claiming is was the USFS that wouldn't allow for the transfer of the lifetime passes?  That sounds pretty fishy to me. I suspect that Peak didn't push back to hard on that position if true.


----------



## Breeze (Nov 30, 2010)

The USFS makes the rules concerning valuation of goods and services within the  lease agreement and  you betcha, their  rules  will  impact  policies and procedures within the revenue stream  WRT  to  Wildcat. 

And there will be  legal beagles and bean counters and the  truly aggrieved.

I doubt that this  is over.  Some  of the  LTP at  Wildcat have been chewing on  Pat  Franchi  for  all 24  years, others  have their original Life Time Pass pictures as  children. 

 Breeze


----------



## riverc0il (Nov 30, 2010)

Breeze- Thanks so much for clarifying some of the behind the scenes details. Your posts along with the quote threecy posted above line up to make perfect sense. It sounds like the USFS wouldn't let Peaks handle those passes in the same way that the previous management handled those passes from a fiscal perspective. It would be a shame if the new ownership had to take the heat because USFS demanded payment for "lifetime passes" every season in the form of commission on a season pass that has long since been paid for. This is just conjecture based on Breezes post and the quote from TB. Lame on USFS for making the new ownership take the fall for having to make a business decision based on loosing their shirts by inheriting a token of good will. Total rock and hard place situation. Not often I can say this, but I feel for the new ownership on this issue if this is the case.


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Nov 30, 2010)

If the situation is as Breeze frames it, then riverCoil's got the right take on this.


----------



## ski_resort_observer (Nov 30, 2010)

Comparing the kmart situation and this one is apples to oranges. The owner of the land is the USFS and Wildcat is the renter. The USFS answers to alot of diferent agencies on all govermental levels, also large private usage groups and has to balance them all to come up what is best for the public good. 

One of it's many responsibilites is to produce income from federal leases, especially for recreational use.  In view of the current social/financial/political pressure to reduce the deficit, the pressure is on to increase income from this sector of the USFS's mission. Eliminating lifetime passes should increase revenue for the leasee and lessor. Anybody know how many kmart lifetime passholders bought passes after their lifetime :lol: ended?

The thing I wonder is if it's this cut and dry why are the lifetime pass holders sueing the former Wildcat owners. For this maybe there is common ground between the folks that sued Powdr and the Wildcat people.


----------



## Breeze (Dec 1, 2010)

rivercOil, you  got it.   I  feel for all of the  folks in this brouhahah.   Pat Franchi, Peak Resorts, the former LTP owners, and the USFS.  

I'm  guessing that Tim Boyd's letter  to the Conway Daily Sun was a public  effort to defuse the situation, admitting that  yes, Franchi did negotiate " in good faith"  for inclusion of the  LTP's in the  P & S . He  just  didn't prevail in the situation.  

Will be interesting to see  how it shakes out.

Breeze


----------



## dl (Dec 1, 2010)

Sounds like it's shook out to me.


----------



## Breeze (Dec 1, 2010)

Facebook: Keep  Wildcat Wild

They aren't  done  flailing.  Personally I think they've shot themselves in the foot at this point. Certainly they aren't  trying to make nice with  Peak.


Breeze


----------



## puckoach (Dec 2, 2010)

I'm not a lawyer, and have no dog in this fight.

But, it does appear to me that;

Previous owner developed the terms of an offer for service, then accepted money for the sale of said offer.   

That the previous owner did not have the right to offer this service, based on the terms of his lease.

At some point, he felt he had a loop hole, and "sur" charged something for this service, which resulted in a law suit.

Said law suit was settled based on eliminating the "sur" charge.

Said setlement appears to have been negoatiated with plaintiffs, while the owner was in neogotiations to sell.  Thereby negotiating the settlement,  with the understanding that the buyer would have to  deliver the terms of the settlement.

Owner then agreed to a sale, without full filling the terms of his settlement.

Sorry, but to me, this sound like a criminal case for fraud.

The discovery process would be needed to actually determine the facts.

But, it also appears the new owners closed based on knowledge of this situation as well.

If I was holding interest, I would be calling the NH AG.


----------



## Breeze (Dec 2, 2010)

It isn't known that the original offer of Lifetime passes was  outside the terms of the  original USFS Permit.   We are talking 1960-1982. 

Last issue of LTP was for the '81-'82 season.  

It isn't known exactly when the USFS Permit Process ceased to recognize the validity of those long term passes, or  may have  changed to  require fees paid based on value,  but  certainly the Franchi Management Permit issued  in April of 1986, for a term of 40 years,   held them in good stead.

It is known that there HAVE been major revisions to the USFS Ski Area Fee Permit System over the course of years, which have resulted  in additional fees   required, payable by  Wildcat on behalf of the lifetime/long term passholders.    The LTP's balked at being asked to pony up to that. 

 Believing that the USFS  Special Use Permit process  or  ski area permit fee system  has remained static for 4-5  decades is  not reasonable. 

I guess I can't  go  much   farther than that otherwise  I'd get  my knuckles  rapped for going into political discussion.   

Breeze


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Dec 2, 2010)

puckoach said:


> I'm not a lawyer, and have no dog in this fight.
> 
> But, it does appear to me that;
> 
> ...



Just like the K-Mart lifetime passholders did.  The only people who won, as always, were the lawyers.


----------



## gmcunni (Dec 2, 2010)

can't believe everything you read on Facebook (or the internet for that matter) but if this is true it is really F'd up for the wildcat lifetime passholders-



> Is very disappointed that Peak resorts is not honoring lifetime pass holders at wildcat, but are allowing lifetime pass holders of Attitash to now ski at Wildcat.


----------



## eatskisleep (Dec 2, 2010)

gmcunni said:


> can't believe everything you read on Facebook (or the internet for that matter) but if this is true it is really F'd up for the wildcat lifetime passholders-



From what I understand this is true. Family friends of mine invested in Attitash back in the day (lots re: might have saved the mountain) and they subsequently were given lifetime passes at Attitash. Now they claim their lifetime pass will work at Wildcat; I guess we will have to see this season if it actually does, but I have every reason to believe that my sourse is telling the truth (at least from the information he is currently given in regards to his pass).


----------



## midd (Dec 2, 2010)

were the attitash lifetime passes honored at the other ASC resorts?  If so, that'd be a tough precedent to ignore.


----------



## threecy (Dec 4, 2010)

The Wildcat pass dispute has been the lead in just about every Conway Daily Sun over the past week.  The other day, it was mentioned that Attitash lifetime passholders are apparently going to be allowed to ski Wildcat this year.

An excerpt from today's lead letter:



			
				Tony Simone said:
			
		

> Anyone reading this would blame the Forest Service for the situation with the pass holders.  The Forest Service is not to blame.  Claiming that a list of lifetime pass holders and a request to honor their passes was placed in negociations but could not be honored because of the Forest Service is very misleading.  It is true that the Forest Service cannot recognize this type of arrangement.  The land is leased to Wildcat for 100 years.  Corporations like Wildcat/Peak Resorts can do whatever they want in issuing passes.  You can call them long term, special guest or VIP.  In my opinion, it was legal strategy to divert the issue.  Our passes never related to the land (Forest Service), it related to the lifts.  Like all Americans we can enjoy the land that is federally owned as long as we respect and use it properly.  The lifts belong to the corporations.  Our money went to buy the lifts, not the land.  Nice try guys!  I am still here and still alive and I want to use my lifts.





			
				Tony Simone said:
			
		

> P.S.  Isn't part of Attitash on Forrest (sic) Service land?  I wonder why those lifetime/long term passes are being honored?


----------



## Breeze (Dec 4, 2010)

http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/law/lwsch/journals/bcealr/28_1/03_FMS.htm

It's long, and chiefly concerned with Western Development, but it is spot on  in a time line of the changes USFS has made to their permitting process over the course of time.


Breeze


----------



## puckoach (Dec 5, 2010)

As a Pisces, I do have a little concern with the sale.   Still Free to Ski on your Birthday ???


----------



## polariso (Dec 5, 2010)

puckoach said:


> As a Pisces, I do have a little concern with the sale.   Still Free to Ski on your Birthday ???


 I believe that's gone as well. A few other deal days too.. correct me if im wrong here.


----------



## eatskisleep (Dec 5, 2010)

Yep, gone.


----------



## threecy (Dec 10, 2010)

So, Attitash and Wildcat open for the season tomorrow, December 11th.

Black, Cranmore, and King Pine will have all opened before them.


----------



## deadheadskier (Dec 10, 2010)

wow

heck even Ragged was open last weekend.  

Wildcat makes some sense due to the transfer in ownership.  If I were a condo owner at Attitash, I'd be rather pissed.


----------



## billski (Dec 10, 2010)

deadheadskier said:


> wow
> 
> heck even Ragged was open last weekend.
> 
> Wildcat makes some sense due to the transfer in ownership.  If I were a condo owner at Attitash, I'd be rather pissed.



I would postulate that for Peak Resorts, it's all about money.  If they don't see it as a profitable, don't start.


----------



## midd (Dec 10, 2010)

two or three years ago, attitash opened top to bottom on Illusion exactly one month earlier than this year's date.


----------



## dl (Dec 10, 2010)

I was up there over T'giving and last weekend. In both cases the weather had not cooperated enough to go full force on snowmaking with the chance that all could be wiped out. The bottom line is that if I were them, i wouldn't have bet the farm either. Hey, they missed one weekend of what I heard was pretty crappy skiing (reports from others in the valley). I've skied at Attitash enough to know that when they do open up they'll do as good a job or better than most with their ability to make snow and have the best possible conditions. 

As for "two or three years ago, Attitash opened top to bottom on Illusion.....", that has almost no relevance. Weather happens....or it doesn't. This is New England. Everybody should chill out (pun intended).


----------



## eatskisleep (Dec 10, 2010)

That's why I am skeptical over Peak's and running late season. At Attitash in the summer for biking they used o be open Memorial day weekends to June 23 or so, then open everyday. They go back to weekends come Labor day and stay till Mid October. Now they are just open from June to beginning of September with no additional weekends for biking.


----------



## riverc0il (Dec 10, 2010)

threecy said:


> So, Attitash and Wildcat open for the season tomorrow, December 11th.
> 
> Black, Cranmore, and King Pine will have all opened before them.



The email I just received says that Wildcat will only open for the weekend. So they are not in fact opening for the season. I think that means Wildcat will be the last 2k vert mountain in the east to open for the season.

:smash:


----------



## riverc0il (Dec 10, 2010)

midd said:


> two or three years ago, attitash opened top to bottom on Illusion exactly one month earlier than this year's date.


In 2007, Attitash blew in October:
http://www.thesnowway.com/2007/10/30/first-turns-of-the-season-at-attitash

Things have certainly changed for the ownership since then. Crotched used to blow really early too. Doesn't seem like they see the value in early season excepting the early season park skiing that Mount Snow has done recently. Wildcat is kind of excepted due to the ownership transfer (at least for this season) but I don't think you'll see any more pre-Thanksgiving openings for either of these two mountains, let alone last week of October which has happened at least twice in the past six years.


----------



## deadheadskier (Dec 10, 2010)

Perhaps Peaks has conceded early and late season 'supremecy' to Boyne and K.  I mean afterall, there's barely enough skiers to go around to support Sunday River and K before Thanksgiving.  Same goes for early May.  

Still, I'd be embarrased running a major resort like Attitash knowing places like Wachusett, Pat's Peak, Ragged, Black, King Pine etc. opened over a week prior to my operation.  In the end, it is business and about the bottomline, but a resort still should commit service to their loyalist at least somewhat during times of lean revenue.  

I agree that Wildcat gets a pass due to ownership transfer.


----------



## threecy (Dec 10, 2010)

I think that it's kind of odd, in a sense, that Peak came into New England promoting snowmaking, snowmaking, snowmaking.  It seems that their northern New Hampshire areas may both end up with relatively short seasons (Attitash has been shutting down circa end of March pretty much since they bought it).


----------



## kickstand (Dec 10, 2010)

threecy said:


> Black, Cranmore, and King Pine will have all opened before them.



Black changed opening date to 12/17


----------



## ski_resort_observer (Dec 11, 2010)

deadheadskier said:


> Still, I'd be embarrased running a major resort like Attitash knowing places like Wachusett, Pat's Peak, Ragged, Black, King Pine etc. opened over a week prior to my operation.  In the end, it is business and about the bottomline, but a resort still should commit service to their loyalist at least somewhat during times of lean revenue.
> 
> I agree that Wildcat gets a pass due to ownership transfer.



I guess since Woodbury opened in November before 90% of the major resorts in NE you'd be committing hari-kari.

The main reason many resorts did not open early this season is simply due to the lack of consistant snowmaking temps. Now that the first big skiing vacation holiday is not far off they will blow snow even with the threat of warmer rainy weather in the forecast. This little thing called the " great recession " also plays a role in wanting to not piss away some of their snowmaking budget also play a role. 

Funny how no one mentions MRG in this discussion. They are not embarrassed, nor should they be. The thing I laugh about regarding Attitash is their huge billboards proclaming their superiority for snowmaking with all their fan guns. For that, I would be embarrassed.


----------



## threecy (Dec 11, 2010)

kickstand said:


> Black changed opening date to 12/17



Uh oh, something must have gone wrong!  They were in the local paper yesterday as having opened.


----------



## dl (Dec 13, 2010)

ski_resort_observer said:


> I guess since Woodbury opened in November before 90% of the major resorts in NE you'd be committing hari-kari.
> 
> The main reason many resorts did not open early this season is simply due to the lack of consistant snowmaking temps. Now that the first big skiing vacation holiday is not far off they will blow snow even with the threat of warmer rainy weather in the forecast. This little thing called the " great recession " also plays a role in wanting to not piss away some of their snowmaking budget also play a role.
> 
> Funny how no one mentions MRG in this discussion. They are not embarrassed, nor should they be. The thing I laugh about regarding Attitash is their huge billboards proclaming their superiority for snowmaking with all their fan guns. For that, I would be embarrassed.



For the most part I agree with what you have to say and appreciate that someone who works in the industry is acknowledging that ski areas have to be smarter about they way they spend their money. However to say Attitash should be embarassed about proclaiming their superiority for snowmaking AND saying there hasn't been consistent snowmaking temps doesn't make sense. If the temps aren't there, you're not going to make snow. 

Having skied there this past weekend I can tell you that they have had 0" natural snow leading up to the weekend yet they pumped out some nice snow. For 100% man-made snow, their conditions were pretty damn good. I'm personally glad that I chose to wait one extra weekend and ski there than "accept" some of the other options that were available the weekend before.


----------

