# Peak Resort Acquisitions



## mbedle (Oct 21, 2015)

Interesting article on Peak Resorts opening a like of credit to fund acquisitions. Maybe this has something to do with Saddleback? Sorry - forgot the link:

http://www.firsttracksonline.com/2015/10/21/peak-resorts-opens-line-of-credits-to-fund-acquisitions/


----------



## Skimaine (Oct 21, 2015)

Certainly a possibility.  It gives them the war chest to handle the transaction. I am not sure how Saddleback fits in their portfolio.  Maybe quite good as they seem to have a eclectic bunch of properties.


----------



## yeggous (Oct 21, 2015)

Skimaine said:


> Certainly a possibility.  It gives them the war chest to handle the transaction. I am not sure how Saddleback fits in their portfolio.  Maybe quite good as they seem to have a eclectic bunch of properties.



People said the same thing at just about all of their acquisitions in New England. The only one that fit their precedent was Crotched when they first moved in.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## wtcobb (Oct 21, 2015)

Saddleback would be a nice addition to the Granite Pass, if it can withstand a non-Granite State addition and avoid the price hike as with Mt. Snow.


----------



## Jully (Oct 21, 2015)

I know if Peaks buys Saddleback I'm almost certainly getting a pass for them. That would be an amazing portfolio in my book. Saddleback, Wildcat, Attitash. Wow.

Plus I'd trust what they do with saddleback's infrastructure for improvements. Really enjoy their management of wildcat.


----------



## Jully (Oct 21, 2015)

wtcobb said:


> Saddleback would be a nice addition to the Granite Pass, if it can withstand a non-Granite State addition and avoid the price hike as with Mt. Snow.



They'd probably change the name or at least put vertical value card benefits on the SB pass for NH mountains and vice versa.

Time and time again though multimountain passes have proven successful. I wonder if their Mount Snow pass sales take a hit because it's single mountain? Though I suppose all the competing areas nearby are single mountain passes too.


----------



## yeggous (Oct 21, 2015)

Jully said:


> They'd probably change the name or at least put vertical value card benefits on the SB pass for NH mountains and vice versa.
> 
> Time and time again though multimountain passes have proven successful. I wonder if their Mount Snow pass sales take a hit because it's single mountain? Though I suppose all the competing areas nearby are single mountain passes too.



The Mount Snow pass includes their mountains in Pennsylvania and New Hampshire. It's practically double the price of the Granite Pass.


----------



## Newpylong (Oct 21, 2015)

Would be a good addition but didn't they say it wasn't Peak in the what little info has been released?


----------



## xwhaler (Oct 21, 2015)

Saddleback originally on the block for $12M then later dropped to $9M. Peaks getting a $15M line of credit today which would fund both the purchase and upgrades (Rangeley)
Hard not to connect the dots here....would be quite the pass.


----------



## mbedle (Oct 21, 2015)

This is a direct quote from the Tim Boyd, just seem to fit into saddleback's sale. 

I would like to address where we are on the M&A front currently. Long term, we believe acquisitions offer us the greatest potential for significant growth. Historically this is the area that Peak Resorts has seen its largest growth.

The two segments of the ski industry that we operate in, the day and the overnight drive segments clearly offer the most potential targets in the ski industry. We fully expect to take advantages of this as we've done in the past.

In the short term, our outlook has not changed. We still believe we will be able to begin executing on this part of our growth strategy sometime in this fall.


----------



## skifastinvt (Oct 21, 2015)

Has anyone considered Waterville Valley as the primary target?  Waterville seems to be a much closer fit to the current portfolio.


----------



## deadheadskier (Oct 21, 2015)

I'd rather see Saddleback, but WV probably has the potential for a greater financial return for the location alone.

Great day trip distance from Boston when folks can't make it up to the MWV for an overnight.  WV offers more compelling cruising terrain than Crotched.

The only downside is if WV was acquired, the Granite price would probably go up a lot more than with Saddleback.  I'm really happy with the Granite price point right now and hope it doesn't change much.


----------



## yeggous (Oct 21, 2015)

deadheadskier said:


> I'd rather see Saddleback, but WV probably has the potential for a greater financial return for the location alone.
> 
> Great day trip distance from Boston when folks can't make it up to the MWV for an overnight.  WV offers more compelling cruising terrain than Crotched.
> 
> The only downside is if WV was acquired, the Granite price would probably go up a lot more than with Saddleback.  I'm really happy with the Granite price point right now and hope it doesn't change much.



Is WV even for sale? Ownership seems to be investing and expanding there.

We all know it won't happen, but Magic makes the most sense for them. The can piggyback with Mt Snow like they already do in the MWV to compete locally. In the day trip / overnight arena, there is also Bolton Valley which brings them into a new region.

Or they are just planning to buy some more local bumps in the Midwest or Mid-Atlantic. Those have proven to be profitable for them. What is for sale in NY or PA? Tack something else into the Nor'easter pass.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## deadheadskier (Oct 21, 2015)

Pretty certain WV is for sale


----------



## slatham (Oct 21, 2015)

Can't say for sure what they're going to buy but this is a clear indication that they are in discussions with someone about a purchase. Could fall through of course, and which mountain it is would be pure speculation. But the LOC is for a purchase that they plan to make in the short term.


----------



## Jully (Oct 21, 2015)

deadheadskier said:


> Pretty certain WV is for sale



Definitely for sale. A couple seasons ago (2?) They fired a bunch of groomers and snowmakers that had worked there awhile. They're trying to expand but they're moving pretty slowly aren't getting much access to capital, plus they have released really lofty plans with the village gondola. 

Seems to me the current ownership is trying to cut costs while showcasing the potential of the mountain. 

Peaks would do a great job with WV I'm sure, and the place desperately needs new energy in my opinion, though it's pretty irrelevant to me if they go that route.

Anyone know what the asking for WV would be? The $15 million matches up with SB, not sure if Waterville would be more than that.


----------



## yeggous (Oct 21, 2015)

Jully said:


> Definitely for sale. A couple seasons ago (2?) They fired a bunch of groomers and snowmakers that had worked there awhile. They're trying to expand but they're moving pretty slowly aren't getting much access to capital, plus they have released really lofty plans with the village gondola.
> 
> Seems to me the current ownership is trying to cut costs while showcasing the potential of the mountain.
> 
> ...



Probably about $15M.

http://www.nhbr.com/November-5-2010/Waterville-Valley-returns-to-local-ownership/


----------



## deadheadskier (Oct 21, 2015)

Apparently the price paid by Sununu for WV in 2010 was less than $12M.   

http://www.boston.com/news/local/ne...h_ski_area_owner_sununu_says_perspective_key/


Not sure what it would go for today.  They haven't done much to the place that I'm aware of other than make plans for expansion.


----------



## mbedle (Oct 21, 2015)

Jully said:


> Definitely for sale. A couple seasons ago (2?) They fired a bunch of groomers and snowmakers that had worked there awhile. They're trying to expand but they're moving pretty slowly aren't getting much access to capital, plus they have released really lofty plans with the village gondola.
> 
> Seems to me the current ownership is trying to cut costs while showcasing the potential of the mountain.
> 
> ...



What does firing a couple of employees and talking about expansion have to do with potentially being for sale. They seem to be moving forward in the right direction, from my point of view.


----------



## Jully (Oct 21, 2015)

deadheadskier said:


> Apparently the price paid by Sununu for WV in 2010 was less than $12M.
> 
> http://www.boston.com/news/local/ne...h_ski_area_owner_sununu_says_perspective_key/
> 
> ...



Maybe get it for $12 million then spend $3-5 million (carpet loaded or HSQ) more on a new lift for Green Peak?

http://www.newenglandskiindustry.com/viewstory.php?storyid=326

Says there's an option to increase the loan to $20 million.
Also claims there are two Maine targets that are potentially in their sites. What's the other one? If they're going for metropolitan proximity you really only have Shawnee, Abram, or Black. Though I don't think anyone is looking to sell those.


----------



## Jully (Oct 21, 2015)

mbedle said:


> What does firing a couple of employees and talking about expansion have to do with potentially being for sale. They seem to be moving forward in the right direction, from my point of view.



I raced at Waterville as a teenager and I'm still in contact with a bunch of regulars there. After cutting back on the groomers and snowmakers the product they put out started to go downhill fast. They're not keeping the place up as well as they could by the sounds of it as well. Though I haven't been to WV myself in over 10 years, so this is all second hand.

The theory that my friends there have heard is that the owners are cutting costs as much as possible to make the place look attractive to buyers. Not sure if that carries and weight, but the Peaks article says it's looking for undermanaged areas. From what I've heard repeatedly, WV is definitely undermanaged.


----------



## deadheadskier (Oct 21, 2015)

Hard to say regarding Shawnee.  Chet has owned it since 1994 and is 64 years old.  Could be looking to retire.  Not sure what sort of involvement the rest of his family has.


Terry, on the forums here probably would know most about the long term plans for Shawnee.


----------



## drjeff (Oct 21, 2015)

A couple of things to consider here....

#1 - Peak has the majority of their properties in the Midwest still, don't just assume that the LOC is potentially for another New England resort(s) - those small Mid Western Resorts generate mid 8 figures of income for Peak every year

#2 Strictly based on the 2 New England resorts mentioned in this thread, Saddleback and Waterville, Waterville is much more of the type of resort that Peak has typically bought in the past. Those have tended to be established, mainly day/weekend trip resorts that need some polishing around the edges. Peak has stayed away from resorts that have significant real estate development potential at some point in the future.  As I heard Tim Boyd himself say soon after Peak bought Mount Snow now heading on 10yrs ago, Peak is a ski resort operations company, not a real estate development company that also operates ski resorts. Their operations have stayed true to that philosophy. I don't think that Saddleback fits nearly as well into the typical Peak property acquisition model as Waterville does

Frankly, who knows, it could end up being a resort that isn't even on the radar of those in this discussion....


----------



## Jully (Oct 21, 2015)

drjeff said:


> Frankly, who knows, it could end up being a resort that isn't even on the radar of those in this discussion....



I feel like that's probably going to be what happens. I thought I heard that they were looking for more NE expansion, not Midwest though.

Maybe if Saddleback ever issues an update we will be able to take it out of this discussion.


----------



## ss20 (Oct 21, 2015)

Very doubtful on Saddleback or WV.  

1. Saddleback goes against everything Peak stands for.  It's not day-trip-able.  It'd require a lot of investment.  

2. Waterville is a bit more likely.  I doubt Peaks would pay for Green Peak, the gondola, or any significant expansion.  Last time Peak really invested in a NE mountain was the Rocket at Crotch (if you consider a 4,000 ft used HSQ a large investment).  Before that it was the Bluebird which is now 5 seasons old.   

Who knows though?  I was shocked when Attitash and Wildcat were bought by Peaks.  No investment in those mountains though.


----------



## drjeff (Oct 21, 2015)

ss20 said:


> Very doubtful on Saddleback or WV.
> 
> 1. Saddleback goes against everything Peak stands for.  It's not day-trip-able.  It'd require a lot of investment.
> 
> ...



Fixed it for you. And I'm not quite sure that I'd call all of the snowmaking upgrades and at least at Attitash the summer operations upgrades, "no investment" in Attitash and Wildcat. And certainly don't forget to 2 year, $50 million dollar West Lake Project and Carinthia base area redevelopment Peak is in the middle of at Mount Snow now.

While they haven't done something as noteable as building a new lift in the East since 2011, they certainly have been spending some money in their resorts. You do have to remember that most of them were in a state of general annual maintenance neglect from their previous owners, that much of their money they've been spending the last few years have been for items that don't really get noticed when they're  upgraded to today's standard's BUT certainly get noticed if they remained in their run down, antiquated state they were in when they bought the resorts. Deferred maintenance projects aren't "sexy" but they are needed!!


----------



## yeggous (Oct 21, 2015)

drjeff said:


> Fixed it for you. And I'm not quite sure that I'd call all of the snowmaking upgrades and at least at Attitash the summer operations upgrades, "no investment" in Attitash and Wildcat. And certainly don't forget to 2 year, $50 million dollar West Lake Project and Carinthia base area redevelopment Peak is in the middle of at Mount Snow now.
> 
> While they haven't done something as noteable as building a new lift in the East since 2011, they certainly have been spending some money in their resorts. You do have to remember that most of them were in a state of general annual maintenance neglect from their previous owners, that much of their money they've been spending the last few years have been for items that don't really get noticed when they're  upgraded to today's standard's BUT certainly get noticed if they remained in their run down, antiquated state they were in when they bought the resorts. Deferred maintenance projects aren't "sexy" but they are needed!!



Keep in mind they completely rebuilt Crotched from the ground up when they reopened it. Snowmaking, lodge, lift, etc.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## thetrailboss (Oct 21, 2015)

Dumb question: what if Magic was the target?  I don't think anyone has said that. That makes more sense than Saddleback IMHO for their portfolio. It would be the "Wildcat to their Attitash" in Vermont.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## drjeff (Oct 21, 2015)

thetrailboss said:


> Dumb question: what if Magic was the target?  I don't think anyone has said that. That makes more sense than Saddleback IMHO for their portfolio.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone



If Magic was the target, the LOC wouldn't have to be anywhere near 15 million!!


----------



## chuckstah (Oct 21, 2015)

I just read the SEC filing. It looks like the loan is 15 mil, up to 20 mil, at prime plus 1%.   Sounds a lot more reasonable than their financing before going public. Of course there are many contingencies  attached.


----------



## machski (Oct 21, 2015)

I would think if they acquired WV, they may put the antitrust spotlight on themselves.  That would be 4 areas in the state, plus Mount Snow.  ASC had to unload several at their peak of acquisitions in the Northeast.


----------



## yeggous (Oct 21, 2015)

machski said:


> I would think if they acquired WV, they may put the antitrust spotlight on themselves.  That would be 4 areas in the state, plus Mount Snow.  ASC had to unload several at their peak of acquisitions in the Northeast.



4 skis areas in the state is still a fraction. There are many, many more. It takes a lot more than that for antitrust to kick in.

Magic does make sense. I've mentioned this before. I'm not sure why they wouldn't make a play. The battered wives of Magic would shit themselves.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## drjeff (Oct 21, 2015)

machski said:


> I would think if they acquired WV, they may put the antitrust spotlight on themselves.  That would be 4 areas in the state, plus Mount Snow.  ASC had to unload several at their peak of acquisitions in the Northeast.



Prior to the SEC forcing ASC to unload some of their Eastern holdings, their Eastern portfolio was Mount Snow/Haystack, Killington/Pico, Sugarbush, Waterville Valley, Attitash, Cranmore, Sugarloaf and Sunday River. That's a much greater percentage of the annual New England skiers visits than adding Waterville to the existing mix of Mount Snow, Attitash, Wildcat and Crotched.

Boy to I miss the old Glory days of when ASC owned all those and I had my gold pass which got me all of those properties and The Canyons, Steamboat and Heavenly for as I recall less than $700 a year!!


----------



## ss20 (Oct 21, 2015)

Peaks buying Magic?  lol

Attitash will get a replacement for their Summit Triple before that happens, and that ain't happening.


----------



## doublediamond (Oct 21, 2015)

yeggous said:


> Is WV even for sale? Ownership seems to be investing and expanding there.




No they aren't.  They got permits to flip it.  They got rid of a bunch of higher ups (IIRC snowmaking and grooming) a couple years ago.  They permit is to move the World Cup Triple, lengthen it, and have it run nearly parallel to Quadzilla to the new peak.  The whole plan is to do it as cheaply as possible to get the greatest return, much like how someone buys a house, fixes the kitchen, and can sell it for a profit.

The new lift will be LONGER than Quadzilla.  No one's gonna ski it.  It's all about getting it built and have someone later come in and upgrade the lift.  Upgrading a lift is pretty easy, nearly a rubber stamp from the USFS.

Great idea to spend $1M to move, bring up to code, and lengthen a fixed grip Frankenlift. /s


----------



## doublediamond (Oct 21, 2015)

ss20 said:


> Peaks buying Magic?  lol
> 
> Attitash will get a replacement for their Summit Triple before that happens, and that ain't happening.



$1.5M purchase price and $13.5M in improvements will go a long way.  

* $2.5M for new water pipes across the mountain
* $5M for 150 fan guns (that's about half of the fan guns they'd need if 100% towers)
* $6M in new lifts

Sweet Baby Jesus, Lord Have Mercy, a Good Fucking Ski Area If So.

---

Peaks will not install a HSQ to top of Attitash.  They've shot that down time and time and time again.  Not enough trails, little ROI.  They'd be Ascutney-fying Attitash if they did it.


----------



## doublediamond (Oct 22, 2015)

drjeff said:


> Prior to the SEC forcing ASC to unload some of their Eastern holdings)



Justice Department.

SEC does not deal with antitrust issues.


----------



## deadheadskier (Oct 22, 2015)

Wonder if they could put a carpet load on the Summit Triple at Attitash to speed it up.   That was the right solution for Shawnee Peak.  Anything to cut that ride down would be much appreciated.


----------



## doublediamond (Oct 22, 2015)

drjeff said:


> Peak has stayed away from resorts that have significant real estate development potential at some point in the future.  As I heard Tim Boyd himself say soon after Peak bought Mount Snow now heading on 10yrs ago, Peak is a ski resort operations company, not a real estate development company that also operates ski resorts.



But they're building a huge development at Carinthia.


----------



## Jully (Oct 22, 2015)

deadheadskier said:


> Wonder if they could put a carpet load on the Summit Triple at Attitash to speed it up.   That was the right solution for Shawnee Peak.  Anything to cut that ride down would be much appreciated.



Love that at Shawnee. Actually made me go there a lot more since they've put that in. Don't see why a 1986 triple couldn't handle it. I just don't think its a very big priority right now. The 2 HSQs at Attitash function great and serve the needs of the vast majority of skiers there.


----------



## mbedle (Oct 22, 2015)

Its not Magic. During the last Quarterly telephone conference, Jim was specifically asked that questions and he respond:


Barton Crockett - FBR Capital Markets
Okay. All right. Well that sounds encouraging nonetheless. I think there has been some press reporting about one not enough in the Northeast Magic Mountain that is in some type of ownership transition process that maybe something that we can exclude from the list or not and I was just wondering if you can make any comment about that Mountain in particular?

Tim Boyd - President and CEO
We're not involved that I can make that comment.

A couple of other comments made by Peaks - they apparently mentioned during the summer that they were looking at owner financing to acquire a new resort. That would seem to fit in with Saddleback, given how much money the Berry Family has.

And someone made a comment about Peaks not being involved in real estate at their resorts and that is why Saddleback doesn't make a good fit. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't Peaks involved in real estate development at Mount Snow with a proposed 900 units at build out? Also, doesn't the sale of saddleback includes only a limited amount of real estate/real estate potential. I thought I read that the owners are keep a large portion of the developable land.


----------



## drjeff (Oct 22, 2015)

doublediamond said:


> But they're building a huge development at Carinthia.



After nearly 10 years of ownership and 10 years of upgrades, yup, they will start building some solo ownership townhouses in multiple phases with a 20+ year build out plan.

Far different than when a ski area developer comes in and build multiple hundred rooms of hotel/condo-tel space at once.

Additionally the master plan has residential development planned not just at Carinthia, but across a good chunk of the general base area regions over the life of the master plan build out.  This is a slowly phased in process that Peak has planned for Mount Snow, not a build it 1st and hope they'll come later scenario


----------



## jimk (Oct 22, 2015)

Double diamond post #36 made me laugh
As fun as it would be to see Magic go all modern, I hope Peaks buys Saddleback.  Along with Wildcat that would give them two of the prettiest darn ski areas in the Northeast.


----------



## slatham (Oct 22, 2015)

> DoubleDiamond
> $1.5M purchase price and $13.5M in improvements will go a long way.
> 
> * $2.5M for new water pipes across the mountain
> ...



So Magic would be homogenized like Mt Snow, Stratton and Okemo? Tell me you're kidding.


----------



## yeggous (Oct 22, 2015)

slatham said:


> So Magic would be homogenized like Mt Snow, Stratton and Okemo? Tell me you're kidding.



and you would rather the status quo? what does that mountain look like in a low snow year? I have a hard time believing they have much life left in them. would you rather it closed?

you're not going to get a sugar daddy to maintain the place if it is not profitable. someone like Peak Resorts will at least make sure that the place stays open. without a multiresort operator I don't see them staying in business much longer.

Magic is worth much to Peak Resorts than other operators. they've already changed the way the New Hampshire market operates by forcing the other mountains to team up with White Mountain Super Pass in order to compete with the Granite Pass. If they pick up another mountain or two in Vermont they could do the same there.


----------



## Tin (Oct 22, 2015)

doublediamond said:


> $1.5M purchase price and $13.5M in improvements will go a long way.
> 
> * $2.5M for new water pipes across the mountain
> * $5M for 150 fan guns (that's about half of the fan guns they'd need if 100% towers)
> ...



A Mittersill-like double for "The New Red" and a HSD triple for "The New Black" with snowmaking on Red Line, Black Magic, and all marked gladed areas. As well as a beginner area, Green chair, and giving back all co-op/share holder money/donations plus 25%.


----------



## steamboat1 (Oct 22, 2015)

I don't think Magic even with improvements would be all that profitable. Bromley with it's HSQ & backside triple has struggled financially from what I understand. Not to mention they already have above average snowmaking capabilities & a pretty vibrant summer business as well. They practically give their weekday tickets away trying to get people on the mountain. That's just my opinion.


----------



## Newpylong (Oct 22, 2015)

Quad on the back of Bromley...


----------



## thetrailboss (Oct 22, 2015)

OK, so as someone pointed out, Boyd said that Magic was not the target.  We can let that go.  So what is left?  Waterville Valley and Saddleback we think.  Any others that are flying below the radar?  One that has been on the market for a long time is Bolton.  In some ways it fits their model (a locals resort) but its location and access road are big problems.


----------



## steamboat1 (Oct 22, 2015)

Newpylong said:


> Quad on the back of Bromley...


Oops you're correct (FGQ)


----------



## deadheadskier (Oct 22, 2015)

Newenglandskihistory says there are two rumored areas in Maine.  I wonder who the second might be if it's assummed the first is Saddleback.

Shawnee really fits Peaks profile with its proximity to Portland and night skiing business.  It probably also has a value in the same price range as Saddleback.  Abram would be much cheaper.  Can't think of anything else.

Adding Shawnee to the MWV portfolio really creates a dominating product over the Superpass if you ski in that area.


----------



## steamboat1 (Oct 22, 2015)

thetrailboss said:


> OK, so as someone pointed out, Boyd said that Magic was not the target.  We can let that go.  So what is left?  Waterville Valley and Saddleback we think.  Any others that are flying below the radar?  One that has been on the market for a long time is Bolton.  In some ways it fits their model (a locals resort) but its location and access road are big problems.


Only problem with Bolton's location is it's nestled between two powerhouses in VT. skiing (Sugarbush & Stowe). Hard to draw skiers away from those two. It's actually the easiest of the three to get to off I-89 but that hasn't helped. Burlington is close but not really a big enough city to draw from, besides Smuggs is about the same drive. The access road isn't bad. I actually find it quite picturesque especially when leaving with it's views of Camels Hump.


----------



## thetrailboss (Oct 22, 2015)

steamboat1 said:


> Only problem with Bolton's location is it's nestled between two powerhouses in VT. skiing (Sugarbush & Stowe). Hard to draw skiers away from those two. It's actually the easiest of the three to get to off I-89 but that hasn't helped. Burlington is close but not really a big enough city to draw from, besides Smuggs is about the same drive. The access road isn't bad. I actually find it quite picturesque especially when leaving with it's views of Camels Hump.



Have you driven it in a snowstorm?


----------



## thetrailboss (Oct 22, 2015)

deadheadskier said:


> Newenglandskihistory says there are two rumored areas in Maine.  I wonder who the second might be if it's assummed the first is Saddleback.
> 
> Shawnee really fits Peaks profile with its proximity to Portland and night skiing business.  It probably also has a value in the same price range as Saddleback.  Abram would be much cheaper.  Can't think of anything else.
> 
> Adding Shawnee to the MWV portfolio really creates a dominating product over the Superpass if you ski in that area.



Shawnee would be interesting.


----------



## ThinkSnow (Oct 22, 2015)

thetrailboss said:


> Have you driven it in a snowstorm?



I have, and its not that bad.  The real downside of the access road is the bumper-to-bumper traffic at the end of the day.


----------



## yeggous (Oct 22, 2015)

thetrailboss said:


> Shawnee would be interesting.



It makes a lot of sense. Pick up two Maine mountains, package them with the Granite Pass. They take an even stronger position in the North Conway market, and that is a good place to be. It is pretty safe to say that the NoCo is the largest day trip / weekend escape destination in New England, perhaps the East. (Where do people in the Mid Atlantic go for a weekend getaway or buy a second home?)


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## doublediamond (Oct 22, 2015)

steamboat1 said:


> Only problem with Bolton's location is it's nestled between two powerhouses in VT. skiing (Sugarbush & Stowe). Hard to draw skiers away from those two. It's actually the easiest of the three to get to off I-89 but that hasn't helped. Burlington is close but not really a big enough city to draw from, besides Smuggs is about the same drive. The access road isn't bad. I actually find it quite picturesque especially when leaving with it's views of Camels Hump.



Hard to draw skiers when your snowmaking capacity is a mere fraction of the other two.  Yes they get a lot of snow, but so does every other northern VT ski area.  They can only do 500 gpm up from the base and 500 gpm up or down from the mid-mountain pond.  Think about that:  full bore water maximization: 13-20 ground guns/low E guns or ±6 fan guns.  It's pitiful.


----------



## steamboat1 (Oct 22, 2015)

thetrailboss said:


> Have you driven it in a snowstorm?


Have you driven 23A leading to Hunter Mountain in a snowstorm? Far worse. Doesn't seem to hurt Hunter though.


----------



## doublediamond (Oct 22, 2015)

slatham said:


> So Magic would be homogenized like Mt Snow, Stratton and Okemo? Tell me you're kidding.



No, not at all. I didn't say anything of the sort.

Magic needs a new FG (at the minimum) lift to the top, a new FG lift to Sun Corner for low-intermediates, and a new bunny lift.  And on top of that $6-7M, they need a substantial snowmaking investment, and a park of some resemblance.  No need to bulldoze, grade, widen and straighten all the trails. No need to go all Carinthia on the place.  But you do need to provide a guaranteed consistent snow on beginner, intermediate, and a couple advanced runs (i.e. Talisman), and some resemblance of a park for the youth.  You can't run a ski area successfully on 20k visitors, with the hopes you'll get snow.  They need skier visits.  They need the additional income from rentals, lessons, and ski school programs.  They need the youth and families.

And the only way to do either is to provide a better product (an alternative to the busy other VT resorts) for the low intermediate masses, which is guaranteed snowmaking and grooming on all green and blue trails.  The blacks at Magic are a complete different league from other southern VT areas.  With a guaranteed product of more than one trail with snowmaking, they can get pass sales and actually make the day ticket price worth while in a low-snow year.

If they take just 1% of visitors away from other VT resorts, they've tripled their skier visits.


----------



## thetrailboss (Oct 22, 2015)

ThinkSnow said:


> I have, and its not that bad.  The real downside of the access road is the bumper-to-bumper traffic at the end of the day.



Maybe my memory is off, but I recall it being pretty steep and windy.  Now not App Gap windy, but close.


----------



## thetrailboss (Oct 22, 2015)

doublediamond said:


> Hard to draw skiers when your snowmaking capacity is a mere fraction of the other two.  Yes they get a lot of snow, but so does every other northern VT ski area.  They can only do 500 gpm up from the base and 500 gpm up or down from the mid-mountain pond.  Think about that:  full bore water maximization: 13-20 ground guns/low E guns or ±6 fan guns.  It's pitiful.



Wow.  That and the old lifts.  And the old base area and hotel.


----------



## skifastinvt (Oct 22, 2015)

To me Shawnee makes a lot more sense than Saddleback.  Throwing out possibilities....how about Ragged?  Fits the day trip model with the potential of development.  Not currently for sale that I'm aware of, but for the right price anything is possible.


----------



## ThinkSnow (Oct 22, 2015)

thetrailboss said:


> Maybe my memory is off, but I recall it being pretty steep and windy.  Now not App Gap windy, but close.


 
It is somewhat windy and its all uphill the whole way, but I honestly don't feel its terribly steep.  Was there last on Monday, Jan 19. Snowed the entire drive up, and the whole day we were skiing in at least 9" of fresh.  The parking lot was packed, but only cars I saw having problems were sedans trying to get out of the lot at the end of the day.  With a running start they were fine & on their way.


----------



## deadheadskier (Oct 22, 2015)

skifastinvt said:


> To me Shawnee makes a lot more sense than Saddleback.  Throwing out possibilities....how about Ragged?  Fits the day trip model with the potential of development.  Not currently for sale that I'm aware of, but for the right price anything is possible.



Ragged is owned by a very large conglomerate.

http://pacific-group.com/index.php

I agree, everything has a price, but I don't think Pacific has gotten the cash they want out of real estate sales there yet to warrant selling it.  I would think they'd lose money selling now.


----------



## Newpylong (Oct 22, 2015)

doublediamond said:


> Hard to draw skiers when your snowmaking capacity is a mere fraction of the other two.  Yes they get a lot of snow, but so does every other northern VT ski area.  They can only do 500 gpm up from the base and 500 gpm up or down from the mid-mountain pond.  Think about that:  full bore water maximization: 13-20 ground guns/low E guns or ±6 fan guns.  It's pitiful.


You sure abou this? 500 gpm equates to about a dozen max air/water guns assuming air is not a limitation. That is essentially a single pump. This is the same capacity that little Whaleback has. For a hill the size of Bolton, only being to run 12 guns simultaneously means very little terrain would be open without sufficient natural snow. We are talking 1 run off each peak, perhaps 2 if they're lucky.


----------



## VTKilarney (Oct 22, 2015)

According to their website, in 2008 they increased their capacity to 1,000 gallons per minute:
http://www.boltonvalley.com/about-us/environmental-initiatives/snowmaking


----------



## prsboogie (Oct 22, 2015)

I just posted this on the Saddleback thread but though I'd share here too

Bump - pure gossip from a condo owner I am friends with but when I mentioned the rumors about regarding Peaks, she said the group that has been seen around a foreigners with alleged "deep pockets" and show up to the meetings in a private helicopter. Take it for what it's worth as she isn't on any boards but has a very vested interest in the season opening since she has a slope side condo.


----------



## Jully (Oct 22, 2015)

deadheadskier said:


> Ragged is owned by a very large conglomerate.
> 
> http://pacific-group.com/index.php
> 
> I agree, everything has a price, but I don't think Pacific has gotten the cash they want out of real estate sales there yet to warrant selling it.  I would think they'd lose money selling now.



Definitely not Ragged. Their new GM is doing a pretty good job in NH opinion and they're sinking money into the place like crazy these days with the condo's, pinnacle stuff, and the new HSQ. Plus last year was pretty profitable from what I can tell. 

I'd be pretty happy if it was Shawnee. It'd be nice if they went for the West Side development, but Peaks doesn't seem too aggressive in expansion or real estate as others have said.

Shawnee gets a decent pull from MA too. The lot is full of MA cars every weekend. They have a nice family atmosphere that only a few NH mountains match. The more I think about it the more Shawnee really fits the company's profile. However, Shawnee is a  proudly family owned mountain that's currently quite well run. I have a difficult time seeing the family give that up to a recently public company.

Don't really think it's Saddleback anymore judging by the foreign investors comment.


----------



## doublediamond (Oct 22, 2015)

VTKilarney said:


> According to their website, in 2008 they increased their capacity to 1,000 gallons per minute:
> http://www.boltonvalley.com/about-us/environmental-initiatives/snowmaking



500 up + 500 up or down from mid lake = 1000 last I checked.


----------



## thebigo (Oct 23, 2015)

Jully said:


> Don't see why a 1986 triple couldn't handle it. I just don't think its a very big priority right now. The 2 HSQs at Attitash function great and serve the needs of the vast majority of skiers there.



Disagree, we are currenty looking for a ski condo and attitash checks every box:

- less than two hour drive
- multi mountain pass with southern nh night skiing area and late spring area
- affordable
- year round activities
- local non-skiing activities for when the wife and daughter dont feel like skiing

unfortunately I cannot tolerate the 20 minute ride for the best skiing on mountain. It is always assumed that a hsq is needed to the top, even a mid mountain to summit fixed grip would be tolerable.


----------



## Terry (Oct 24, 2015)

deadheadskier said:


> Hard to say regarding Shawnee.  Chet has owned it since 1994 and is 64 years old.  Could be looking to retire.  Not sure what sort of involvement the rest of his family has.
> 
> 
> Terry, on the forums here probably would know most about the long term plans for Shawnee.



I have heard nothing about a potential sale. Chet brought in his son Jeff a couple years ago as assistant manager I think. I know he plays a role in the decision making.


----------



## doublediamond (Oct 25, 2015)

thebigo said:


> Disagree, we are currenty looking for a ski condo and attitash checks every box:
> 
> - less than two hour drive
> - multi mountain pass with southern nh night skiing area and late spring area
> ...



Not happening.

Too small of trails without significant USFS permitting/ too upper level for the masses/ not enough return on inve$tment.


----------



## Jully (Oct 25, 2015)

doublediamond said:


> Not happening.
> 
> Too small of trails without significant USFS permitting/ too upper level for the masses/ not enough return on inve$tment.



Exactly. There's what, 3 narrow trails off the summit and besides the majority of attitash skiers aren't looking for narrow and more challenging. There's a reason the Flying Yankee went in where it did. 

I like the idea of a mid mountain triple to the top though. I'd rather see a mid mountain lift at Wildcat before attitash though. Not that we will see either anytime soon.


----------



## prsboogie (Oct 25, 2015)

I wonder if they could add a carpet to the summit quad and crank it up? I know it would be difficult with the lack of room behind the base terminal though


----------



## Newpylong (Oct 25, 2015)

There are other mountains that have only 3 runs served by a HSQ but not many without this lift to the summit like Attitash. None of the summit runs come anywhere close to narrow. The permitting for an in place replacement would not be insurmountable. Operational costs could be partually offset by removing Top Notch. Not having a high speed lift there is the number one reason why their user base will not increase and why many dislike the mountain.


----------



## whalebackmtn (Oct 25, 2015)

Today is the last day for *whaleback mountain season pass sale*! Go get your pass now for *25% off*. Benefits for season pass holders include: 50% killington lift tickets, up to 50% mount sunapee lift tickets, season tune up at golf and ski warehouse and whaleback mountain on snow clinics!!!! 

Ski you at whaleback!!!!


----------



## deadheadskier (Oct 25, 2015)

Newpylong said:


> There are other mountains that have only 3 runs served by a HSQ but not many without this lift to the summit like Attitash. None of the summit runs come anywhere close to narrow. The permitting for an in place replacement would not be insurmountable. Operational costs could be partually offset by removing Top Notch. Not having a high speed lift there is the number one reason why their user base will not increase and why many dislike the mountain.



On ski area challenges in the past the responses have varied from too little downhill capacity, not enough skier visits to justify increased capacity, too expensive to operate a third hsq; basically anything they can come up with to not drop the cash.  The running expense seems a likely concern for them in that they often run the Bear quad slower than any HSQ I've ever been on.

I tend to wonder how much more business a new lift would bring mainly because the MWV is a pain to drive to for many.   I really like the trails off the Peak; Ptarmigan, Tim's and Idiots all have great pitch and Tightrope has great character.  14 minute ride certainly sucks though.  A conveyor would bring it to 9-10 minutes for short money and would be a huge improvement.  I'd love to hear their reason for not doing that.  Could be space as was just mentioned.


----------



## marcski (Oct 25, 2015)

deadheadskier said:


> On ski area challenges in the past the responses have varied from too little downhill capacity, not enough skier visits to justify increased capacity, too expensive to operate a third hsq; basically anything they can come up with to not drop the cash.  The running expense seems a likely concern for them in that they often run the Bear quad slower than any HSQ I've ever been on.
> 
> I tend to wonder how much more business a new lift would bring mainly because the MWV is a pain to drive to for many.   I really like the trails off the Peak; Ptarmigan, Tim's and Idiots all have great pitch and Tightrope has great character.  14 minute ride certainly sucks though.  A conveyor would bring it to 9-10 minutes for short money and would be a huge improvement.  I'd love to hear their reason for not doing that.  Could be space as was just mentioned.



A conveyor loading carpet cutting the ride time by over 33%?? I find that very hard to believe.


----------



## deadheadskier (Oct 25, 2015)

That was the result at Shawnee Peak, Maine when they put in a conveyor for their summit triple.

If you think about it, the lift is 6400 feet long.  A goof HSQ will run 1000-1100 feet per minute.   650 per minute seems reasonable for a conveyor load.


----------



## doublediamond (Oct 25, 2015)

deadheadskier said:


> 650 per minute seems reasonable for a conveyor load.



Max 600 legal.  The Summit Triple is 500.  How fast they run it day-in/day-out to minimize stoppages is probably about 475.  It's a lower-than-normal capacity triple.

The rule of thumb is 100-ft width of trails per 600 pph.  The trails are only about 250 ft wide off the top, which is why the triple has a capacity of 1500 pph.


----------



## doublediamond (Oct 25, 2015)

Newpylong said:


> There are other mountains that have only 3 runs served by a HSQ but not many without this lift to the summit like Attitash. None of the summit runs come anywhere close to narrow. The permitting for an in place replacement would not be insurmountable. Operational costs could be partually offset by removing Top Notch. Not having a high speed lift there is the number one reason why their user base will not increase and why many dislike the mountain.



None with trails as narrow or as steep.  Seriously, we can complain all we want, but the economics aren't there.


----------



## Newpylong (Oct 25, 2015)

Off top of my head:
K-1 at Killington.
Rocket at Crotched.

Each only offer one easier route the rest being steeper blacks and none are particularly wide.

No one is complaining, just making conversation about what seems to be requested most there.


----------



## steamboat1 (Oct 25, 2015)

Pico would be another. Often when there isn't sufficient natural snow there is only one route off the top (49'er). Other times when they're dependent on snowmaking trails only it's KA ( pretty steep & narrow) & 49'er. Pike usually doesn't come on line until later in the season & that trail isn't intermediate friendly either, neither is Sunset. Really is no easy route off the top of Pico with 49'er being an advanced intermediate trail & all others rated black.


----------



## doublediamond (Oct 25, 2015)

Newpylong said:


> Off top of my head:
> K-1 at Killington.
> Rocket at Crotched.
> 
> Each only offer one easier route the rest being steeper blacks and none are particularly wide.




Crotched's trails are significantly wider and the top of Killington is very crowded.


----------



## Jully (Oct 25, 2015)

Newpylong said:


> Off top of my head:
> K-1 at Killington.
> Rocket at Crotched.
> 
> ...



Rocket at Crotched I'd say is more similar to Wachusett than it is to the attitash summit. Not at all ragging on Crotched, great mountain, but it's summit isn't comparable to Attitash. K-1 maybe, but the main trails there again, especially when comparing the blue trails don't compare to attitash. 

On the economics side too, Attitash doesn't get those summit trails open for awhile. Their snowmaking budget would also have to change with an HSQ there.

I'd think it'd be great to remove the Double and then just install a carpet on the triple. I love those trails and would like to be able to tolerate skiing them more.


----------



## Newpylong (Oct 25, 2015)

Both of you make good points. If not a detachable, at least look at some way (carpet we will say) to make the ride more tolerable. I think the best skiing on either peak is off the top.


----------



## Jully (Oct 25, 2015)

Newpylong said:


> Both of you make good points. If not a detachable, at least look at some way (carpet we will say) to make the ride more tolerable. I think the best skiing on either peak is off the top.



Oh the best skiing is definitely there. I don't go to Attitash often because its just not worth it when all I want to do is lap the triple. I wish they'd replace the triple, I just don't think its likely.


----------



## deadheadskier (Oct 25, 2015)

I enjoy lapping Bear terrain too.  Wish they didn't ruin two good trails in Mythmaker and Kachina with terrain parks.  They should use lower Ptarmigan for a park and that's it.


----------



## jaytrem (Oct 25, 2015)

How about getting rid of the lower half of the triple.  Make it an upper mountain lift and maybe upgrade and shorten the double to the top of Ptarmigin.  Then at least half your ride up is fast.


----------



## john1200c (Oct 26, 2015)

deadheadskier said:


> I enjoy lapping Bear terrain too.  Wish they didn't ruin two good trails in Mythmaker and Kachina with terrain parks.  They should use lower Ptarmigan for a park and that's it.



100% agree with this.  It was fine on Thads too for all those years.


----------



## Newpylong (Oct 26, 2015)

I think many mountains ruin some of their best terrain with parks. I say this as both a snowboarder and skier.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Oct 26, 2015)

Newpylong said:


> *I think many mountains ruin some of their best terrain with parks.* I say this as both a snowboarder and skier.



Yup.  I cant wait until the parks phase runs its' course.  I've definitely seen declining usage over the last 5 years.  

IMO, at this point I think it's sortof like coupon programs.  There are some companies who undoubtedly think perhaps they should stop them, but they're afraid of what _might_ happen to sales if they do, so it continues.


----------



## Jully (Oct 26, 2015)

BenedictGomez said:


> Yup.  I cant wait until the parks phase runs its' course.  I've definitely seen declining usage over the last 5 years.
> 
> IMO, at this point I think it's sortof like coupon programs.  There are some companies who undoubtedly think perhaps they should stop them, but they're afraid of what _might_ happen to sales if they do, so it continues.



Many mountains are already cutting back on the super expensive features, like full size super pipes which no one can use properly.


----------



## deadheadskier (Oct 26, 2015)

The reality is, how many jumps, rails, boxes etc, do you really need?  It's all basically the same.  I liken it to my love of moguls.  I really only ask for one dedicated bump run at a ski area as long as it's good.  Don't get me wrong, I'm happy with a variety of bump trails too if a ski area wishes to offer that.  However, I've got no problem lapping one bump run for a large portion of the day if they're good.


----------



## yeggous (Oct 26, 2015)

BenedictGomez said:


> Yup.  I cant wait until the parks phase runs its' course.  I've definitely seen declining usage over the last 5 years.
> 
> IMO, at this point I think it's sortof like coupon programs.  There are some companies who undoubtedly think perhaps they should stop them, but they're afraid of what _might_ happen to sales if they do, so it continues.



The parks still draw the families with 12-17 year old boys. Those kids will scream if the family doesn't go to their desired mountain. Ultimately the quest for that family revenue is what I think drives a lot of the investment in the parks.

There are mountains that have already forsaken the park. Wildcat has no real park. They will put a few features in mid-season for vacation week, but it is the last thing that they focus us, and they break it down to farm snow very early. Bretton Woods throws in a few small features on the side of Bretton's Wood, but their terrain park on Coos Caper is also the last trail to see snowmaking. I don't recall seeing a park at MRG. Black Mountain of NH has no park. There have got to be more. Who am I missing?


----------



## ss20 (Oct 26, 2015)

Mohawk in CT is probably the biggest player without any park features in their inventory.  Gonna stay that way for quite some time as well, I'm sure.


----------



## yeggous (Oct 26, 2015)

ss20 said:


> Mohawk in CT is probably the biggest player without any park features in their inventory.  Gonna stay that way for quite some time as well, I'm sure.



Did you just use the words "biggest" and "Mohawk" in the same sentence? I never thought I would see the day. Amazingly I have actually skied there. Mellow. Very mellow. It reminded me of a tiny version of Bretton Woods.


----------



## steamboat1 (Oct 26, 2015)

yeggous said:


> There are mountains that have already forsaken the park. Wildcat has no real park. They will put a few features in mid-season for vacation week, but it is the last thing that they focus us, and they break it down to farm snow very early. Bretton Woods throws in a few small features on the side of Bretton's Wood, but their terrain park on Coos Caper is also the last trail to see snowmaking. I don't recall seeing a park at MRG. Black Mountain of NH has no park. There have got to be more. Who am I missing?


Don't recall seeing a park at Pico, Middlebury or Magic either. Not sure about Smuggs, Jay or Burke.


----------



## ss20 (Oct 26, 2015)

yeggous said:


> Did you just use the words "biggest" and "Mohawk" in the same sentence? I never thought I would see the day. Amazingly I have actually skied there. Mellow. Very mellow. It reminded me of a tiny version of Bretton Woods.



"Biggest player" as in a mountain with good infrastructure, great snowmaking, and proximity to metropolitan areas.  Very unusual not to have a terrain park since they have those three factors.  Biggest is not referring to size.  

Context, context, context...


----------



## BenedictGomez (Oct 26, 2015)

steamboat1 said:


> Don't recall seeing a park at Pico, Middlebury or Magic either. Not sure about Smuggs, Jay or Burke.



Smuggs and Jay have park areas.   The uber tiny players often dont.   At a lot of places, they're becoming near "ghost town trails".


----------



## drjeff (Oct 26, 2015)

steamboat1 said:


> Don't recall seeing a park at Pico, Middlebury or Magic either. Not sure about Smuggs, Jay or Burke.



Magic does have a small park with a few boxes, rails and small jumps just above the tubing area. In reality though, 95% of Magic is just one big, giant, smile inducing terrain park! It just doesn't necessarily cater to the "classical" park crowd demographic!


----------



## drjeff (Oct 26, 2015)

BenedictGomez said:


> Yup.  I cant wait until the parks phase runs its' course.  I've definitely seen declining usage over the last 5 years.
> 
> IMO, at this point I think it's sortof like coupon programs.  There are some companies who undoubtedly think perhaps they should stop them, but they're afraid of what _might_ happen to sales if they do, so it continues.



I think you also have to look at how a mountain views their park progression, which is a BIG commitment to the resources (snow quantity, proper grooming equipment with GOOD operators and a good fabrication shop for building the steel parts needed for many park features, and listening to the users of their parks) going over not just an annual basis, but also during the season.

Mountains with the commitment to keeping their parks evolving over the season and also have a variety of sizes of parks and features to allow the development of the skier/rider, DO see a return on their investment. 

Resorts that just haphazardly throw together a few jumps and rails and maybe a box or 2 and then don't do much more than take a park rake and the occasional pass with the tiller of a groomer to the park, don't see the profit potential from their park(s). 

Park users, especially in this social media/GoPro rich world we live in know where the progressive parks they're looking for are, and will seek them out early, mid and late season and their dollars they bring to those resorts are significant


----------



## VTKilarney (Oct 27, 2015)

At Burke, only a very small percentage of skiers actually skis the park terrain.  Almost all of the park skiers are made up of one of the following:
1) Grade school and high school students skiing on cheap student passes
2) College students skiing on cheap student passes
3) Part time employees skiing on free employee passes

Last Christmas, they focused a LOT of snowmaking effort in order to get the park open for the Christmas holiday.  As a result, they were only able to have ONE trail from top to bottom on the main mountain.   So the captive park skiers got preference over the tourists that pay good money to ski.  I'm not sure who thought of that marketing strategy.


----------



## MEtoVTSkier (Oct 27, 2015)

steamboat1 said:


> Don't recall seeing a park at Pico, Middlebury or Magic either. Not sure about Smuggs, Jay or Burke.



Burke has that whole Dashney Mile trail as one giant park.


----------



## danimals (Oct 27, 2015)

Park skiing and riding isnt dying. The mountains that dont take park seriously just dont get the traffic. Serious park riders will go where the best parks are.


----------



## Newpylong (Oct 27, 2015)

I don't see the parks going anywhere - but I see the shift from massive half pipes and snowboard specific features to smaller features more geared towards both freestyle skiing and snowboarding. I think that is a good move and surely better on the snowmaking budget. 

This year Whaleback finally pre-built their larger hits out of earth vs having to build them in costly snow. They can get away with this because there is limited terrain for the park and people are happy to have them, so they are fine with the features being in similar spots every year.


----------



## Not Sure (Oct 27, 2015)

danimals said:


> Park skiing and riding isnt dying. The mountains that dont take park seriously just dont get the traffic. Serious park riders will go where the best parks are.



Big Boulder in Pa. has very little vert but does well attracting park traffic . They can't compete size wise but have found a niche and also could have been open into May this past year.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Oct 27, 2015)

drjeff said:


> Park users, especially in this social media/GoPro rich world we live in* know where the progressive parks they're looking for are, and will seek them out early, mid and late season and their dollars they bring to those resorts are significant*



I'd like to see a study on how significant they generally are versus the significant creation, maintenance and upkeep, and increased insurance costs.  




VTKilarney said:


> *At Burke, only a very small percentage of skiers actually skis the park terrain. *



I ski all over the place, usually a good 10 places a year or so, and this is more my current "sense" than not at most places.  That's why I call them "Ghost town" areas.  Sometimes I'll ski the sides of parks just to find better snow or an empty trail.



VTKilarney said:


> Almost all of the park skiers are made up of one of the following:
> 1) Grade school and high school students skiing on cheap student passes
> 2) College students skiing on cheap student passes
> 3) Part time employees skiing on free employee passes



I generally agree with this.  The counter-argument people make, however, is that parents who ARE the financial decision makers and DO spend money, will go to the places that cater to their kid's wishes.  While there may be some truth to that, I believe that in general that opinion greatly overstates reality.  Mom & Dad will more often go where Mom & Dad want to go.



Newpylong said:


> I don't see the parks going anywhere - but *I see the shift from massive half pipes and snowboard specific features to smaller features*...



As a generalization, I think that's likely true as well.


----------



## drjeff (Oct 27, 2015)

BenedictGomez said:


> I'd like to see a study on how significant they generally are versus the significant creation, maintenance and upkeep, and increased insurance costs.



"Significant" is the verbatim word that I've heard the admins at Mount Snow use when asked, both in a private one on one setting and also on multiple occasions in the public annual passholders meeting about the possibility of returning Carinthia, or at least some of it to a non park status. The answer is, and has been ever since they dedicated that entire section of the mountain to the parks, no, because of the "significant" revenue it generates them, which isn't just limited to peak season, but is present in off peak season, and is reflected in the fact that they have some park offerings available every single operating day of the season, as well as continue to make the quantity of snow needed for the full sized parks, regularly are buying new park specific designed groomers (not too many mountains have 3 Pisten Bulley 400 Park Pros that are less than 3 years old as Mount Snow does), and continue to expand their park progression and provide the full financial support for their evolution.

I fully get that Mount Snow does the entire park scene much different than most resorts out there, and that their model in no way could work, regardless of how you scale it up or down and any mountain, however when done "right" in the eyes, and wallets of the target demographic, it is a revenue producer and not a loss leader for a resort


----------



## dlague (Oct 27, 2015)

BenedictGomez said:


> I'd like to see a study on how significant they generally are versus the significant creation, maintenance and upkeep, and increased insurance costs.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



True that!  Our kid/kids go or have gone where the parents want to go.  They will find the park and if it sucks then they are fine in the woods.  Might even ski with us.  We went to mount snow one time and my son keeps asking to go back so there is a tiny bit of influence coming from the kids.  We have not caved.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## Jully (Oct 27, 2015)

drjeff said:


> "Significant" is the verbatim word that I've heard the admins at Mount Snow use when asked, both in a private one on one setting and also on multiple occasions in the public annual passholders meeting about the possibility of returning Carinthia, or at least some of it to a non park status. The answer is, and has been ever since they dedicated that entire section of the mountain to the parks, no, because of the "significant" revenue it generates them, which isn't just limited to peak season, but is present in off peak season, and is reflected in the fact that they have some park offerings available every single operating day of the season, as well as continue to make the quantity of snow needed for the full sized parks, regularly are buying new park specific designed groomers (not too many mountains have 3 Pisten Bulley 400 Park Pros that are less than 3 years old as Mount Snow does), and continue to expand their park progression and provide the full financial support for their evolution.
> 
> I fully get that Mount Snow does the entire park scene much different than most resorts out there, and that their model in no way could work, regardless of how you scale it up or down and any mountain, however when done "right" in the eyes, and wallets of the target demographic, it is a revenue producer and not a loss leader for a resort



I would guess that if a resort puts in the amount of effort that say, Mount Snow does, then they get significant returns. However, if the resort does anything short of designing parks across an entire section of the resort, Sunday River is another player in that regard, then the returns are diminishing and potentially falling as the big players step it up every year.

From a kids perspective who might ask to go to a place with a huge park, they will request the biggest and best park resorts and for the parents that do cave, those resorts see an uptick in revenue. However, if the parents do not cave then whether the resort has no park versus a below average park I bet won't impact the family's choice too much. Certainly not enough to spend significant snowmaking capital and maintain the equipment.


----------



## Gforce (Nov 10, 2015)

Anything new with the rumors?

There is no growth with the mountain operators in this market and gross margins however around 2% and ROE not much better....the only alternative is growth via M&A so it would seem to make sense.


----------

