# BOYNE USA: AZ Challenge 2009 Response/Feedback Thread



## Greg (Aug 20, 2009)

Stephen's responses are in:

http://skiing.alpinezone.com/articles/challenge/2009/response.htm?resort=boyne


----------



## Vortex (Aug 20, 2009)

Looks like parking is being looked into as well as lifts. Early and late season is still on the table.   Well thought out resposnes.  I'll have to read a few more times.


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 20, 2009)

"Low volume tree skiing on Burnt Mountain"


would love to see the drawings of what they have in mind there.


----------



## mondeo (Aug 20, 2009)

deadheadskier said:


> "Low volume tree skiing on Burnt Mountain"
> 
> 
> would love to see the drawings of what they have in mind there.


----------



## WJenness (Aug 20, 2009)

SK, thank you for participating in the AZ challenge.

I am a very happy Boyne passholder and ski SR and Loon regularly, with my first journey to SL last year.

I will continue to buy a pass and ski a majority of my ski days at your resorts. I really appreciate the direction Boyne and CNL are headed in with all three of these resorts.

Thank you.

-w


----------



## wa-loaf (Aug 20, 2009)

deadheadskier said:


> "Low volume tree skiing on Burnt Mountain"
> 
> 
> would love to see the drawings of what they have in mind there.



Sticking a t-bar over there would keep things pretty low volume . . .


----------



## Edd (Aug 20, 2009)

I'm a huge SR skier and hit Loon and the Loaf a number of times each year.  Thanks for participating Stephen.  I was looking forward to the responses.


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 20, 2009)

While probably best for the skiing experience, if I were a local, I'd be a bit discouraged by Stephen hinting at essentially giving up on the resort as a four season destination.

Having worked at Snowshoe an equally if not more remote and difficult area to get to, I can appreciate the challenge.  I would think Snowshoe would be a good model on how to generate summer business.  I don't ever see Sugarloaf doing the volume of summer business Snowshoe does because of all of the other closer competitive areas in New England. I still think it's a worthy study for them to generate enough off season revenue to keep a core group of staff gainfully employed.


----------



## Skimaine (Aug 20, 2009)

SK,

Thank you for you responses and willingness to share your plans.  Like most I would like to see more 4 seasons development, however, I understand and appreciate the rational.  I like knowing the strategy and would rather have limited resources focused on the core business (skiing).  

I am looking forward to many years of skiing at both SL and SR.


----------



## SLyardsale (Aug 20, 2009)

Thanks for participating - thanks for some candid replies, especially in regards to SL. FYI, you must have read by the question relating to Saddleback... Please fell free to add in any comments about that topic..


----------



## ga2ski (Aug 20, 2009)

SK,

Thanks for participating.

In response to some of your answers:

First and foremost, I meant no disrespect to any of the local employees at SR. I think they do a great job and I am friends with several of them. I have heard responses to my questions from local SR Upper Management and employees of multiples other departments (names withheld to protect the innocent or guilty  ). And now have your responses. 

In terms of you not hearing any other complaints about removing Lift 5, I find that hard to believe as I know several people at the mountains (some of who may be employees in multiple different departments) that agree with me. They just may not be as vocal as I was regarding the lift (maybe in fear of loss of employment). 
I'm not sure if you have a program similar to that in my company, but our COO visits all our worldwide offices annually and sits down (or sometimes ride chairlifts) with individuals or small groups of employees from all levels to discuss the good and bad of working at the company. He hears it all. If you have a similar program, I'm really surprised that you never heard this.

On a more positive note, I’m a glad to hear the commitment to opening SR early and SL saying open late. I hope you come and join us on the slopes on Halloween. Look for me in the Tigger costume, and we can discuss some of my other ideas in person on the lift.

Also I appreciate all the improvements that Boyne and CNL has done to the SR since taking ownership. Keep up the good work and I’ll keep sending my constructive criticism, even if I’m no longer moderating your message board.

Thanks again for listening and responding to our questions.


----------



## millerm277 (Aug 20, 2009)

ga2ski said:
			
		

> ...that I agree with me....



I certainly hope you do. :lol: Sorry, just having fun.


Anyway, I liked the responses. Need to get up to Sugarloaf this year I think....


----------



## ga2ski (Aug 21, 2009)

millerm277 said:


> I certainly hope you do. :lol: Sorry, just having fun.


 
I can take it. I bust balls with the best of them . . .. .just ask BobR.


----------



## Vortex (Aug 21, 2009)

I am a frequent target.  I can live with it as well.


----------



## ga2ski (Aug 21, 2009)

One additional note about the responses. p

In my opinion a ski area is about conditions and not the look of base area. Two of my favorite areas to ski have a very old looking base area. They have great conditions and decents lifts though.

If you are trying to "clean up the look of South Ridge" (maybe all the BC alums look for this  ) try buying some matches and burn the debacle known as the south ridge lodge. Personally I hope this does not happen( unless of course the valet parking signs are inside the building :lol: ). I would much rather see the capital invested into the trails and lifts.

Okay enough of my banter. I do my best to behave now.


----------



## Newpylong (Aug 21, 2009)

I love the White Cap area - wish that lodge got some tender loving care eventually...


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 21, 2009)

Newpylong said:


> I love the White Cap area - wish that lodge got some tender loving care eventually...



White Caps would get more love if the Heat chair came all the way down to the lodge.  Well, at least it would be more popular.  90% of the time I've been to the River I park there.  It is the best option for a day trip skier who arrives at 9 or later.  I don't like having to take two chairs when I start my day.  I want to get on and ramp up to the top and start skiing.  Barker is best for that, but parking is a bitch there after 8:30 on weekends.


----------



## Newpylong (Aug 22, 2009)

deadheadskier said:


> White Caps would get more love if the Heat chair came all the way down to the lodge.  Well, at least it would be more popular.  90% of the time I've been to the River I park there.  It is the best option for a day trip skier who arrives at 9 or later.  I don't like having to take two chairs when I start my day.  I want to get on and ramp up to the top and start skiing.  Barker is best for that, but parking is a bitch there after 8:30 on weekends.



Good points - The Heat chair is kinda wasted up there... Obsession is one of the best steep cruisers around.  

At least you can access the rest from the Tempest Quad though with one ride.

Agreed, Barker is rough, too bad because it's the best access point I think like you said.


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 22, 2009)

Newpylong said:


> Good points - The Heat chair is kinda wasted up there... Obsession is one of the best steep cruisers around.
> 
> At least you can access the rest from the Tempest Quad though with one ride.
> 
> Agreed, Barker is rough, too bad because it's the best access point I think like you said.



Love Obsession and Shockwave.  I even think Heat would see more love and be more 'Outer Limit' esque (more of a showcase) if the lift went right down to the lodge.

Tempest chair is definitely good as you can get right down to Barker or over to South Ridge.  People hate the Kansas to eventually Road Runner slog, but I'm always glad it's there when parked at White Cap.  It's nice to be able to get back to your car from the summit of any of the other 7 peaks without worrying about having to take a lift.


----------



## eastcoastpowderhound (Aug 24, 2009)

deadheadskier said:


> White Caps would get more love if the Heat chair came all the way down to the lodge.  Well, at least it would be more popular.  90% of the time I've been to the River I park there.  It is the best option for a day trip skier who arrives at 9 or later.  I don't like having to take two chairs when I start my day.  I want to get on and ramp up to the top and start skiing.  Barker is best for that, but parking is a bitch there after 8:30 on weekends.



no!  the heat chair is perfect where it is!  moving it down to the base wouldn't gain you any usable vert and it'll only serve to increase the gaper factor on the heat.  

Just get up earlier and make it to Barker before 8:30...of course getting rid of the whole row that was reserved for GSR parking last year...in addition to the 2 rows of preferred parking would help ease things at Barker.  From Feb on the top 3 rows were reserved for preferred or GSR...and they wouldn't even let my pregnant wife park in the GSR row AFTER 10am despite the dozen or so empty spaces.  The whole elitism thing isn't in tune with the vibe at Barker...keep it at South Ridge.  One row of preferred parking is enough!  PARKING TO THE PEOPLE!


----------



## Newpylong (Aug 24, 2009)

All this talk. White Cap, Barker, hmmm.... want to go skiing! haha.


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 24, 2009)

eastcoastpowderhound said:


> no!  the heat chair is perfect where it is!  moving it down to the base wouldn't gain you any usable vert and it'll only serve to increase the gaper factor on the heat.
> 
> Just get up earlier and make it to Barker before 8:30...of course getting rid of the whole row that was reserved for GSR parking last year...in addition to the 2 rows of preferred parking would help ease things at Barker.  From Feb on the top 3 rows were reserved for preferred or GSR...and they wouldn't even let my pregnant wife park in the GSR row AFTER 10am despite the dozen or so empty spaces.  The whole elitism thing isn't in tune with the vibe at Barker...keep it at South Ridge.  One row of preferred parking is enough!  PARKING TO THE PEOPLE!



I understand that bringing the lift to the base wouldn't add usable vert.  It's just my opinion as to why it's so quiet at that end of the mountain.  The tempest and white cap lifts don't serve all that great of terrain, so people seem to use White Cap as a way out of there.

<----not a fan either of premier parking and that's horse crap regarding your wife.


----------



## Riverskier (Aug 24, 2009)

deadheadskier said:


> I understand that bringing the lift to the base wouldn't add usable vert.  It's just my opinion as to why it's so quiet at that end of the mountain.  The tempest and white cap lifts don't serve all that great of terrain, so people seem to use White Cap as a way out of there.
> 
> <----not a fan either of premier parking and that's horse crap regarding your wife.



Not a fan of preferred parking either, but I understand it. It is an additional revenue source, and caters to a niche in the market. Hopefully that leads (even though relatively insignificant) to additional investment in the mountain, and to keeping pass prices low.

However, what is up with the rows reserved for GSR? They are kept closed all day (unlike preferred parking only until 10am), and often times there are only a couple cars parked in there. Talk about frustrating, showing up mid day to find a row of empty spaces that you can't park in! I certainly hope they are paying a hefty premium for this.


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 24, 2009)

What does GSR stand for?


----------



## Riverskier (Aug 24, 2009)

deadheadskier said:


> What does GSR stand for?



99% sure Gould Sunday River.


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 24, 2009)

Riverskier said:


> 99% sure Gould Sunday River.



Lame

Buses should drop those kids off and then park at a remote location.  That was the way it was at Okemo when I raced there as a kid with my school.


----------



## Riverskier (Aug 24, 2009)

deadheadskier said:


> Lame
> 
> Buses should drop those kids off and then park at a remote location.  That was the way it was at Okemo when I raced there as a kid with my school.



Exactly! And if they are driving themselves, coming with coaches, parents, etc. then they can either pay for the preferred parking or simply deal like the rest of us.


----------



## eastcoastpowderhound (Aug 24, 2009)

deadheadskier said:


> Lame
> 
> Buses should drop those kids off and then park at a remote location.  That was the way it was at Okemo when I raced there as a kid with my school.



they are busses...okay, suburbans, same diff.


----------



## eastcoastpowderhound (Aug 24, 2009)

deadheadskier said:


> It's just my opinion as to why it's so quiet at that end of the mountain.  The tempest and white cap lifts don't serve all that great of terrain, so people seem to use White Cap as a way out of there.



SHHHHH! someone might hear you!  :wink:  good teaching terrain for my daughter too...no one ever skis moonstruck, itll be a good first blue for her and it'll be nice to get out of the madness that is so ridge.


----------



## eastcoastpowderhound (Aug 24, 2009)

Riverskier said:


> Exactly! And if they are driving themselves, coming with coaches, parents, etc. then they can either pay for the preferred parking or simply deal like the rest of us.


exactly...especially when the kept the damn lot "reserved" for them all day long!  let them pay for preferred or park like the rest of us.


----------



## SLyardsale (Sep 1, 2009)

So, SK declined to answer my AZ Challenge Q on Saddleback which was :

_"Saddleback has gotten nice reviews and has been noticed since the Berry family launched their upgrades. As your nearest geographic competitor what notes have you taken on their activity?" _

even after a polite 2nd attempt, crickets.

See today's P/R on Saddleback:

_For Immediate Release 
Contact: 
Conrad E. Klefos, Director of Marketing & Sales 
Saddleback Maine 
(207) 864-5671 ext 104 
cklefos@saddlebackmaine.com 


RANGELEY, Maine – This year Saddleback Maine will offer skiers and snowboarders a new glade called Casablanca. It will be the largest glade in the Northeast, with 44 acres of inbound un-groomed tree skiing. The mountain will open its 66th trail, a single black diamond called 'Family Secret.' 

Casablanca will offer a challenging double black diamond glade experience, with chutes, steeps, tight lines, and open areas for cruising. There is so much space that skiers and riders will think they have the place to themselves. Locals and employees are excited because they predict there will be “freshies” nearly every day. The on-mountain trail crews also predict that the nature of how the glade lays on the mountain it will catch, keep, and hold large quantities of snow. 

“Our latest improvements are designed to capitalize on what makes Saddleback different from other mountains in Maine. The new glade at Saddleback will draw people to the mountain who are eager to get off the groomed trails and experience a high alpine adventure unlike any other in the East,” stated Warren Cook, CEO and general manager of Saddleback Maine. “The terrain and the beauty, complemented by our Saddleback Guest Service, will create an unforgettable experience.” 

Saddleback is also introducing two new snow groomers and tillers to the grooming fleet, one of which is an impressive Winch Cat. There will be snowmaking improvements as well. 

Saddleback Realty is completing 12 on-mountain condominiums prior to winter as well. The new South Branch condos offer elegant wood frame construction with wood shingle siding, all surrounded by scenic views of the mountains. Still in the works for next season are a new chairlift and an expanded base lodge. 

For more information, visit www.saddlebackmaine.com or call 866-918-2225. 
### 

Saddleback Maine, one of New England’s finest family ski resorts, is located in the legendary Rangeley Lakes Region of the Western Mountains of Maine. Saddleback offers excellent value and the best of the Maine outdoors at our big mountain resort, located amidst the highest concentration of 4,000 foot peaks in Maine. The resort is committed to carefully crafting its growth with an environmental focus and support of community. 

For more information about Saddleback and its year-round offerings, visit www.saddlebackmaine.com. For information about real estate investment opportunities, visit www.saddlebackrealty.com._


----------



## trtaylor (Sep 1, 2009)

And this. Rangeley Resident Named Director of Competition and Wellness at Saddleback



SLyardsale said:


> So, SK declined to answer my AZ Challenge Q on Saddleback which was :
> 
> _"Saddleback has gotten nice reviews and has been noticed since the Berry family launched their upgrades. As your nearest geographic competitor what notes have you taken on their activity?" _
> 
> ...


----------



## SLyardsale (Sep 1, 2009)

trtaylor said:


> And this. Rangeley Resident Named Director of Competition and Wellness at Saddleback




Right, Hawksley was a nice coup - I had a son in SCVA for a few years in the midst while he was there. Not necessarily the case here, but Saddleback is plucking some noticable local talent away from the compeition for their operation.  A Warren Cook revenge...


----------



## Edd (Sep 1, 2009)

Wow.  PR is PR after all but I'm betting that new glade is going to be pretty good.  Can't wait to go.


----------



## snoseek (Sep 1, 2009)

deadheadskier said:


> White Caps would get more love if the Heat chair came all the way down to the lodge.  Well, at least it would be more popular.  90% of the time I've been to the River I park there.  It is the best option for a day trip skier who arrives at 9 or later.  I don't like having to take two chairs when I start my day.  I want to get on and ramp up to the top and start skiing.  Barker is best for that, but parking is a bitch there after 8:30 on weekends.



Just take a right up the hill before the bottom of the North Peak lift and park there. Good spot to "safely" park also


----------



## Vortex (Sep 2, 2009)

You need a  owners sticker to get past Fall Line. Security sits there from 7.15 on.  Been that way for the last two years.  When my son or daughter have sleep overs it hard to get them back to our Condo when friends give him a ride back.  As an owner I love it.


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Sep 6, 2009)

bump..you guys should buy Pico..and Magic..


----------



## skircher (Sep 11, 2009)

trtaylor said:


> And this. Rangeley Resident Named Director of Competition and Wellness at Saddleback



Sorry for missing that question regarding Saddleback:

The question was: What have we learned from our neighbor to the north?

That certainly new facilities do attract trial and that they are doing a nice job of producing a ski product. They have hired a great leader in Warren Cook and seen some moderate growth in skier visits.

We have learned that Warren is indeed savy at PR and in operations and is putting in place many of the tactics he used against Les Otten many years ago to try to get his resort to profitability.

We have also learned that the Berry family has substantially cut off funding to Saddleback and given Warren the ultimatium to make money or else.

We have learned that Saddleback's 1.5m cash flow (EBITDA) loss is unstustainable for any resort and that they need to do something significant to the operations to make it sustainable. aka raise prices, cut costs or try to steal marketshare.

We have learned that they owe the ski industy over 400k in past due payments on capital expenses and upgrades that they purchased in 2008 (over 12 months in arrears) and are currently seeking a government backed (FAM) loan of 3m to fund past due bills and fund operations this winter.

The jury is out on the long term viability of Saddleback without subsidies from current/future owners or government. 

For our part, we intend to continue to meet the competition with improvements to facilities, cost structure and service. However, we are not expecting to get Government handouts to make that happen.

Skiers should consider these realities at Saddleback along with the pretty picture currently being portrayed in press releases on on the blogs.

Respectfully,
SK


----------



## UVSHTSTRM (Sep 11, 2009)

skircher said:


> Sorry for missing that question regarding Saddleback:
> 
> The question was: What have we learned from our neighbor to the north?
> 
> ...



Wow, that was an eye opener.


----------



## eastcoastpowderhound (Sep 11, 2009)

:blink: that was some of the nicest mud slinging I've ever witnessed!  SK, move to Maine and run for Govenor...they haven't had one as skilled as you since Angus King, present crop included.


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Sep 11, 2009)

skircher said:


> Sorry for missing that question regarding Saddleback:
> 
> The question was: What have we learned from our neighbor to the north?
> 
> ...


Wow.

With all due respect, those realities have zero to do with the quality of the product, which is clearly improving dramatically.  Should I shy away from Snowbird b/c Dick Bass comes from oil money?   How about Stowe with their AIG ownership?  What about Jay Peak and Sugarbush using special visa programs to fund their new base area expansions?  Ultimately, it's about the skiing, and the inside poker stuff is just fun to talk about.  If I shied away from every company who is in arrears to their vendors or is receiving government help, I'd have to live off the land somewhere in the woods.  

Quite frankly, you would have been better served saying that it's your understanding that Saddleback is far from profitable and that, even with the growth in skier visits, they are known to be experiencing financial issues with vendors and others in the industry.  Therefore, they may not be a model that you seek to emulate.  The high road always works better.

Sorry - that's poor form, SK.


----------



## Skimaine (Sep 11, 2009)

I guess that response takes care of the crickets.  

I think SK responded in the spirit of the question and answered back with brutal honesty.  Ultimately, he did not spin, dodge or duck the question.  

I would love to have this guy as my governor.  Probably not going to happen, but those of us living in the great state of Maine can only hope.


----------



## tipsdown (Sep 11, 2009)

Wow, talk about airing out some dirty laundry. I wasn't expecting that out of SK. I thought he'd take the high road and talk about some of the nice things they've done…Definitely a couple of low blows. As for the EBITDA, it comes with the territory of engaging in a start up 10 year plan….Inevitably, they need to gain more market share to become sustainable and they're off to a pretty good start from what I can tell. If they're doing that in years 8,9, or 10, than there may be some cause for concern….As for the past due payments, that didn't happen on Cook's watch and that's part of the reason he's there. And what's wrong with a loan? Ultimately it will help create jobs and expand operations... 
In short, no surprises other than the tone of SK's response. 
And by the way, SK's "neighbor" is to the South (SW). I don't know how much of a pulse this guy has on Saddleback….


----------



## AndyEich (Sep 12, 2009)

Saddleback is north of Sunday River.
________
properties for sale Pattaya


----------



## Newpylong (Sep 12, 2009)

Huh? Why all the crying? That response is brutally honest.... Why sugarcoat anything?


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Sep 12, 2009)

Newpylong said:


> Huh? Why all the crying? That response is brutally honest.... Why sugarcoat anything?



Really?  Some random message board guy asks a question in a slightly snarky answer and you think it's appropriate for the owner of a ski resort to shit all over another and go out of his way to disparage their reputation?  That's sweet.  Come on.  Behind all the niceties, Kircher basically said "Don't ski at Saddleback b/c they are a bunch of scumbags who are cheating everyone in the industry and taking government handouts"  

What did Saddleback do to deserve that sort of response?  They didn't ask the question.  

Completely inappropriate, regardless of the veracity.


----------



## Skimaine (Sep 13, 2009)

SK said that Saddleback does not have a sustainable business model and backed with key bits of information.  He also had high praise for Warren Cook.  Good healthy competition.  If you are considering investing in real estate at any resort you must consider the long-term prospects of the operation.  Anyone who does not sense some risk at Saddleback (and to a lesser extend SL) is fooling themselves.


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 13, 2009)

Skimaine said:


> SK said that Saddleback does not have a sustainable business model and backed with key bits of information.  He also had high praise for Warren Cook.  Good healthy competition.  If you are considering investing in real estate at any resort you must consider the long-term prospects of the operation.  Anyone who does not sense some risk at Saddleback (and to a lesser extend SL) is fooling themselves.



very true with any ski area

I would think with the amount of quality improvements that have occurred at Saddleback that it is no longer a threat to join NELSAP like it once was.  It has a lot of things going for it, especially the lake to attract people looking for a four season destination.

That said, I've only been there once when I used to live in Portland.  I found the drive there far more taxing than the drive to Sugarloaf.  Is Route 4 the major road over?  Whatever it was is in major need of an upgrade.  That would help SB as much as anything.


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Sep 13, 2009)

Skimaine said:


> SK said that Saddleback does not have a sustainable business model and backed with key bits of information.  He also had high praise for Warren Cook.  Good healthy competition.  If you are considering investing in real estate at any resort you must consider the long-term prospects of the operation.  Anyone who does not sense some risk at Saddleback (and to a lesser extend SL) is fooling themselves.




The question wasn't about real-estate, so I'm not sure what you're getting at - why raise this strawman?  Moreover, he could have easily accomplished his objective to illustrate it's not a model worth emulating by stopping at the $1.5MM EBITDA loss figure.  The question was:



> "Saddleback has gotten nice reviews and has been noticed since the Berry family launched their upgrades. As your nearest geographic competitor what notes have you taken on their activity?"



On second look, that doesn't even sound snarky to me, so I'm not sure why it engendered such an under-handed response.  And if you think that SK's post was innocuous, I urge you to re-read these three lines, which people are apparently ignoring:



> We have learned that they owe the ski industy over 400k in past due payments on capital expenses and upgrades that they purchased in 2008 (over 12 months in arrears) and are currently seeking a government backed (FAM) loan of 3m to fund past due bills and fund operations this winter.





> For our part, we intend to continue to meet the competition with improvements to facilities, cost structure and service. However, we are not expecting to get Government handouts to make that happen.





> Skiers should consider these realities at Saddleback along with the pretty picture currently being portrayed in press releases on on the blogs.



I've participated in many skiing related forums with varying levels of ownership/mgmt participation.  I have long been an avid observer of the industry as a whole.  I have never seen the owner of a ski area publicly disparage a competitor like this.  I have no idea why you think it's appropriate for SK to bring up Saddleback's financial relationship with its vendors or the govt as a basis for making a determination whether you would want to ski there.  That's just a low blow - plain and simple.  It's stunning to me that you were fooled by the banal platitudes about SL's former employee Warren Cook who is now running their top local competitor.    He might as well have said "Warren's nice but he is cheating everyone in the industry and stealing your hard-earned taxpayer dollars so don't ski there."    If you look at his post for more than 2 seconds, that's essentially what he's saying.


----------



## Edd (Sep 13, 2009)

I must say my jaw dropped when I read SKs response to the Saddleback question.  I watched the videos posted recently from the Sugarloaf meeting where he spoke.  He came off as tactful with measured responses.

Hopefully the words sounded better in his head than they came off to readers.  He did say that Saddleback is presenting a fine ski product which is more generous than some in his position would be.  Following that up with stating that Sugarloaf is more than up to the challenge (which it is) to hold on to a healthy market share would have been good.

Either way I'll be skiing both mountains this year.


----------



## SLyardsale (Sep 13, 2009)

Since I asked the initial question, I'd like to respond too..

This is a business, as long as what SK is saying is true - and knowing him he has checked facts thouroughly - I for one am glad he is getting this info out. I love both Mt's, but SL offers the overall package that wins me over, despite some recent mis steps. Saddleback has been shtting ice cream recently - lots of great PR - all to their credit.

When you act responsibly, quitely, fiscally sound, etc, you don't often grab headlines. I'll admit, I've been aiming constructive criticism at SL et al. But I've seen a couple of things recently - an admission by J Diller (SL Gen Man) at the Carrabasset town meeting with SK - that he needs to communicate better with the SL community, and SK's comments/commitments to SL (also at that meeting) on both ski and golf operations.

Having both MT's in a close radius is great. Lets all hope the competition remains healthy for both operations.

Thanks SK for the follow up.  I think I owe you a Pick Pole at the Bag this winter.


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Sep 14, 2009)

SLyardsale said:


> Since I asked the initial question, I'd like to respond too..
> 
> This is a business, as long as what SK is saying is true - and knowing him he has checked facts thouroughly - I for one am glad he is getting this info out.



So you're glad that the info about Saddleback being late on its payments and asking for a govt loan is out there?  That really has some sort of impact on how you think about the place?  You think it's appropriate for a competitor to leak this information to the public in what constitutes a highly unusual move?

Did SK have all his facts straights when he banned that guy from skiing on his mtn due to disparaging comments made on the SL board?  You guys must thin his shit tastes like rhubarb pie.


----------



## Vortex (Sep 14, 2009)

Sk comes out and answers the question good or bad and stands up.  I think we got a response. 

 It was Yardsales question and he is satisfied with the Answer.  This is business, and being aggressive is not an issue with me.

As far As sk role in the previous board issue banning.  He stepped up to try and settle the issue.  As I remember all parties excepted the end result.  I think you have the chronological order backwards here.

I am a happy bonye pass holder and property owner.


----------



## Rogman (Sep 14, 2009)

An unusual and unwise move. SK's initial response was the correct one, ignore the question. Why talk about a competitor on a public forum? Doesn't matter what you say, you're still giving them free press. There's obviously some bad blood there, and what goes around comes around. As the saying goes, you won't know where, you won't know when, but you will know why.

For me, it backfired. I spend a week at the 'loaf every year. Keep meaning to get over to Saddleback, but have never made the effort. SK's response made me realize there's a lot going on there. This year, I'll make the drive. No animosity, he simply piqued my curiosity.


----------



## SLyardsale (Sep 14, 2009)

Tin Woodsman said:


> So you're glad that the info about Saddleback being late on its payments and asking for a govt loan is out there?  That really has some sort of impact on how you think about the place?  You think it's appropriate for a competitor to leak this information to the public in what constitutes a highly unusual move?
> 
> Did SK have all his facts straights when he banned that guy from skiing on his mtn due to disparaging comments made on the SL board?  You guys must thin his shit tastes like rhubarb pie.



You missed the next sentence...



> I love both Mt's, but SL offers the overall package that wins me over, despite some recent mis steps. Saddleback has been shtting ice cream recently - lots of great PR - *all to their credit*.



There had been speculation that SB's model (aggressive expansion & cheap lift tickets) could not be sustained. Your take is that SK leaked the information. Mine is that he is a business man getting out facts about his closest competitor.  Is that really that unusual - I guess it is only unusual in the ski industry


----------



## tipsdown (Sep 14, 2009)

Rogman said:


> An unusual and unwise move. SK's initial response was the correct one, ignore the question. Why talk about a competitor on a public forum? Doesn't matter what you say, you're still giving them free press. There's obviously some bad blood there, and what goes around comes around. As the saying goes, you won't know where, you won't know when, but you will know why.
> 
> For me, it backfired. I spend a week at the 'loaf every year. Keep meaning to get over to Saddleback, but have never made the effort. SK's response made me realize there's a lot going on there. This year, I'll make the drive. No animosity, he simply piqued my curiosity.



Rogman, I'm with you here.  His response screams "Saddleback is a serious threat to my mountain."  And it only lends more credibility the fact that he sees them as a major player in the East.  The problem I had with his response was it wasn't very telling…He positions his dig on their financial model as if it were year 10 (as opposed to year 2) of their 10 year plan.  And since he's provided a nice little tell-all on Saddleback, I'd like to hear how things are going at SL behind the scenes.  Maybe he could shed some more light on that. My understanding is that SL was cash flow negative by $1 mil in 2008.  To me, that's much more of a concern for a resort that has been operating for years and has more or less maximized their potential..It's clear to me that his intent was to paint the bleakest picture posssible about his biggest competitor.  If you're just calling a spade a spade..than why not talk about how Saddleback sold $4 and a half million in real estate last year.  SL was no where near that…Take the high road next time...


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 14, 2009)

SLyardsale said:


> You missed the next sentence...
> 
> 
> 
> There had been speculation that SB's model (aggressive expansion & cheap lift tickets) could not be sustained. Your take is that SK leaked the information. Mine is that he is a business man getting out facts about his closest competitor.  Is that really that unusual - I guess it is only unusual in the ski industry



good point

In my line of work, I play fair most of the time, but I certainly don't root for my competitors.  The moment one of them plays dirty, I will take the gloves off. 

In the ski business, especially in the current economy, I think many people (myself included) are sensitive to one particular business throwing another business under the bus.  It would appear that SK was doing that with Saddleback.  That might not be his intent, but I could see it being perceived that way.  

If someone makes comments that take skiers away from one ski area in favor of their own, it maybe good for their organization, but bad for skiers who favor choice and want to see every area succeed.  I fall in that category and feel the entire industry needs growth and that key industry people should be rooting for everyone.

I get what your saying though.  It's easy to sit here and criticize statements when the bottom line is not your responsibility.  In other businesses such cut throat statements from a CEO are the norm and perfectly acceptable.


----------



## tipsdown (Sep 14, 2009)

deadheadskier said:


> If someone makes comments that take skiers away from one ski area in favor of their own, it maybe good for their organization, but bad for skiers who favor choice and want to see every area succeed.  I fall in that category and feel the entire industry needs growth and that key industry people should be rooting for everyone.
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> AMEN


----------



## Vortex (Sep 14, 2009)

Fair competition is good.  You play to win though.  I want bouyne to be successful to see them keep opening early and closing late and spending big dolalrs on snow making.  Its a business.  If they don't make money these things don't happen.


----------



## JerseyJoey (Sep 14, 2009)

Kirchers statement seems to show how threatened he feels by Saddleback. If they are such an unsustainable business model, why does he feel so threatened by them?


----------



## Rogman (Sep 14, 2009)

Any businessman keeps a sharp eye on their competition. Inevitably in any small industry you end up knowing quite about about your competitors, and it isn't unusual to reveal adverse information about your competitors to customers. It is somewhat out of the ordinary to put that information in writing. Likely as not, some of Kircher's information came from shared vendors, in which case he's put them in an awkward position. You have to wonder why he's taken the gloves off; it is not without risk.


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Sep 14, 2009)

Bob R said:


> Sk comes out and answers the question good or bad and stands up.  I think we got a response.
> 
> It was Yardsales question and he is satisfied with the Answer.  This is business, and being aggressive is not an issue with me.
> 
> ...



Just b/c the guy who asked the question (and who is obviously a SL skier given his screen name) is satisfied doesn't make it right.  SK could have easily taken the high road by saying they have reason to believe Saddleback's model is unsustainable and therefore not a model worth emulating.  Rather, he chose to publicly slag a competitor that is less than a tenth of the size of his Maine resorts, let alone Boyne as a whole.   That just reflects very poorly on Kircher, b/c I know of few skiers who will base their venue decision on how many days overdue Saddleback's payments to their vendors are.  One of the basic precepts of sales and marketing is that you don't slag a competitor in that manor.  Perhaps damn with faint praise, but you don't slag like that, b/c it just makes you look petty and scared.  As a prospective customer of SL, shouldn't I be more interested in why I should be skiing at SL rather than why I SHOULDN'T be skiing at Saddleback?  And even if I were interested int he latter, wouldn't the reasons NOT to ski at Saddleback have to do with something on the mountain?

Pr perhaps SK was being more pernicious than that.  The one thing that such airing of dirty laundry may impact os the desire of people to buy into Saddleback from a real estate perspective  Given tipsdown's quoted figure of over $4MM in real estate sales there vs. a nominal amount at SL, perhaps SK is trying to stop any momentum from gathering at Saddleback before it becomes a bigger threat to him.  Either way, it's pathetic.  You don't see Exxon slagging Joe's Oil Co.


----------



## Vortex (Sep 14, 2009)

SK spoke of the loaf, Loon and Sr is the other questions.  So he did promoted his own resorts.

This was a repsonse to a question about Saddleback. 

 The real estate issue may make a difference to some.

  Probably the daily ticket purchaser will be less concerned.

I understand your points.  I am still a satisfied Patron.


----------



## SLyardsale (Sep 14, 2009)

Tin Woodsman said:


> .  You don't see Exxon slagging Joe's Oil Co.



Bad example. Exxon/Mobile extracts pain from their own operators - making them convert from auto service to convenience stores while putting much of the expense in converting on said operator.

I think a lot of folks don't see this industry as a business. 

When The Hartford, AIG, possibly your local bank were taking TARP funds, didn't you hear their competitors communicating the fact that they didn't take the "bailout" money? Travelers was all over the Hartford along with others.

I guess it is surprising when SK comes forth with a bold statement - but since getting involved in SL/SR 3 or so years ago he has a track record - maybe everyonne will eventually get use to his style.  You certainly don't have to like it and I understand why many don't.  It doesn't bother me.  SK is an Atlas Shrugged guy as am I.


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 14, 2009)

Interesting to see that the criticism in the Killington responses is that Chris Nyberg sand bagged some of his answers a bit. The criticism with Boyne is that Kircher was brutally honest.

Total opposites, yet ultimately the true interpretation of both probably should fall somewhere in the middle.


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Sep 14, 2009)

SLyardsale said:


> Bad example. Exxon/Mobile extracts pain from their own operators - making them convert from auto service to convenience stores while putting much of the expense in converting on said operator.



This has nothing to do with anything.  Exxon vs. Joe = David vs. Goliath.  

It's sad when Goliath has to resort to slinging mud to try and compete with David.



> When The Hartford, AIG, possibly your local bank were taking TARP funds, didn't you hear their competitors communicating the fact that they didn't take the "bailout" money? Travelers was all over the Hartford along with others.


Those are all public companies.  The information was very much out there and in the public domain.  You're comparing apples to elephants.



> I guess it is surprising when SK comes forth with a bold statement - but since getting involved in SL/SR 3 or so years ago he has a track record - maybe everyonne will eventually get use to his style.  You certainly don't have to like it and I understand why many don't.  It doesn't bother me.  SK is an Atlas Shrugged guy as am I.



The information SK provided was no more relevant, and no more necessary, than whether Warren Cook wears boxers or briefs.

Oh, and Ayn Rand sucked.


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Sep 14, 2009)

deadheadskier said:


> Interesting to see that the criticism in the Killington responses is that Chris Nyberg sand bagged some of his answers a bit. The criticism with Boyne is that Kircher was brutally honest.
> 
> Total opposites, yet ultimately the true interpretation of both probably should fall somewhere in the middle.



Brutally honest about another resort.  That's the difference here.  If Nordberg came out and slagged Magic, I'd be jumping all over him, and justifiably so.  That's the relevant comparison here.  Just b/c what he revealed may be true doesn't make it ethical to do so.  He comes off looking like a petty, scared jamoke.


----------



## SLyardsale (Sep 14, 2009)

Tin Woodsman said:


> This has nothing to do with anything.  Exxon vs. Joe = David vs. Goliath.
> 
> It's sad when Goliath has to resort to slinging mud to try and compete with David.
> 
> ...



If you do ever come to SL, I'd be happy to buy you a Bag Burger and a Pick Pole and continue the debate. However, your last statement tells me it wouldn't be much fun for either of us.


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Sep 14, 2009)

SLyardsale said:


> If you do ever come to SL, I'd be happy to buy you a Bag Burger and a Pick Pole and continue the debate. However, your last statement tells me it wouldn't be much fun for either of us.



I'm sure it would be a hoot.  Let's just leave the literature out of it.


----------



## Riverskier (Sep 14, 2009)

He was asked a question about how Saddleback may affect business at the Loaf. He made a couple positive statements about the mountain, and then went on to explain why their business model isn't sustainable, and thus not likely much of a threat. I seriously doubt he divulged any information he didn't legally have access to. The sustainability of Saddleback's business plan is perhaps the most important factor in determining whether they pose a threat to the Loaf's business. No problem with his response here.


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Sep 14, 2009)

Riverskier said:


> He was asked a question about how Saddleback may affect business at the Loaf. He made a couple positive statements about the mountain, and then went on to explain why their business model isn't sustainable, and thus not likely much of a threat. I seriously doubt he divulged any information he didn't legally have access to. The sustainability of Saddleback's business plan is perhaps the most important factor in determining whether they pose a threat to the Loaf's business. No problem with his response here.



Someone isn't paying attention.  Here was the actual question:



> "Saddleback has gotten nice reviews and has been noticed since the Berry family launched their upgrades. As your nearest geographic competitor what notes have you taken on their activity?"



How exactly does that lead into a conversation about screwing vendors and the ski industry?  I'm all ears.  

As for whether it was legal to divulge - that's irrelevant.  No one is claiming it was illegal.  And it doesn't take a MENSA member to know that just b/c something is legal, it isn't ethical.  Much of this current financial crisis is a result of people doing things that were technically legal, but which were ethically and morally ambiguous.  

SK could have easily accomplished the objective you speak of by saying that it's his understanding that Saddleback continues to lose money and may therefore not be a model they seek to emulate.  Adding the anecdotes about vendors, the ski industry and govt loans, and then furthermore going on to urge skiers to consider this as part of their evaluation of Saddleback, is dirty and unethical.  If you think it's so ordinary, please find for me another similar precedent in this industry.


----------



## Newpylong (Sep 14, 2009)

You must have read a different response than I did if that's what you got out of it...




Tin Woodsman said:


> Really?  Some random message board guy asks a question in a slightly snarky answer and you think it's appropriate for the owner of a ski resort to shit all over another and go out of his way to disparage their reputation?  That's sweet.  Come on.  Behind all the niceties, Kircher basically said "Don't ski at Saddleback b/c they are a bunch of scumbags who are cheating everyone in the industry and taking government handouts"
> 
> What did Saddleback do to deserve that sort of response?  They didn't ask the question.
> 
> Completely inappropriate, regardless of the veracity.


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Sep 14, 2009)

Newpylong said:


> You must have read a different response than I did if that's what you got out of it...




Really?  Let's parse the objectionable portions one more time:



> We have learned that they owe the ski industy over 400k in past due payments on capital expenses and upgrades that they purchased in 2008 (over 12 months in arrears) and are currently seeking a government backed (FAM) loan of 3m to fund past due bills and fund operations this winter.



What is this if not a transparent attempt to disparage Saddleback's reputation with the skiing public?  Does this have anything to do with your skiing experience?  I would submit it's simply an attempt to place doubt in the minds of prospective real estate buyers at the the long-term prospects of the current team.  The unsustainability of the business model could have easily been established by pointing to their EBITDA loss last year even though they increased skier visits, no?



> For our part, we intend to continue to meet the competition with improvements to facilities, cost structure and service. However, we are not expecting to get Government handouts to make that happen.



What is this other than abject mud slinging?  Should we look down our nose at Sugarbush and Jay b/c they are utilizing a govt program to help build their base villages and thereby circumventing the standard visa and immigration process?  And is Boyne's nose really all that clean?  Boyne also owns Crystal Mountain, Brighton and the Summit at Snoqualmie, all three of which are on USFS land.  Many observers contend that ski areas pay well below market rates for their leases of this land - an implicit subsidy.   Is it really appropriate for Kircher to throw such stones living in his glass house?  Should we vote with our dollars due to this egregious subsidy? 



> Skiers should consider these realities at Saddleback along with the pretty picture currently being portrayed in press releases on on the blogs.



Why should we skiers consider these facts?   Should they influence where we spend our skiing dollars?  The question only asked what notes had Boyne taken of their activity.  Was any of what I've quoted necessary to answer that question?


----------



## Riverskier (Sep 15, 2009)

Tin Woodsman said:


> Someone isn't paying attention.  Here was the actual question:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Actually I am paying attention, and that is what I interpet the essence of the question to be.

Regarding SK's comment about urging skiers to consider their financial picture may be a relevant sentiment for those considering buying real estate there.

As far as finding a similar precedent, I don't have the time or the interest. Whether or not it exists doesn't dictate whether making the comments he did was right or wrong anyway. Bottom line, I feel SK"s comments were perfectly acceptable, and I respect your right to disagree.


----------



## Vortex (Sep 15, 2009)

Bottom line to me, is are we better with Boyne than we were with ASC?  So far its had to find many that will say we are not.

  ASC did the cheap attempt at passes at the very end. It could be considered the last straw.  A business model that does not last.

  Boyne and its CNL partners continue to  invest in the Maine reosrts.   Boyne shows me the future is good.  I am not sure where I read it, but there was a statement that Boyne has not left a property it has taken over before.  I like that stability.


----------



## Riverskier (Sep 15, 2009)

Bob R said:


> Bottom line to me, is are we better with Boyne than we were with ASC?  So far its had to find many that will say we are not.
> 
> ASC did the cheap attempt at passes at the very end. It could be considered the last straw.  A business model that does not last.
> 
> Boyne and its CNL partners continue to  invest in the Maine reosrts.   Boyne shows me the future is good.  I am not sure where I read it, but there was a statement that Boyne has not left a property it has taken over before.  I like that stability.



I agree 100%! And I have heard the statistic you are referring to about never selling a resort they have acquired. They have invested in their Maine mountains, had great communication with their customer base, offered a bright vision for the future, offered affordable season passes, and had the longest season in the East! I am a very happy Boyne customer and will be for years to come.


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Sep 15, 2009)

So, since they are better than the previous bums who ran the resort, then we might as well just all keep drinking the Kool-Aid.  

Pathetic.


----------



## Vortex (Sep 15, 2009)

No they have a business plan that was better than ASC and our future is stabilie or at least the history of the company is stabile.   That is important to me.   I have almost all my free time and money invested at a Boyne Resort.  "Sunday River"  I could not be much happier either

  They are investing in the future of the mountain.  Kool-Aid?  I guess.  Kool-aid can taste good.

 I could always sell and move on. I already did that at from another resort.  I like what I see.  

They even have a trail in your honor.


  I see your point. I don't think you see mine.  That is ok, time to move on.


----------



## Riverskier (Sep 15, 2009)

Tin Woodsman said:


> So, since they are better than the previous bums who ran the resort, then we might as well just all keep drinking the Kool-Aid.
> 
> Pathetic.



This is my last post on this as well, but keep drinking the Kool-aid? Must I be disatisfied with Boyne to be considered "keeping it real"? I have been extremely pleased with the way they have run Sunday River and they seem like a stable company that has a bright future planned for the mountain. Even if I disagreed with SK making those comments I would still be a happy customer. Apparently you feel that anyone who disagrees with you must be a follower of some sort, but that simply isn't the case. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.


----------



## trtaylor (Sep 15, 2009)

Of course, if Saddleback DID run into serious financial difficulty (ex. Magic Mountain), who might be the first compnay bidding to pick them up?


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 15, 2009)

trtaylor said:


> Of course, if Saddleback DID run into serious financial difficulty (ex. Magic Mountain), who might be the first compnay bidding to pick them up?



I wouldn't think it would be Boyne.  They already have one area (Sugarloaf) that is a real struggle geographically and is also in need of significant investment in infrastructure.

As sweet as being able to offer a pass to the three major ME areas plus Loon would be, it doesn't look to be a good investment unless they could pick it up real cheap.


----------



## trtaylor (Sep 15, 2009)

deadheadskier said:


> I wouldn't think it would be Boyne.  They already have one area (Sugarloaf) that is a real struggle geographically and is also in need of significant investment in infrastructure.
> 
> As sweet as being able to offer a pass to the three major ME areas plus Loon would be, it doesn't look to be a good investment unless they could pick it up real cheap.


I'm certainly not making any predictions. But, Rangeley, as a four season area, has an advantage over SL. That is certainly in Saddleback's favor.


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 15, 2009)

trtaylor said:


> I'm certainly not making any predictions. But, Rangeley, as a four season area, has an advantage over SL. That is certainly in Saddleback's favor.



I would agree with that. 

Rangeley has an advantage of Sunday River in that regard to if lake activities are your pleasure.


----------



## Vortex (Sep 15, 2009)

I would think that Boyne would look in the NY range and VT if they were to expand.

 I would be surprised if something happened in the short term. I have to believe that stowe would be a property they would want, but it would need to be at a bargain price.

 They have A NH resort and two locations in Maine.  I don't see expansion there.


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 15, 2009)

Stowe would be interesting from a pass price perspective.  Stowe is in the nieghborhood of $1600, already hundreds more than the competition.  Adding Loon, SR, SL, I don't think you could get that price from those who currently enjoy the NE pass.  It would have to be a separate entity with maybe discounted day tickets offered to NE pass owners.


----------



## Vortex (Sep 15, 2009)

They have back and forth deals with the western resorts.  10 free days or 1/2 price. Stowe is high end and offers the amenities.   A market Boyne goes after.


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Sep 15, 2009)

Riverskier said:


> This is my last post on this as well, but keep drinking the Kool-aid? Must I be disatisfied with Boyne to be considered "keeping it real"? I have been extremely pleased with the way they have run Sunday River and they seem like a stable company that has a bright future planned for the mountain. Even if I disagreed with SK making those comments I would still be a happy customer. Apparently you feel that anyone who disagrees with you must be a follower of some sort, but that simply isn't the case. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.



Don't get me wrong - it's quite clear that Boyne represents a tremendous upgrade to the previous owners.  Please don't mistake my distaste for SK's comments with a desire to return to the ancien regime.   Rather, it's solely a reaction to the local Goliath playing dirty pool with a competitor less than 1/10th its size.  It was uncalled for any way you look at it.


----------



## Rogman (Sep 15, 2009)

Stowe? It will be sold to someone willing to overpay, because it's _Stowe_. It will not be Boyne, it will not be POWDR, it will not be anyone currently in the eastern ski market. It is the trophy wife of ski resorts.


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Sep 15, 2009)

Rogman said:


> Stowe? It will be sold to someone willing to overpay, because it's _Stowe_. It will not be Boyne, it will not be POWDR, it will not be anyone currently in the eastern ski market. It is the trophy wife of ski resorts.



This basically means Vail.  

I disagree though.  I wouldn't be at all surprised if it were CNL.


----------



## salsgang (Sep 16, 2009)

SK's comments about SB do seem a bit odd. I am not sure what he gained by slamming SB with these "facts". 

I am a HUGE Saddleback fan, but I am a very big Sugarloaf fan too. Both mountains have unique characteristics. I am sure SK is worried about SB pulling skiers away from his mountain, but If SB can pull new skiers into the area, it seems like it would benefit both mountains...?

SB did raise season pass rates from $400 - $600, and I imagine daily lift tickets will go up by a similar percentage. (close to $60 I bet) so they are making a push to bring more revenue. 

Anyway, SK needs to be a bit more professional in my opinion. He could have made his point just as well with different words.


----------



## Rogman (Sep 16, 2009)

Tin Woodsman said:


> This basically means Vail.
> 
> I disagree though.  I wouldn't be at all surprised if it were CNL.


Vail, CNL, etc. all need to make a profit. Stowe will go at a price that makes profitability unlikely, and as a result, all the usual suspects will drop out at some point in the bidding. It is a billionaires plaything; it will stay that way.


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 16, 2009)

Maybe the Donald will buy Stowe


----------



## Geoff (Sep 22, 2009)

Rogman said:


> Vail, CNL, etc. all need to make a profit. Stowe will go at a price that makes profitability unlikely, and as a result, all the usual suspects will drop out at some point in the bidding. It is a billionaires plaything; it will stay that way.



Stowe will go to the high bidder.   Nobody is going to buy a resort that can't generate enough operating profit to pay off the loan to buy the place.   I find it hard to believe a jillionaire is going to buy the place as their personal plaything.   Unless a REIT buys it, it's going to be a leveraged purchase.


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 22, 2009)

Geoff said:


> Stowe will go to the high bidder.   Nobody is going to buy a resort that can't generate enough operating profit to pay off the loan to buy the place.   I find it hard to believe a jillionaire is going to buy the place as their personal plaything.   Unless a REIT buys it, it's going to be a leveraged purchase.



Hank Ginsberg?


----------



## Rogman (Sep 22, 2009)

deadheadskier said:


> Hank Ginsberg?


Greenberg, but yeah. I'd expect him to put together a consortium. They can afford to overpay a bit and look at a longer time frame than a publicly traded company like Vail.


----------



## Vortex (Sep 29, 2009)

deleted wrong thread.


----------

