# Burton to Purchase Mad River?



## Greg (Jun 29, 2006)

Saw this on K-Zone. Thoughts?

http://powderjihad.wordpress.com/


----------



## Greg (Jun 29, 2006)

Here are the entries. Would love to get Eric's take on this.



> *Burton to Purchase Mad River?
> February 20th, 2006 by powderjihad*
> 
> Granted this is second hand information, but the source has been very reliable in the past. Jake Burton, at a private party, talked openly that he and a special project team are seriously considering announcing a takeover bid for the Mad River Glenn Mad River Glen Ski Area (the Glen is one of the few ski areas in the USA that does not allow snowboarding).
> ...


----------



## djspookman (Jun 29, 2006)

this is very interesting indeed.. I too wonder what Eric's comments might be...

dave


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 29, 2006)

I have contacted both Mr. MRG and Mr. MRG Jr for their thoughts.  This seems awful one-sided and biased IMHO.


----------



## skibum1321 (Jun 29, 2006)

Yeah, I somehow doubt that MRG is really in that rough of shape. I really don't want to see this deal go through.


----------



## from_the_NEK (Jun 29, 2006)

> Yeah, I somehow doubt that MRG is really in that rough of shape. I really don't want to see this deal go through.



I second that. I think there are too many people dedicated to preserving the MRG experience to let this happen. :flame:


----------



## noski (Jun 29, 2006)

Eric is on vacation for another week, so you will have to wait to hear from him.... I would like to think that if this transaction were a remote possibility I would have heard about it. I suspect it is not.


----------



## ski_adk (Jun 29, 2006)

I'd suspect that if Burton bought Mad River, it would have to be via hostile takeover.  I doubt there'd be that many stockholders interested in opening the mountain to snowboarders.


----------



## David Metsky (Jun 29, 2006)

Never gonna happen; someone is just playing an elaborate joke..  It makes no sense for either MRG or Burton.

 -dave-


----------



## AdironRider (Jun 29, 2006)

As a snowboarder I wholeheartedly hope this happens. 


That being said, it sounds as if the money situation with MRG really is that dire. Burton has bottomless pockets as the worldwide leader in snowboarding. I remember the opening and closing ordeal earlier this season, and frankly MRG is really more of a cult favorite as opposed to a poplular mtn to visit. The feel of the mountain wouldnt change that much IMO, as the only thing that would change is that snowboarders would be allowed. Everyone creams their pants over the bush, and snowboarders are allowed there. The argument against it is old and played out, both skiing and riding have benefited. I welcome the change, but know Im in the minority.


----------



## JimG. (Jun 29, 2006)

AdironRider said:
			
		

> As a snowboarder I wholeheartedly hope this happens.
> 
> 
> That being said, it sounds as if the money situation with MRG really is that dire. Burton has bottomless pockets as the worldwide leader in snowboarding. I remember the opening and closing ordeal earlier this season, and frankly MRG is really more of a cult favorite as opposed to a poplular mtn to visit. The feel of the mountain wouldnt change that much IMO, as the only thing that would change is that snowboarders would be allowed. Everyone creams their pants over the bush, and snowboarders are allowed there. The argument against it is old and played out, both skiing and riding have benefited. I welcome the change, but know Im in the minority.



How would you feel if Burton did take over MRG and decided it would become a snowboarders only mountain? Skiers would be banned.

Forget the flames, be honest.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 29, 2006)

AdironRider said:
			
		

> As a snowboarder I wholeheartedly hope this happens.
> 
> 
> That being said, it sounds as if the money situation with MRG really is that dire. Burton has bottomless pockets as the worldwide leader in snowboarding. I remember the opening and closing ordeal earlier this season, and frankly MRG is really more of a cult favorite as opposed to a poplular mtn to visit. The feel of the mountain wouldnt change that much IMO, as the only thing that would change is that snowboarders would be allowed. Everyone creams their pants over the bush, and snowboarders are allowed there. The argument against it is old and played out, both skiing and riding have benefited. I welcome the change, but know Im in the minority.



I have modified/deleted some of this post because we have had countless threads on MRG and the Snowboard Ban which have become :uzi: and :flame: grounds.  We don't need another one.  Continue any comments about the ban on one of those respective threads...

*Here is one in which you can continue the snowboard ban discussion.*

But for now, let's focus on the article that was presented.  As I said, I am checking on the credibility of the author and the article.


----------



## highpeaksdrifter (Jun 29, 2006)

AdironRider said:
			
		

> As a snowboarder I wholeheartedly hope this happens.
> 
> 
> . I welcome the change, but know Im in the minority.



Maybe so, but I agree with you. I don't like snowboard bans, plus it would be interesting to see how things would unfold.


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Jun 29, 2006)

What a bunch of silly speculation.  I suspect that whoever powderjihad is is getting quite a laugh that this tripe is being seriously discussed.  The Co-op isn't interested in selling, not least to Burton.  I guess PT Barnum was right.


----------



## bigbog (Jun 29, 2006)

*.....*



			
				David Metsky said:
			
		

> Never gonna happen; someone is just playing an elaborate joke..  It makes no sense for either MRG or Burton.
> -dave-


 ...It does seem like a _boarder's jihad dream..._, to control one of NewEngland skiing's shrines....;-), yet economics is economics, and nothin's _sacred or forever_ in a materialistic society...such as ours.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 29, 2006)

Folks--I just deleted and edited *more* two posts.  Please avoid :flame: and :uzi:

This is the second intervention I have had to make in this thread.  The next one will be locking.  Let's keep a constructive discussion going please!


----------



## SkiDog (Jun 29, 2006)

thetrailboss said:
			
		

> Folks--I just deleted and edited two posts.  Please avoid :flame: and :uzi:



Wow they mustve been good....darn.. 

I don't know how I feel about this situation. I am a 2 planker..plain and simple..I have ridden a board...just didn't like it. I will say that it was VERY EARLY in the beginning of Burtons days that I rode, so maybe its changed, I just never felt like changing...  

Anyway..its a skiers only spot for now...don't know if its right or wrong, but thats the way it is..there are a lot of great resorts in VT/NH and the surrounding areas...so what if one won't let you board there...eff em...or..jump on 2 planks...

Eh...what can ya do.?

M


----------



## Geoff (Jun 29, 2006)

Tin Woodsman said:
			
		

> What a bunch of silly speculation.  I suspect that whoever powderjihad is is getting quite a laugh that this tripe is being seriously discussed.  The Co-op isn't interested in selling, not least to Burton.  I guess PT Barnum was right.



A c'mon!  Everything you read on the internet is true, right?


----------



## AdironRider (Jun 29, 2006)

Trailboss, Im all for following forum protocol, but this question basically revolves around the issue your trying to edit out. The only reason people would really get pissed about a sale of MRG is because Burton, the name in snowboarding, would be the buyer and in turn allow snowboarders. 

To answer others questions, I would rather have MRG become a place that both diciplines can enjoy. I honestly feel that way as both disciplines owe each other in various ways and and this point in time, I consider on an even playing field. Theres no reason to keep the goods from people just trying to get out there and enjoy the terrain.


----------



## riverc0il (Jun 29, 2006)

*checks calendar*

as i suspected, these folks missed april fools day by almost 3 months! still, rather amusing :lol:


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Jun 29, 2006)

bigbog said:
			
		

> ...It does seem like a _boarder's jihad dream..._, to control one of NewEngland skiing's shrines....;-), yet economics is economics, and nothin's _sacred or forever_ in a materialistic society...such as ours.


Yes, economics are economics, but what proff do we have that any of the figures in this guy's post are true?  I have little or no faith in those numbers.  The Co-op has traditionally been quite conservative with its capital spending initiatives and overall budget.  I don't believe anything about the scenario being painted by this guy.  And then with the kicker being that Burton would be the buyer?  That's comedy gold.

Did you guys know that gullible isn't a word in the dictionary?


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 29, 2006)

AdironRider said:
			
		

> Trailboss, Im all for following forum protocol, but this question basically revolves around the issue your trying to edit out. The only reason people would really get pissed about a sale of MRG is because Burton, the name in snowboarding, would be the buyer and in turn allow snowboarders.



AdironRider:  

We are very open to discussions in here and only ask that folks be civil.  However, there are some issues that only inflame people despite our best efforts to keep it civil and the Snowboard Ban issue at MRG is one of them.  During my time here, I've seen some friendships broken and controversy that makes others upset.  None of the mods have the time and energy to "peacekeep" threads and topics that are going to inflame so many people.  This is why politics was banned from the boards.

The mods take intervention seriously and we don't want to "overmoderate."  Today was no different.  I felt that the direction of this thread was going the wrong way.  I have pointed you to one thread that is about the ban and you are welcome to discuss it there.  However, because of the direction that this thread was turning and because of past experience, I felt that the best thing was to *narrowly focus* this thread on the original topic: the article/posting about MRG and Burton.  You are right that the Ban is a closely related topic, but I think it is best that we keep a tight focus on discussing the article here in this thread.

After your post, there were two more that were beginning a conflict.  I had to correct those two.  I had the choice of leaving the posts and the conflict alone to simmer (and almost guaranteeing a lock by another mod), to lock the thread myself, or to intervene by editing out the parts of the postings that were going to start a :flame: war.  As you can see, I chose the lesser of the evils presented.  

My actions are not to be construed as taking one side or the other in the argument about the ban.  I just am acting to keep things civil and the discussions on track.  

If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to PM me as some already have.


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Jun 29, 2006)

thetrailboss said:
			
		

> AdironRider:
> 
> We are very open to discussions in here and only ask that folks be civil.  However, there are some issues that only inflame people despite our best efforts to keep it civil and the Snowboard Ban issue at MRG is one of them.  During my time here, I've seen some friendships broken and controversy that makes others upset.  None of the mods have the time and energy to "peacekeep" threads and topics that are going to inflame so many people.  This is why politics was banned from the boards.
> 
> ...



TB - 

I quoted a famous PT Barnum saying that there is a sucker born every minute.  Someone may have reacted to that angrily, but that's a sad indictment of their knowledge of Americana more than anything.  I certainly was not "beginning a conflict" by pointing out that this whole subject was quite clearly a practical joke.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 29, 2006)

Tin Woodsman said:
			
		

> TB -
> 
> I quoted a famous PT Barnum saying that there is a sucker born every minute.  Someone may have reacted to that angrily, but that's a sad indictment of their knowledge of Americana more than anything.  I certainly was not "beginning a conflict" by pointing out that this whole subject was quite clearly a practical joke.



Unfortunately, things turned out different than you intended.  And let's keep backchannel stuff there :wink:


----------



## knuckledragger (Jun 29, 2006)

Based totaly on the principal that my money is not good there I would never ride there no matter who owns it.
This from an exburton employee who knows the real story not he myth.


----------



## CordoroyJunkie (Jun 29, 2006)

knuckledragger said:
			
		

> This from an exburton employee who knows the real story not he myth.



care to elaborate on what the real story is (if you can of course) I'm sure everyone on here is interested!


----------



## knuckledragger (Jun 29, 2006)

The myth is that Betsy was harassed by a couple of burton employees in Mahurons market. Becaues of the way she was aproched by these 2 individuals he told them if that no riders were welcome at mrg.


----------



## riverc0il (Jun 29, 2006)

myth being the key word. this whole thread seems full of them. :roll:


----------



## marcski (Jun 30, 2006)

riverc0il said:
			
		

> myth being the key word. this whole thread seems full of them. :roll:



Seriously. That whole website http://powderjihad.wordpress.com/  seems a bit whacky.  "resorts that practice discrimination"?


----------



## sledhaulingmedic (Jun 30, 2006)

*Serious flaws*

Duplicate, please delete or ignore

.


----------



## David Metsky (Jun 30, 2006)

I seriously doubt the economic figures in the OP.  They do not reflect the situation at MRG as I know it.  The membership has been very conservative with money and planned the improvements carefully..  And, why would a snowboard manufacturer have any desire to buy a ski area, especially one with no snowmaking, little infrastructure, and a core user base that would abandon it if purchased?  

The two main points of discussion don't make any sense.  This is a (half) pipe dream that is pure Internet hooey.  MRG doesn't need snowboarders to be successful so there is little incentive to allow them at this point.  Nor is there any incentive to sell the mountain to someone with deeper pockets.  Nor is there any incentive for a gear maker to own a ski area.

 -dave-


----------



## sledhaulingmedic (Jun 30, 2006)

*Serious flaws*

There are a couple of very serious flaws to this "information":



> Given that the Board has a “fiduciary responsibility” to maximize the returns to shareholders, the mountain’s board could be seriously considering his offer or face a shareholder lawsuit for breach of duties.



The coop is a not for profit.  They have a responsibility to the shareholders to execute the bylaws which read:


> Section 1.3 - Purpose. The purpose for which the Cooperative was formed is to preserve and protect the forests and mountain ecosystem of Stark Mountain in order to provide skiing and other recreational access and to maintain the unique character of the area for present and future generations. The Cooperative shall be operated exclusively on a cooperative and nonprofit basis for the primary and mutual benefit of its owners and other patrons.


 While that includes keeping the coop financially sound, "maximizing the returns to shareholders", in a fiancial sense, is not in their agenda.

A second important fact that has been omitted is that shareholders are limited to owning 4 shares per person.  That would make a takeover impossible.  While it is possible that enough individuals could buy up shares ad force a vote on removing the snowboard restriction, am I alone in thinking that this is unlikely?

If there is anything that would precipitate a shareholder lawsuit, I think it would be the blatant violation of bylaws of allow an individual to purchase more than four shares.


----------



## AdironRider (Jun 30, 2006)

Thats cool Trailboss, I hear ya. Seems unfortunate that people would get worked up enough to lose friendships. We all just want to enjoy the snow. 


I really do believe that MRG might just be in dire need of financial assistance, for all the reasons people have mentioned above. MRG has no snowmaking which in turn leaves a short short season and a loss of skier visits. With no snowmaking the mtn is not a guaranteed alternative. People dont spend thousands and their one week of vacation time on a trip like that. Also families with just one snowboarder are going to make the trek elsewhere in Vt, with plenty of alternative very close.MRG also has a bit of a "cult" following, with even the lovers only going 3-4 times a season. Not exactly numbers that are going to pad the books. Not allowing snowboarding also eliminates any family with just a single snowboarder (not trying to ruffle feathers but its still an economic point) from visiting. Season pass sales are also probably not as strong with no guaranteed snow and a short season. These are all economic shortfalls that are pretty much exclusive to MRG, and the way most mtns can hardly stay open without the same challenges, its suprising this is the first youve heard of financial difficulty.


----------



## Greg (Jun 30, 2006)

AdironRider said:
			
		

> These are all economic shortfalls that are pretty much exclusive to MRG, and the way most mtns can hardly stay open without the same challenges, its suprising this is the first youve heard of financial difficulty.


Eric Friedman has been very up front with us in regards to MRG's financial situation. I do not believe they are in any trouble from a single poor season this year. Please check out the MRG's challenges for more detail on MRG's financial situation:

http://skiing.alpinezone.com/articles/challenge/2004/response.htm?resort=madriver (Response #9)
http://skiing.alpinezone.com/articles/challenge/2005/response.htm?resort=madriver (Response #5)
http://skiing.alpinezone.com/articles/challenge/2006/response.htm?resort=madriver (Response #10, #5)


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Jun 30, 2006)

AdironRider said:
			
		

> Thats cool Trailboss, I hear ya. Seems unfortunate that people would get worked up enough
> 
> 
> I really do believe that MRG might just be in dire need of financial assistance, for all the reasons people have mentioned above. MRG has no snowmaking which in turn leaves a short short season and a loss of skier visits. With no snowmaking the mtn is not a guaranteed alternative. People dont spend thousands and their one week of vacation time on a trip like that. Also families with just one snowboarder are going to make the trek elsewhere in Vt, with plenty of alternative very close.MRG also has a bit of a "cult" following, with even the lovers only going 3-4 times a season. Not exactly numbers that are going to pad the books. Not allowing snowboarding also eliminates any family with just a single snowboarder (not trying to ruffle feathers but its still an economic point) from visiting. Season pass sales are also probably not as strong with no guaranteed snow and a short season. These are all economic shortfalls that are pretty much exclusive to MRG, and the way most mtns can hardly stay open without the same challenges, its suprising this is the first youve heard of financial difficulty.


Adiron - 

This entire post is what weather geeks refer to as "wishcasting".  You are interpreting an amalgam of internet rumors, third hand accounts, and pure speculation to form a conclusion which fits only your pre-conceived notions of the place, rather than the facts.  

1) There is no evidence whatsoever that the Co-op is in financial difficulty.  In fact, MRG is one of the few (only?) ski areas that consistently makes a profit from its skiing operations year after year.

2) Their lack of snowmaking is actually an asset.  Do you realize how much it costs to make snow these days?  It is probably the single largest expense line item after employee costs.  It could be even greater than that, actually.  Having no snowmaking enables MRG to keep their overhead low, so that lousy snow years don't impact them as badly as other resorts. 

3) Ski areas don't make much money in the early season (Nov 1 to Dec 1) or the late season (after April 1).  People simply aren't thinking about skiing at those times of the year.  

4) MRG has one of the most loyal followings of any ski area in North America.  Its skier visits don't fluctuate much below a certain level b/c these people come to ski there no matter what - it's a culture, not a choice.   I'd bet that the core skiers and families don't just go 3-4 times per season.  More like 10-15.  Where did you get these numbers anyway?  They seem just completely made up.  

5) Because of its low overhead and lack of associated lodging, MRG doesn't need the destination family business to be successful.  Sure, that helps sell a few more lift tickets during weekdays, but the low overhead means that isn't as critical anyway.  And MRG's parking lot is almost always maxed out on weekends no matter what the weather. 

In short, you've presented zero factual evidence that the Co-op is in financial difficulty and I would urge Eric and Co. to stay out of this discussion so as not to even dignify this silly rumor-mongering.


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Jun 30, 2006)

knuckledragger said:
			
		

> The myth is that Betsy was harassed by a couple of burton employees in Mahurons market. Becaues of the way she was aproched by these 2 individuals he told them if that no riders were welcome at mrg.



How does it follow that b/c you used to work at a snowboard manufacturer, it is to be believed that you have the straight dope on this story?   If I worked for a gun manufacturer, would that mean that I know who killed JFK?


----------



## sledhaulingmedic (Jun 30, 2006)

AdironRider:

You're making an economic argument for the one ski area where such arguments are invalid.  They're a Not-for-profit.  The coop exists to provide it's members what they want.  What the members consistently seem to want is an Old school, classic ski experience.  Every "short fall" you point out is considered a plus by its members.

Examples:
Minimal snowmaking=natural snow, ability to preserve narrow, winding trails, reduced costs.
Low capacity lifts=lower skier density

MRG's shareholders  vote with their cash, both with their share purchases and with their required minimum annual expeditures at the coop.  They didn't buy shares because they wanted to make money, the bought shares to preserve the recreational  experience that they love.

I happen to love MRG, the steeps, the trees, the narrow trails, the slow lifts, the low skier density and the whole non-comercial atmosphere.  If I had the cash, I'd buy four shares in a heartbeat.  To those who don;t like it, stay away.  If you really don't like it, buy four shares and vote!


----------



## SkiDog (Jun 30, 2006)

Tin Woodsman said:
			
		

> If I worked for a gun manufacturer, would that mean that I know who killed JFK?




Duh of course.......

M


----------



## AdironRider (Jun 30, 2006)

I wasnt refering at all to making profit, did I ever say I was? Running a ski resort is not a cheap endeavor, regardless of making profit or not. 

I stand by my points. They are all economic speculation as to why MRG might be having a tougher time meeting its financial needs. I never said they were fact, only speculation to stimulate discussion. Frankly noone else here has any knowledge based on fact to argue that they arent in financial difficulty either...


----------



## JimG. (Jun 30, 2006)

This thread isn't fun anymore.

Even though the internet posting that spurred this discussion is probably untrue, could it hurt to discuss the potential outcome as if it were true? Why does everything have to be proven or disproven to the exclusion of theretical conversation?

Why is it that every time a snowboarder mentions MRG a flame war breaks out? The way folks react one would think they were terrorists bent on flying an explosive laden airplane into the single chairlift. Such defensiveness!

And I'm a skier who loves MRG just the way it is!

Jeez, some folks need to lighten up!


----------



## SkiDog (Jun 30, 2006)

JimG. said:
			
		

> This thread isn't fun anymore.
> 
> Even though the internet posting that spurred this discussion is probably untrue, could it hurt to discuss the potential outcome as if it were true? Why does everything have to be proven or disproven to the exclusion of theretical conversation?
> 
> ...




I think its likely becasue Snowbaorders feel like they are being "banned" from a place...you hear the same complaints with Alta since they have the same policy...IMHO its not really that big a deal...are those 2 RESORTS really all that important?? there are MANY places i've never skied and probably never will...why get bent about not being able to ski 2 mountains??? I sure wouldn't...lifes too short..and you're hardly missing all that much..I mena MRG is great..but not the "must have" destination..

I dont understand it either..but I bet we'd (skiers) would be angry if some resort was snowboarder only..I used to get SUPER angry when they used to have trails that were "snowboarder only"back when it was newer..I felt skiers were first...now we coexist...but since MRG gets to make thier own choices we can't do anything about it..

dont know if that makes any sense..

M


----------



## Greg (Jun 30, 2006)

SkiDog said:
			
		

> ...lifes too short...


Those are the three most important words in your post. I find it amusing when folks go on various "crusades" and it completely consumes them. Time to move on.


----------



## JimG. (Jun 30, 2006)

SkiDog said:
			
		

> I think its likely becasue Snowbaorders feel like they are being "banned" from a place...you hear the same complaints with Alta since they have the same policy...IMHO its not really that big a deal...are those 2 RESORTS really all that important?? there are MANY places i've never skied and probably never will...why get bent about not being able to ski 2 mountains??? I sure wouldn't...lifes too short..and you're hardly missing all that much..I mena MRG is great..but not the "must have" destination..
> 
> I dont understand it either..but I bet we'd (skiers) would be angry if some resort was snowboarder only..I used to get SUPER angry when they used to have trails that were "snowboarder only"back when it was newer..I felt skiers were first...now we coexist...but since MRG gets to make thier own choices we can't do anything about it..
> 
> ...



Dog, snowboarders "feel" like they are banned from MRG because they are! It's not important to you that MRG and Alta ban snowboards because you ski. And you said it, if they banned skiers you would be pissed.

Better watch out, because it sounds like you're sympathizing with snowboarders.

See what I mean?  Instead of trying to get along and understand, the discussion always turns to flames which underscores alot of hidden fears or prejudices. I think all that is just plain silly.


----------



## SkiDog (Jun 30, 2006)

JimG. said:
			
		

> Dog, snowboarders "feel" like they are banned from MRG because they are! It's not important to you that MRG and Alta ban snowboards because you ski. And you said it, if they banned skiers you would be pissed.
> 
> Better watch out, because it sounds like you're sympathizing with snowboarders.
> 
> See what I mean?  Instead of trying to get along and understand, the discussion always turns to flames which underscores alot of hidden fears or prejudices. I think all that is just plain silly.



Im not really siding with anyone..I dont see really why MRG "bans" them...we could easily coexist....IMHO anyway....so I can see why they might take offense to it...BUT...I still dont think anyonee should get bent out of shape about that...theyres still PLENTY of other places to ski and ride...and still more that are MUCH better than MRG....I guess we always want what we can't have though....

And hey what would really be wrong with siding with snowboarders on this one??? Even if I dont snowboard doesnt mean I dont see thier point...but again...LIFE IS WAY TOO SHORT to worry about other peoples "hangups" which is basically what I consider the MRG no snowboards poilcy....

just my .02..not meant to rile anyone up at all....WE ALL SLIDE ON SNOW AND LOVE IT...some just choose different methods....like I said there was a day when snowboard only trails were the "norm", and that they angered my greatly, but I figured out its not worth complaining about...


M


----------



## SkiDog (Jun 30, 2006)

JimG. said:
			
		

> Dog, snowboarders "feel" like they are banned from MRG because they are! It's not important to you that MRG and Alta ban snowboards because you ski. And you said it, if they banned skiers you would be pissed.
> 
> Better watch out, because it sounds like you're sympathizing with snowboarders.
> 
> See what I mean?  Instead of trying to get along and understand, the discussion always turns to flames which underscores alot of hidden fears or prejudices. I think all that is just plain silly.



And I wouldnt personally call it a "ban" id call it a "Choice" that MRG makes in order to cater to what they feel is their "core market"...Ban is a strong word...its like they were allowed there once, but now are banned...and to my knowledge..snowboarding was never allowed at MRG..but I am OFTEN wrong..Ha 

M


----------



## JimG. (Jun 30, 2006)

SkiDog said:
			
		

> And I wouldnt personally call it a "ban" id call it a "Choice" that MRG makes in order to cater to what they feel is their "core market"...Ban is a strong word...its like they were allowed there once, but now are banned...and to my knowledge..snowboarding was never allowed at MRG..but I am OFTEN wrong..Ha
> 
> M



I hate to tell you, you are wrong.

It is a ban; where's the "choice" for snowboarders? They're not allowed. Period.

And snowboarders were once allowed on the mountain; there are various stories about why they are now banned. 

And around and around we go on the same stale topic. Does anyone want to discuss what it might be like if Burton did buy MRG? 

And please, don't anyone have a stroke over the idea...it's just a scenario for the sake of discussion.


----------



## noski (Jun 30, 2006)

SkiDog said:
			
		

> And I wouldnt personally call it a "ban" id call it a "Choice" that MRG makes in order to cater to what they feel is their "core market"...Ban is a strong word...its like they were allowed there once, but now are banned...and to my knowledge..snowboarding was never allowed at MRG..but I am OFTEN wrong..Ha
> 
> M


 Snowboarding was indeed once allowed at MRG. Semantics here, but snowboarders are not banned from MRG- only snowboards are banned.... like I said- semantics.


----------



## SkiDog (Jun 30, 2006)

noski said:
			
		

> Snowboarding was indeed once allowed at MRG. Semantics here, but snowboarders are not banned from MRG- only snowboards are banned.... like I said- semantics.




thanks for the correction...but again I stand by my points...what would really be affected at MRG should they again allow snowboards.....??? I'd venture to say nothing except some crap from "elitist" skiers who think they have some "right" to a certian spot...

IMHO its a silly ban...but again...MRG's choice...they have to deal with the contreversy and it doesnt seem to affect them at all so I guess it won't ever change...

Anyone know if MRG is private or state land??? 

M


----------



## SkiDog (Jun 30, 2006)

I guess to stray back closer to topic of original post...

Why would Burton want to get involved in owning a ski resort? Just to stop a "ban"..? that would seem very shortsighted reasoning for a company to buy what could possibly be just a drain on the financials.....

I just don't see Burton making an unsound business decision just to buy a ski resort so that boarders would now be welcome...

Man there really is some serious angst over this whole issue...I can't believe it..

M


----------



## sledhaulingmedic (Jun 30, 2006)

AdironRider said:
			
		

> I wasnt refering at all to making profit, did I ever say I was?


 Under more careful review, you did not.  My apologies.


> Running a ski resort is not a cheap endeavor, regardless of making profit or not.



True enough, along with that, MRG has a significant cost advantage as]a non-profit and more so in that it's shareholders and customers expect and desire the lower cost aproach of minimal snowmaking and grooming.  The clear exception to this is the additional cost of rehabbing the Single chair rather than replacing it.  



> I stand by my points. They are all economic speculation as to why MRG might be having a tougher time meeting its financial needs. I never said they were fact, only speculation to stimulate discussion. Frankly noone else here has any knowledge based on fact to argue that they arent in financial difficulty either...



Well, no one has posted financial statements, so you are correct, no one can make a statement as to whether or not they are in financial straits .  Let me off this point to ponder:

The coop is a not-for-profit dedicated to preserving the mountain environment and skiing and recreational activities there:  In the longer term, does this past season's cash flow (which I think we can all assume wasn't great) and current financial situation matter if the shareholders are dedicated to keep it a going concern?


----------



## JimG. (Jun 30, 2006)

SkiDog said:
			
		

> I guess to stray back closer to topic of original post...
> 
> Why would Burton want to get involved in owning a ski resort? Just to stop a "ban"..? that would seem very shortsighted reasoning for a company to buy what could possibly be just a drain on the financials.....
> 
> ...



Dave M brings up the same excellent point...it makes no sense from Burton's business point of view. But as you mention, this topic is more contentious than we often give it credit for. 

For the sake of argument, the only reason Burton would take it over would be from a marketing standpoint, to say that Burton was the snowboard power that brought the evil snowboard ban at MRG to an end. 

But it would be counterproductive to then ban skiers...would snowboarders flock to MRG in numbers great enough to counter the loss of all skiing business?


----------



## sledhaulingmedic (Jun 30, 2006)

JimG. said:
			
		

> And around and around we go on the same stale topic. Does anyone want to discuss what it might be like if Burton did buy MRG?
> 
> And please, don't anyone have a stroke over the idea...it's just a scenario for the sake of discussion.



Would the tele-boarders thumb their noses at the fixed heal snowboarders?

This seems to stir up as much muck as Magic discussions on SJ.  I wonder if Taos and Alta have similar debates in the Western forums?


----------



## JimG. (Jun 30, 2006)

sledhaulingmedic said:
			
		

> This seems to stir up as much muck as Magic discussions on SJ.  I wonder if Taos and Alta have similar debates in the Western forums?



Oh I think so sled...I've read some pretty nasty exchanges between skiers and boarders in the Taos area. Boarders in NM often express the hope that Taos goes under one winter. Ugly stuff.


----------



## awf170 (Jun 30, 2006)

http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=snowboarding&word2=skiing

I'm pretty sure this concludes that skiing is in fact a lot better and cooler than snowboarding.


----------



## AdironRider (Jun 30, 2006)

Moving on from AWF's pointless post thanks Jim G for clarifying the thread, I was beginning to get a tad frustrated myself. 

Moving on to the benefits of Burton having possible ownership...

Burton has the financial capital to make the neccesary renovation that will improve MRG. 2 mil is nothing to a company as large as Burton (well not nothing, but certainly less than a Coop of 1700, each with varying financial background). That the single renovations right there. 
Other renovations to the various other parts of the mtn would also be easier to complete. Plus theyd open the mountain up for all to enjoy. It sounds as if they could use a little snowmaking at the base (correct me if Im wrong but didnt they close wicked early solely because they didnt have the snowpack at the base - the ret of the mtn was skiable?). Burton could make these changes happen. I guess what Im trying to say is that MRG can only exist if the finances are available to do so, and with Burton as the principal owner, that would never be a problem.


----------



## sledhaulingmedic (Jun 30, 2006)

JimG. said:
			
		

> Oh I think so sled...I've read some pretty nasty exchanges between skiers and boarders in the Taos area. Boarders in NM often express the hope that Taos goes under one winter. Ugly stuff.



I suppose I should expect that.  Toas is the proverbial "Big Fish in the little pond".  There are not a lot of other options. Angel Fire has a lot of Acreage, but not much very interesting.  Santa Fe, which I love dearly, BTW, is much smaller.  Pajarito looks awesome, but the summit is "only" at 10,000', which really limits their season.  It must be a bit of a drag to be a boarder in NM with Taos not interested in your money.

Alta seems like it might be a closer comparion.  There are lots of other options for places to ride.

I don't really see what the fuss is all about.  If an area chose to ban skiing, I'd happily say: "Keep your ball and bat, I'll play somewhere else."

This alledged buy-out rumour completly ignores the facts.  There are only 300 unsold shares and 1700 shares held (safe to assume) by skiers.  Who are they going to buy the shares from, even if they weren't limited to 4 shares per person?  

Check here for the bylaws: http://www.madriverglen.com/coop/?Page=./5bylaws.html&dir=.


----------



## David Metsky (Jun 30, 2006)

AdironRider said:
			
		

> Burton has the financial capital to make the neccesary renovation that will improve MRG. 2 mil is nothing to a company as large as Burton (well not nothing, but certainly less than a Coop of 1700, each with varying financial background). That the single renovations right there.


But the co-op has a perfectly viable plan for replacing the single.  It's going forward as we speak, so there's no need for an outside company to do this; it's being taken care of.


> Plus theyd open the mountain up for all to enjoy.


The mountain is open for everyone to enjoy, you just can't ride the lifts on a snowboard.  If you want to hike it and ride, go ahead.  People do.


> It sounds as if they could use a little snowmaking at the base (correct me if Im wrong but didnt they close wicked early solely because they didnt have the snowpack at the base - the ret of the mtn was skiable?). Burton could make these changes happen.


There is snowmaking at the base.  It gets used when needed.  They can also run the single with downloading at the mid-station, so skiers can hit the upper part of the mountain late in the season.


> I guess what Im trying to say is that MRG can only exist if the finances are available to do so, and with Burton as the principal owner, that would never be a problem.


It's not a problem now.  There certainly are challenges, but MRG is on perhaps the most secure financial footing of any New England ski area.  And having an owner with deep pockets isn't a guarentee of anything long term.  Look at the ASC resorts.  Spreading the risk out over a motivated and varied co-op is probably more stable in the long run.

 -dave-


----------



## Greg (Jun 30, 2006)

awf170 said:
			
		

> http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=snowboarding&word2=skiing
> 
> I'm pretty sure this concludes that skiing is in fact a lot better and cooler than snowboarding.


I actually think this is more applicable:

http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=snowboard+ban+debate&word2=waste+of+time


----------



## marcski (Jun 30, 2006)

AdironRider said:
			
		

> Moving on from AWF's pointless post thanks Jim G for clarifying the thread, I was beginning to get a tad frustrated myself.



IMHO, Austin's post had about as much to do with reality as this entire thread does! (And was more humorous)!


----------



## JimG. (Jun 30, 2006)

David Metsky said:
			
		

> The mountain is open for everyone to enjoy, you just can't ride the lifts on a snowboard.  If you want to hike it and ride, go ahead.  People do.
> 
> having an owner with deep pockets isn't a guarentee of anything long term.  Look at the ASC resorts.  Spreading the risk out over a motivated and varied co-op is probably more stable in the long run.
> 
> -dave-



These are good points and are very hard to argue with. 

If I were a boarder, I'd still be upset that I can't ride the lifts though.

The point about owners with deep pockets cannot be argued though. ASC is the prime example. 

AdironRider, you realize that most of the "improvements" you would like to see would change all of the things that folks who love MRG really like about the place. And that's why there would be alot of opposition. The analogy to ASC only deepens that opposition.


----------



## JimG. (Jun 30, 2006)

Greg said:
			
		

> I actually think this is more applicable:
> 
> http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=snowboard+ban+debate&word2=waste+of+time



Is this a subtle hint?


----------



## marcski (Jun 30, 2006)

Here's some real news that makes a little more sense for burton:

http://www.skipressworld.com/us/en/...n_gets_wet_buys_surfboard_co.html?cat=Finance


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Jun 30, 2006)

AdironRider said:
			
		

> Moving on from AWF's pointless post thanks Jim G for clarifying the thread, I was beginning to get a tad frustrated myself.
> 
> Moving on to the benefits of Burton having possible ownership...
> 
> ...


The problem with much of this analysis is that it rests on the assumption that MRG hasn't made the changes you propose b/c of limited finances.  In most cases, the Co-op has CHOSEN to take the direction they have in a conscious effort to maintain the quality of the skiing experience.  Minimal grooming and snowmaking have a significant positive impact on snow conditions in normal years, given the configuration of MRG's trails.  They don't have it b/c they don't want it.  In the case of snowmaking, it probably isn't even an option - there's no water source up in the App Gap to tap.


----------



## JimG. (Jun 30, 2006)

Tin Woodsman said:
			
		

> The problem with much of this analysis is that it rests on the assumption that MRG hasn't made the changes you propose b/c of limited finances.  In most cases, the Co-op has CHOSEN to take the direction they have in a conscious effort to maintain the quality of the skiing experience.  Minimal grooming and snowmaking have a significant positive impact on snow conditions in normal years, given the configuration of MRG's trails.  They don't have it b/c they don't want it.  In the case of snowmaking, it probably isn't even an option - there's no water source up in the App Gap to tap.



Agreed; I made the same point below.

This is something that I've learned from this thread: I think alot of folks don't realize that MRG is the way it is by choice, not necessity. It's the way the co-op wants it to be. 

So, they don't understand the opposition to change and assume it is directed at snowboarders when in reality it's just the desire to remain old school.


----------



## riverc0il (Jun 30, 2006)

> Even though the internet posting that spurred this discussion is probably untrue, could it hurt to discuss the potential outcome as if it were true? Why does everything have to be proven or disproven to the exclusion of theretical conversation?


JimG, I have to take issue with this statement. There is no harm in speculation backed up by evidence. But playing hypotheticals that are purely unsubstantiated is silly, in my opinion. Nothing need be completely proven or disproven here, but if people want to speculate, they need to back up the speculation with some cold hard facts. Else I could speculate a high speed quad is going to be built up to Tuckerman Ravine or that Les Otten is planning a hostile take over of IntraWest. See where that eventually goes? Straight down the garbage can, which is where there thread was heading from post one. Check out this guy's page, there is no first hand information to indicate this wish that MRG would allow snowboards is even a possibility. Some links to off site material and speculation without evidence including a friend of a friend comment. Let's see a respectible and reliable news source talking with Burton and confirming this crap. 

This has nothing to do with Mad River Glen. This has everything to do with unsubstantiated rumor, wishful thinking, and a Blog perporting to be a trustworthy news source. I would be disappointed in this if it was any ski area, resort, or any other business or non-profit or any other issue at all. This strikes close to home at one of my core beliefs in the failings of human nature: most people don't fact check and verify and then rumors get started and before you know it, Dewey beats Truman. I will step off my soap box now.


----------



## Bumpsis (Jun 30, 2006)

They could just forgo the single chair lift and really go way back to real roots of skiing, making people earn their turns.

Mad River Glen - hike up first and ski it if you can.


----------



## David Metsky (Jun 30, 2006)

Bumpsis said:
			
		

> Mad River Glen - hike up first and ski it if you can.


It happens every powder day. 

 -dave-


----------



## Big Game (Jul 2, 2006)

Co-op status is not a defense to a shareholder's derivitive suit. The basis of the suit? Managment is not acting outside the "biz judgment rule" in intentionally turning down revenue and not making safety improvements. 

Who would file such a suit? Any snowboarder who happens to own a shares and wants to see a change in policy.Or any shareholder who actually believes the above. A shareholder's d's suit would probably bankrupt ---regardless if management was victorious.


Only problem with Burton is that his boards suck and are for the Boston fancy-lads who read Outside magazine. Otherwise, I hope this rumour is true. (I kind of doubt it). If it is done, I would perhaps buy a pair of Burton gloves to show my support.


----------



## AHM (Jul 2, 2006)

*Sorry..................*

All:  very very sorry that it is summer and most are apparently jonesing to ski.  MRG will open as usual next season, when MN allows.  The single will run, as it has since it was installed and skiers will be enjoying it as they have since it opened.  Now,  its a nice long weekend................although some are cleaning up flood waters around and in their homes, the rest should be hiking, biking, kayaking, and enjoying themselves in "summer" type ways................'cus soon the snow will fly, and if you didn't ride, ride, ride, and hike, hike, hike, then you will be in no shape to go ski MRG or whereever you ski (it is all skiing, wether its on one plank, two (or your butt), tele, hard binding or AT.................). Time for me to go ride my MTB (then kayak, hike tomorrow).AHM


----------



## marcski (Jul 2, 2006)

Big Game said:
			
		

> Co-op status is not a defense to a shareholder's derivitive suit. The basis of the suit? Managment is not acting outside the "biz judgment rule" in intentionally turning down revenue and not making safety improvements.
> 
> Who would file such a suit? Any snowboarder who happens to own a shares and wants to see a change in policy.Or any shareholder who actually believes the above. A shareholder's d's suit would probably bankrupt ---regardless if management was victorious.



First.  You're logic is flawed.  As someone else pointed out above, its a not for profit corp.  Therefore, revenues and increasing a shareholders share or profit plays little or no role whatsoever.  

Finally, has there ever been a safety concern at MRG?  I've never heard of one if there has been?


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 2, 2006)

marcski said:
			
		

> Finally, has there ever been a safety concern at MRG?  I've never heard of one if there has been?



Shareholder Derivative suits have nothing to do with safety.


----------



## knuckledragger (Jul 2, 2006)

Tin Woodsman said:
			
		

> How does it follow that b/c you used to work at a snowboard manufacturer, it is to be believed that you have the straight dope on this story?   If I worked for a gun manufacturer, would that mean that I know who killed JFK?


Well when you know the people involved,discussed the subject with them and read several company wide memos on the subject every time the story comes up you tend to pick up a thing or two.


----------



## knuckledragger (Jul 2, 2006)

SkiDog said:
			
		

> And I wouldnt personally call it a "ban" id call it a "Choice" that MRG makes in order to cater to what they feel is their "core market"...Ban is a strong word...its like they were allowed there once, but now are banned...and to my knowledge..snowboarding was never allowed at MRG..but I am OFTEN wrong..Ha
> 
> M


CAll a spade a spade. It is what it is discrimination.


----------



## knuckledragger (Jul 2, 2006)

SkiDog said:
			
		

> thanks for the correction...but again I stand by my points...what would really be affected at MRG should they again allow snowboards.....??? I'd venture to say nothing except some crap from "elitist" skiers who think they have some "right" to a certian spot...
> 
> IMHO its a silly ban...but again...MRG's choice...they have to deal with the contreversy and it doesnt seem to affect them at all so I guess it won't ever change...
> 
> ...


The top of the mountain is indeed in the Camels Hump State Forest.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 2, 2006)

knuckledragger said:
			
		

> The top of the mountain is indeed in the Camels Hump State Forest.



No it's not in the CHSF.  That ends at App Gap.


----------



## AdironRider (Jul 2, 2006)

marcski said:
			
		

> First.  You're logic is flawed.  As someone else pointed out above, its a not for profit corp.  Therefore, revenues and increasing a shareholders share or profit plays little or no role whatsoever.
> 
> Finally, has there ever been a safety concern at MRG?  I've never heard of one if there has been?




Revenue doesnt mean profit, and a ski resort, regardless of their financial intentions, still needs revenue to run.


----------



## David Metsky (Jul 2, 2006)

knuckledragger said:
			
		

> Call a spade a spade. It is what it is discrimination.


Discrimination is against people, not activities.  Not alloweing snowboarding at MRG isn't discrimination, just like not allowing sledding on the ski slopes wouldn't be discrimination.  It's a rule that the owners of the ski area have decided on and for this ski area, it works.

All co-op members vote on these issues, and have spoken with a very solid majority, I can't see how any lawsuit would gain any traction since the board is only following the owners clearly stated desires.  If the co-op members voted not to accept any hypothetical offer what basis would there be for a lawsuit?

Again, it's all moot since there is no financial crisis, there is no desire for change by the co-op members, and there is no snowboard company that would touch this with a 10 foot pole.

 -dave-


----------



## knuckledragger (Jul 2, 2006)

Prohibiting the free use of public lands against a subset of individuals. A spade a spade.


----------



## John84 (Jul 2, 2006)

knuckledragger said:
			
		

> Prohibiting the free use of public lands against a subset of individuals. A spade a spade.



It's not prohibiting the free use of public land against snowboarders. Like someone said previously, snowboarders are free to hike up and then board down.


----------



## riverc0il (Jul 2, 2006)

knuckledragger said:
			
		

> Prohibiting the free use of public lands against a subset of individuals. A spade a spade.


if mad river glen was public land, you might have an issue. i invite you to prove to this forum that mad river glen exists on public lands since you believe it. very likely a place like sugarbush that has public land space would have a much harder time working into their lease with the forest service a ban on snowboards. but just like a nightclub can not let you in for wearing jeans and sneakers, a ski area can not let you on the lift based on the equipment strapped to your feet. 100% legal and 100% not discrimination as the law defines it. you can disagree with this fact, but your disputation with the facts thus far has been absurd and illogical. disagree all you want with the ban, but it is a legitiment and the point about this not being discrimination stands. in order to argue a point, standard definitions must be agreed upon. you can not change the very definition of the word discrimination to suit your needs, purposes, and arguements.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 2, 2006)

knuckledragger said:
			
		

> Prohibiting the free use of public lands against a subset of individuals. A spade a spade.



Again, I doubt that it is public land.  The topos I look at suggest that CHSF is on the _western slope_ of that area.  And as Riv' said, you can try all you want to claim that this is legal discrimination, but I doubt you would have the cases to prove it or provide precedent.


----------



## sledhaulingmedic (Jul 2, 2006)

Big Game said:
			
		

> Co-op status is not a defense to a shareholder's derivitive suit. The basis of the suit? Managment is not acting outside the "biz judgment rule" in intentionally turning down revenue and not making safety improvements.
> 
> Who would file such a suit? Any snowboarder who happens to own a shares and wants to see a change in policy.Or any shareholder who actually believes the above. A shareholder's d's suit would probably bankrupt ---regardless if management was victorious.



A couple of points your missing:

Where's the safety violation?  MRG ever been sited?  Shut down?  Where's the basis?

And how many snowboarders own shares?  Let's look...that's right, none.

Now let's say there is ONE snowboarder who owns a share and files such a suit.  How well will he hold up to 1699 "Malicious abuce of legal process" suits?  (That's if CSI-MRV isn't trying to match the imprint in his/her skull to a 10 year old pair of T-2's)


----------



## David Metsky (Jul 3, 2006)

knuckledragger said:
			
		

> Prohibiting the free use of public lands against a subset of individuals. A spade a spade.


Wrong on both counts.  As I've stated before, it's not prohibiting people, only behavior.  And it's private land, not public. See this map which shows the property line boundry surrounding the entire ski area.  It's all on private land. Call an error an error.

Personally I like the fact that there are no boarders at MRG, but I can see both sides.  But to argue on the basis of discrimination or public access is just foolish.

 -dave-


----------



## WWF-VT (Jul 3, 2006)

From the original  blog: http://powderjihad.wordpress.com/

Burton to Purchase Mad River? — Update 3
May 16th, 2006 by powderjihad 
*At the request of Burton Management, this post has been removed. *

Posted in snowboard, Mad River, Discrimination, Resorts That Practice Discrimination | No Comments »

The  orginal post was Feb 20th 2006.


----------



## from_the_NEK (Jul 3, 2006)

> From the original blog: http://powderjihad.wordpress.com/
> 
> Burton to Purchase Mad River? — Update 3
> May 16th, 2006 by powderjihad
> ...



So is this the result of Burton trying to coverup their intentions or is Burton trying to shut off the source of an untrue rumor that may be putting the aspirations of the company in a bad light.


----------



## knuckledragger (Jul 3, 2006)

With Jake what ever the reason you can bet there is dollar signs behind it.


----------



## kcyanks1 (Jul 3, 2006)

AdironRider said:
			
		

> The only reason people would really get pissed about a sale of MRG is because Burton, the name in snowboarding, would be the buyer and in turn allow snowboarders.



I disagree, there are other reasons one might get pissed about the rumored sale.  Some of the reasons I would get upset about a sale of MRG to Burton are that it is much more likely that there will be increased lift capacity, snowmaking, and grooming under new ownership.  Is it a definite that any of that will happen?  No.  But I do think it would be a fair concern.  The shareholders are committed to keeping the MRG-experience as is.  While the article says Burton was too, I don't have to be completely confident in that.  Burton is more likely to be in it for the money, while the coop shareholders, I suspect, while happy to make a profit, purchased shares because they love the ski area and its uniqueness, and wanted to make sure it stayed that way.

The mention of a terrain park on the Practice Slope, while not something that would affect me enough that I would personally be concerned, and in the scheme of things a relatively minor change, shows that they are willing to go against the old-school view that MRG has taken.  And that is not an anti-snowboarder comment, because snowboarders don't need a terrain park, and likely wouldn't be going to MRG for a terrain park--I'm sure many, like you, want to go right now.  The mountain is the park!  Parks are more popular with boarders, perhaps, but it's not a prerequisite for allowing boarders (though perhaps someone who doesn't want boarders would be happy to have their attention taken away from the Single and onto the Practice Slope park).

Additionally, I would be concerned about increased traffic, but hopefully maintaining the small parking lot would be a natural limitation of customer visits (regardless of what method they use to get down the slopes).

But really, my post was just a round-a-bout way of saying that I think a sale to Burton has legitimate concerns well beyond and more important than the snowboarder-ban.


----------



## kcyanks1 (Jul 3, 2006)

Tin Woodsman said:
			
		

> Yes, economics are economics, but what proff do we have that any of the figures in this guy's post are true?  I have little or no faith in those numbers.  The Co-op has traditionally been quite conservative with its capital spending initiatives and overall budget.  I don't believe anything about the scenario being painted by this guy.  And then with the kicker being that Burton would be the buyer?  That's comedy gold.
> 
> Did you guys know that gullible isn't a word in the dictionary?



I'm with you on not believing the numbers.  While I've never seen positive numbers either, this is the first I've heard of MRG being in any financial trouble.  The fact that it is in the same article as a possible Burton buyout makes it suspcious.


----------



## kcyanks1 (Jul 3, 2006)

knuckledragger said:
			
		

> The myth is that Betsy was harassed by a couple of burton employees in Mahurons market. Becaues of the way she was aproched by these 2 individuals he told them if that no riders were welcome at mrg.



I've heard the story/possible myth about 2 snowboarders harrassing Betsy a couple different times, but had never heard them identified as Burton employees.


----------



## kcyanks1 (Jul 3, 2006)

AdironRider said:
			
		

> Thats cool Trailboss, I hear ya. Seems unfortunate that people would get worked up enough to lose friendships. We all just want to enjoy the snow.
> 
> 
> I really do believe that MRG might just be in dire need of financial assistance, for all the reasons people have mentioned above. MRG has no snowmaking which in turn leaves a short short season and a loss of skier visits. With no snowmaking the mtn is not a guaranteed alternative. People dont spend thousands and their one week of vacation time on a trip like that. Also families with just one snowboarder are going to make the trek elsewhere in Vt, with plenty of alternative very close.MRG also has a bit of a "cult" following, with even the lovers only going 3-4 times a season. Not exactly numbers that are going to pad the books. Not allowing snowboarding also eliminates any family with just a single snowboarder (not trying to ruffle feathers but its still an economic point) from visiting. Season pass sales are also probably not as strong with no guaranteed snow and a short season. These are all economic shortfalls that are pretty much exclusive to MRG, and the way most mtns can hardly stay open without the same challenges, its suprising this is the first youve heard of financial difficulty.




You might be right that MRG gets less income, but you are forgetting the fact that they have far lower expenses than most ski areas.  Snowmaking is very expensive, especially with high electricity costs, and MRG saves a lot of money there.  MRG also has minimal requirements as far as having people run lifts, staff lodges. etc.   They don't need as many visits as other mountains to make a profit.


----------



## kcyanks1 (Jul 3, 2006)

riverc0il said:
			
		

> if mad river glen was public land, you might have an issue. i invite you to prove to this forum that mad river glen exists on public lands since you believe it. very likely a place like sugarbush that has public land space would have a much harder time working into their lease with the forest service a ban on snowboards. but just like a nightclub can not let you in for wearing jeans and sneakers, a ski area can not let you on the lift based on the equipment strapped to your feet. 100% legal and 100% not discrimination as the law defines it. you can disagree with this fact, but your disputation with the facts thus far has been absurd and illogical. disagree all you want with the ban, but it is a legitiment and the point about this not being discrimination stands. in order to argue a point, standard definitions must be agreed upon. you can not change the very definition of the word discrimination to suit your needs, purposes, and arguements.



I don't know if public lands would matter too much anyways.  Snowboarders are not a suspect class.  Even if a government lease of public land were enough state involvement to constitute state action (which very well could be the case), the ban would only be subject to rational basis review, i.e., the state would have to show that the ban is rationally-related to a legtimate conceivable interest (contrast this to a "suspect" class, like race, where the state would have to show it was necessary for a compelling interest, and the least restrictive alternative).  I'm sure that the state can come up with something that meets the minimum standard--e.g., attracting tourists into the state.  Well, all of that is what the federal constitutional analysis would be. I have no idea if VT has stricter requirements.  Perhaps in VT snowboarders are a suspect class


----------



## knuckledragger (Jul 3, 2006)

One thing I know for sure any development above 2500 ft qualifies for Act 250 and other regulatory oversite. The way Vt law is it does not take a lot to get a group  declaired a party status. Any one who is well informed to the procedures could concevably tie it up for years with out incuring a huge legal bill. You just need to keep an eye on public record as all meeting must be warned in this state.


----------



## riverc0il (Jul 3, 2006)

i think we have sufficiently beat to death the possibility that this ficticious web site is even remotely true or accurate. the evidence and logic presented stands solid and no reliable and reputable information is forth coming it seems. as per usual, we are essentially back to the same old pro- con- arguements for the ban. let's put this one to bed.



			
				kcyanks1 said:
			
		

> I don't know if public lands would matter too much anyways.  Snowboarders are not a suspect class.  Even if a government lease of public land were enough state involvement to constitute state action (which very well could be the case), the ban would only be subject to rational basis review,


i highly disagree that public lands would not strongly influence a lease clause to be inclusive of all snow sliders. for example, the motto of the WMNF is "land of many uses" and the administration seems very proud (as it should be) of the fact that the public land is used by so many diverse groups (hikers, snow sliders, snow mobiles, timber, etc.). i think a lease stipulating rules against certain forms of standard ski area equipment would meet with MASSIVE resistance both from the forest service and from the public in general. even i would be opposed to such an operation involving public lands banning certain equipment. privately owned? that is not the public's concern, just as i used my prior comparison of night club dress codes.

bottom line: who can blame snowboards for wanting to ride MRG!? :-D they still can, they just can't ride the lift. and that is the way it is and that is the way it is going to continue to be in the forseeable future. nuff said.


----------



## BeanoNYC (Jul 3, 2006)

Hasn't anyone snuck on with a splitboard?


----------



## kcyanks1 (Jul 3, 2006)

riverc0il said:
			
		

> i highly disagree that public lands would not strongly influence a lease clause to be inclusive of all snow sliders. for example, the motto of the WMNF is "land of many uses" and the administration seems very proud (as it should be) of the fact that the public land is used by so many diverse groups (hikers, snow sliders, snow mobiles, timber, etc.). i think a lease stipulating rules against certain forms of standard ski area equipment would meet with MASSIVE resistance both from the forest service and from the public in general. even i would be opposed to such an operation involving public lands banning certain equipment. privately owned? that is not the public's concern, just as i used my prior comparison of night club dress codes.



I'm talking about constitutional law, not about the moto of the land, what the administration is proud of, or whether the public would resist, but what would happen if a snowboarder who was denied access sued alleging a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.  You wrote before that the current discrimination is "100% legal and 100% not discrimination as the law defines it," and that if the lands were public, it might then be illegal.  I was responding to that point--discussing the legality.  The fact that the land is public is certainly relevant.  If there is no state action, that makes a huge difference.  I was just saying from a legal perspective, it isn't clear that if the lands were public, that MRG would be forced to change it's position.


----------



## riverc0il (Jul 3, 2006)

certainly from a legal perspective, it theoretically could happen that a public area could have a ban on certain equipment. realistically though? not even a chance, not even worth considering even.

regarding the split board, they are pretty obvious compared to skis. i suspect any liftie worth their skin would notice that easily. i doubt many riders would gamble $50 that it wouldn't be noticed and it certainly would be noticed after the first run down.


----------



## madskier6 (Jul 3, 2006)

Wow, what a thread!  I go away for a summer vacation and look at all the controversy I've missed in the last week.

Most relevant viewpoints have already been aired and I don't want to rehash what has already been said.  The only perspective I can add as a practicing corporate lawyer is to quickly address the following issues:

1) The MRG Board's fiduciary duties; and
2) Shareholder derivative suits.

The board's fiduciary duty in this situation would be relevant if the board somehow wants to reject an offer and not present it to the shareholders for a vote.  In this case, I believe that most of the shareholders would agree 100% with the board and not want to sell to Burton.  They bought shares because they want to preserve and support MRG in its current state, not because they are looking for any sort of an economic return through a sale of their shares.  

While I'm not familiar with the specifics of Vermont corporate law, I have to believe that the board still owes fiduciary duties to the shareholders notwithstanding what the MRG bylaws say about preserving the character of the mountain and its environment.  The board would still have the fiduciary duty to present a serious offer to the shareholders.  The practical answer, however, is that once presented with the Burton offer, a vast majority of the shareholders would reject it because their interest in buying the shares is non-economic.  Most MRG shareholders are not interested in getting cashed out at a profit.

As a practical matter, Burton would have to line-up enough like-minded individuals to buy 4 shares each (or whatever the maximum number is) so that it could gain control of the corporation and the board.  That would be very difficult to pull-off, not to mention finding enough current MRG shareholders willing to sell to enable Burton to obtain control.  The only way that could happen is if the corporation was in such dire financial straits that selling to Burton was the only way to preserve MRG as a going concern.  Even then, it would still be very difficult as a practical matter.

As to shareholder derivative suits, those are generally filed by shareholders who are suing the board on behalf of the corporation because they believe the board is wasting corporate assets or otherwise not managing the corporation in the corporation's (and ultimately the shareholders') best interest.  The bylaw provision about preserving the mountain and its environment is relevant here because that is the corporation's purpose, not returning profits to the shareholders.  If the board was managing the corporation in a slipshod manner (or unsafely) this might affect the long term viability of the corporation, which would consequently not permit it to carry out the bylaw provision. But as someone else said, there is no evidence of any safety issues (or of the board running the corporation in a slipshod manner).

Sorry for the long post but I could not resist clearing up some misconceptions on the corporate law issues.  In my opinion, this Burton rumor is ludicrous and completely unsubstantiated.  Looks like it was started to stir-up trouble between skiers and snowboarders and fling dirt at MRG.


----------



## sledhaulingmedic (Jul 4, 2006)

Thanks, Jeff!


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Jul 5, 2006)

knuckledragger said:
			
		

> Prohibiting the free use of public lands against a subset of individuals. A spade a spade.


Again, it's not public lands.

And those individuals are allowed.  They just aren't allowed to ride the lifts with snowboards on their feet.  Would it be discrimination if MRG had an explicit policy banning fireworks enthusiasts from bringing those on the lift and setting them off?  How about if MRG banned acid-washed jeans?  While many folks from New Jersey might object, MRG would certainly be well within their rights to institute such a policy, and it wouldn't be discrimination.

Edited to make nice nice.


----------



## Greg (Jul 5, 2006)

Tin Woodsman said:
			
		

> It's not public lands, *genius*.


Easy on the "genius" type stuff. Unnecessary and a bit provocative. :???:


----------



## Big Game (Jul 5, 2006)

madskier6 said:
			
		

> Most MRG shareholders are not interested in getting cashed out at a profit.



Indeed. And the Coop's purpose (so I understand) is not even to maximize shareholder revenue. So really, to initiate a shareholder D's suit on that basis that the baord is not maximizing returns would get no where. 

Rather, a stronger case (assuming the facts were there) would be in that current management is not fulfilling its mission in securing the future of MRG. 

Now would a shareholder's D case succeed? It would be tough. There would have to be serious mismanagement. I could be wrong, but I don't think anything is there.  But compared to constitutional claims  (although that gimpy golfer case makes me think twice) a shatreholder's D suit at least has a chance.

Wait...thinking about that gimpy golfer case. What if you were a snowboarder who couldn't ski because of bad knees and only could snowboard. Bring a suit under ADA? Of course the counter-argument would be there are other places to snowboard, but not other places to play professional golf. And if you snowboard, I think its difficult to claim you're disabled.   And what kind of gimpy snowboarder would be able to handle the terrian at MRG? And what kind of snowboarder would sue for access?  I just don't think a snowbaorder would do that. 

On the other hand,  and I really don't want to start a flame war or anything, but something I read on the internet about this skier was running late at Nordstrom's and backs his Lexus SUV into a lightpole because his was too distracted talking on his cell phone to his broker, but then he later claimed that the lightpole gave him emotional distress and sued the mall owner for creating such a hazard. 

Again, I have no idea if  the above is true. But something else I read was written in the bathroom at the orphanage I volunteer is "Skiers have city hands. From counting money all day."

Please, no attacks. I am just a simple messenger.


----------



## JennyRousseau (Jul 5, 2006)

Big Game said:
			
		

> Indeed. And the Coop's purpose (so I understand) is not even to maximize shareholder revenue. So really, to initiate a shareholder D's suit on that basis that the [board] is not maximizing returns would get no where.



MRG is a for-profit corporation, owned by shareholders, *not* a non-profit cooperative.  

The Board has every reason to maximize shareholder value as well as fulfill it's mission statement to "preserve and protect" General Stark Mountain.  I feel that the board should be held accountable for their actions if they were shown to decrease shareholder value.  Anyone who believes that the Board wouldn't have any liability has been hanging with the Canadian snowboarding team for far too long.

Jenny


----------



## SkiDog (Jul 5, 2006)

JennyRousseau said:
			
		

> I think that's an insane statement and ignores the truth.
> 
> MRG is a for-profit corporation, owned by shareholders, not a non-profit cooperative.  The Board has every reason to maximize shareholder value as well as fulfill it's mission statement.  And I feel that the board should be held accountable for their actions.  Anyone who believes that the Board wouldn't have liability (and liability to each member personally) has been hanging with the Canadian snowboarding team for far too long.
> 
> Jenny



Sorry...BUT SEE BELOW


Mad River Glen
by Mitch Kaplan

Mad River Glen

Courtesy, Mad River Glen/TJ Greenwood
 Mad River is the standard by which all others eastern resorts are measured. Now owned and operated as a non-profit membership cooperative

M


----------



## David Metsky (Jul 5, 2006)

JennyRousseau said:
			
		

> MRG is a for-profit corporation, owned by shareholders, not a non-profit cooperative.


No, you are wrong.  The MRG Co-operative is a non-profit cooperative.


> Section 1.3 - Purpose. The purpose for which the Cooperative was formed is to preserve and protect the forests and mountain ecosystem of Stark Mountain in order to provide skiing and other recreational access and to maintain the unique character of the area for present and future generations. The Cooperative shall be operated exclusively on a cooperative and nonprofit basis for the primary and mutual benefit of its owners and other patrons.



People should read up a little on this before replying.

 -dave-


----------



## SkiDog (Jul 5, 2006)

Another source....

http://skiamericacanada.com/madriverglen/index.html

Mad River is America's only skier-owned, nonprofit cooperative.

M


----------



## SkiDog (Jul 5, 2006)

David Metsky said:
			
		

> No, you are wrong.  The MRG Co-operative is a non-profit cooperative.
> 
> 
> People should read up a little on this before replying.
> ...



I know...right??? Blatantly comes out like they've "got the facts" when they couldnt be more wrong...geez it dosent take that long to find that information at all.....and on the FIRST post...

Hmmmm off on the wrong foot???? ;-)

M


----------



## David Metsky (Jul 5, 2006)

To be fair, there _is_ the Mad River Corporation, the former owners of the ski area.  That company (owned mostly by Betsy, IIRC) still has significant land holdings abutting the ski area.  That's not part of the Cooperative and there may be some confusion on that part.  But the ski area really is a non-profit cooperative, which may be a hard concept to grasp.

 -dave-


----------



## noski (Jul 5, 2006)

SkiDog said:
			
		

> I know...right??? Blatantly comes out like they've "got the facts" when they couldnt be more wrong...geez it dosent take that long to find that information at all.....and on the FIRST post...
> 
> Hmmmm off on the wrong foot???? ;-)
> 
> M


What's the snowboard term for "wrong" foot forward? Goofy?


----------



## JimG. (Jul 6, 2006)

WOW! Take off a few days and I come back to this.

You guys are as serious as a heart attack!

Try to start a little theoretical conversation and you wind up with a room full of lawyers.

You should all be ashamed of taking this nice little ski related thread and turning it into an episode of Perry Mason.

Bleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeech!


----------



## marcski (Jul 6, 2006)

I'm looking forward to JennyRousseau's retort and 2nd post if there will be one.


----------



## SkiDog (Jul 6, 2006)

JimG. said:
			
		

> WOW! Take off a few days and I come back to this.
> 
> You guys are as serious as a heart attack!
> 
> ...



You started it..HA



M


----------



## JimG. (Jul 6, 2006)

SkiDog said:
			
		

> You started it..HA
> 
> 
> 
> M



I did? No, Greg did.

But I'm the idiot who thinks we can discuss anything about MRG without it turning into a skier/snowboarder flame war.

And I'm the idiot who thinks that we can discuss theoretical scenarios, even ridiculous ones, without picking the source apart and proving that it can't possibly be correct because of blah-blah-blah.

Fact is, we really don't know. 

So would it hurt to discuss a theoretical outcome without some folks getting multiple knots in their shorts?


----------



## SkiDog (Jul 6, 2006)

JimG. said:
			
		

> I did? No, Greg did.
> 
> But I'm the idiot who thinks we can discuss anything about MRG without it turning into a skier/snowboarder flame war.
> 
> ...



I know I looked after I posted that...sorry....

Yeah I dont think skiers and snowboarders can ever discuss MRG without it going wrong...just how it is...sad state of affairs if you ask me...

IMHO...we're all "snow sliders" some choose 2 planks...some choose 1...simple as that..

M


----------



## JimG. (Jul 6, 2006)

SkiDog said:
			
		

> Yeah I dont think skiers and snowboarders can ever discuss MRG without it going wrong...just how it is...sad state of affairs if you ask me...
> 
> M



Agreed...sad.


----------



## riverc0il (Jul 6, 2006)

JimG. said:
			
		

> So would it hurt to discuss a theoretical outcome without some folks getting multiple knots in their shorts?


i hate to lay down another semantical post, but in defense of those that have dissected this thread (myself included), the route word of theoretical is theory and theories must stand up to scrurinization and facts and evidence. if we want to discuss things without any facts or evidence, we might as well start a 'fanfic' section of AZ. just my opinion on that one. i am very much into logical arguements. theoretical and hypothetical discussion is very much welcome, but these types of discussions must be supported on either side by available evidence and facts. opinion threads are fine too. an opinion would be preference on the snowboard ban, cool--we all have opinions. but analyzing the hypothetical proposition that the coop is being bought out is not an opinion issue but rather an issue of fact and evidence. it is either right or wrong.  i don't think any one is getting knots in their shorts, but rather many people do not appreciate seeing incorrect information disseminated as fact to support a partisan opinion and/or rumor mill.


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Jul 6, 2006)

riverc0il said:
			
		

> i hate to lay down another semantical post, but in defense of those that have dissected this thread (myself included), the route word of theoretical is theory and theories must stand up to scrurinization and facts and evidence. if we want to discuss things without any facts or evidence, we might as well start a 'fanfic' section of AZ. just my opinion on that one. i am very much into logical arguements. theoretical and hypothetical discussion is very much welcome, but these types of discussions must be supported on either side by available evidence and facts. opinion threads are fine too. an opinion would be preference on the snowboard ban, cool--we all have opinions. but analyzing the hypothetical proposition that the coop is being bought out is not an opinion issue but rather an issue of fact and evidence. it is either right or wrong.  i don't think any one is getting knots in their shorts, but rather many people do not appreciate seeing incorrect information disseminated as fact to support a partisan opinion and/or rumor mill.



Agreed...sad.


----------



## AdironRider (Jul 7, 2006)

You guys need to lighten up. What about that thread where you could create your ideal seasons pass to any mtn, that was even more hypothetical than this thread, and all you guys were gung ho about it, now its MRG. Noones spreading rumors, thats been said many times. Its the damn summer and theres not really much to talk about it here.


----------



## skibum1321 (Jul 7, 2006)

AdironRider said:
			
		

> Noones spreading rumors, thats been said many times. Its the damn summer and theres not really much to talk about it here.


Actually, the very post that spurred this thread was a rumor. Therefore, powderjihad was spreading rumors and it has taken 10 pages of useless discussion to get to this point.

Let's lay this one to rest.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 7, 2006)

Again, let's stop the :flame:  please.


----------



## JimG. (Jul 7, 2006)

riverc0il said:
			
		

> i hate to lay down another semantical post, but in defense of those that have dissected this thread (myself included), the route word of theoretical is theory and theories must stand up to scrurinization and facts and evidence. if we want to discuss things without any facts or evidence, we might as well start a 'fanfic' section of AZ. just my opinion on that one. i am very much into logical arguements. theoretical and hypothetical discussion is very much welcome, but these types of discussions must be supported on either side by available evidence and facts. opinion threads are fine too. an opinion would be preference on the snowboard ban, cool--we all have opinions. but analyzing the hypothetical proposition that the coop is being bought out is not an opinion issue but rather an issue of fact and evidence. it is either right or wrong.  i don't think any one is getting knots in their shorts, but rather many people do not appreciate seeing incorrect information disseminated as fact to support a partisan opinion and/or rumor mill.



Are you and others really this anal? Excuse my faux pas, I meant to say "hypothetical" instead of "theorectical". There, better?

Here's what you're really saying...you don't like the idea of a snowboard company buying MRG and you won't even discuss the idea because you can't give it any mental space; it just doesn't work for you. 

OK, we've heard from you and many others along those lines. I'd like to hear from folks open minded enough to consider the possibility. Please try to be a little open minded. 

I could care less about the scientific method or the root origin of vocabulary.


----------



## David Metsky (Jul 7, 2006)

JimG. said:
			
		

> Here's what you're really saying...you don't like the idea of a snowboard company buying MRG and you won't even discuss the idea because you can't give it any mental space; it just doesn't work for you.


No, we were first responding to a rumor that was posted as real.  Then we started discussing the rumored financial situation at MRG.  Then we discussed how any potential takeover off MRG would work.  Along the way we touched on the shareholder makeup of the MRG co-op, physical location of the ski area property, the incentive for a snowboard maker to purchase a ski area, the legal setup of the co-op, and, inevitably, we touched on the snowboard ban.

I'm more than open to discuss a hypothetical purchase of MRG, but when people are making factual claims about behind the scenes activity, it makes perfect sense to clarify what is and isn't possible.  If you wanted to talk about Magic Hat buying out Stowe it could be an interesting fantasy thread.  I could definately contribute proposed new trail names and amenities at the lodge. :beer:  But if you started it by claiming (as this thread did) that it was actually happening and these were the reasons why, you'd expect people would examine the logic behind it.

Bottom line, this wasn't started as a hypothetica/fantasy thread.  It was started as if it were fact and that's how people responded.

 -dave-


----------



## JimG. (Jul 7, 2006)

David Metsky said:
			
		

> No, we were first responding to a rumor that was posted as real.  Then we started discussing the rumored financial situation at MRG.  Then we discussed how any potential takeover off MRG would work.  Along the way we touched on the shareholder makeup of the MRG co-op, physical location of the ski area property, the incentive for a snowboard maker to purchase a ski area, the legal setup of the co-op, and, inevitably, we touched on the snowboard ban.
> 
> I'm more than open to discuss a hypothetical purchase of MRG, but when people are making factual claims about behind the scenes activity, it makes perfect sense to clarify what is and isn't possible.  If you wanted to talk about Magic Hat buying out Stowe it could be an interesting fantasy thread.  I could definately contribute proposed new trail names and amenities at the lodge. :beer:  But if you started it by claiming (as this thread did) that it was actually happening and these were the reasons why, you'd expect people would examine the logic behind it.
> 
> ...



Point taken...again, I didn't start the thread and I firmly beleive Greg posted it to start conversation. In that regard, it was very successful. 

I think we all know that Burton isn't buying MRG; we can all relax.

OK...for the sake of conversation only...forget about renaming trails. Leave the mountain as it is, make any planned upgrades to the single. Leave MRG as it is except for the snowboard (props to noski) ban. What do you think MRG would be like if snowboards were allowed?

The bigger question is can we discuss this without flaming each other to death?


----------



## SkiDog (Jul 7, 2006)

JimG. said:
			
		

> What do you think MRG would be like if snowboards were allowed?




No different...the trails wouldnt change....skiers and snowboarders slide together at almost all other resorts...what would change because it was MRG..

M


----------



## JimG. (Jul 7, 2006)

SkiDog said:
			
		

> No different...the trails wouldnt change....skiers and snowboarders slide together at almost all other resorts...what would change because it was MRG..
> 
> M



So, other than the "skiers only" MRG mystique, you feel things would be pretty much the same. I kind of agree.


----------



## SkiDog (Jul 7, 2006)

JimG. said:
			
		

> So, other than the "skiers only" MRG mystique, you feel things would be pretty much the same. I kind of agree.




Plain and simple...IMHO...THIS IS A STUPID BAN...and it gets worse and worse every year...why do we need animosity between SNOW SLIDERS?????? MRG should just give it up already....having snowbaorders on their lifts wont ruin any "experience" MRG claims it would....silly...

M


----------



## Greg (Jul 7, 2006)

David Metsky said:
			
		

> Bottom line, this wasn't started as a hypothetica/fantasy thread.  It was started as if it were fact and that's how people responded.


For the record, I didn't start this thread as if it was "fact". I simply posted a link to the blog and asked for "thoughts", i.e. scrutiny.


----------



## SkiDog (Jul 7, 2006)

Greg said:
			
		

> For the record, I didn't start this thread as if it was "fact". I simply posted a link to the blog and asked for "thoughts", i.e. scrutiny.



Hey as far as im concerned..you can post whatever the heck you wish...doesnt say administrator under your name for nothing 

M


----------



## JimG. (Jul 7, 2006)

Greg said:
			
		

> For the record, I didn't start this thread as if it was "fact". I simply posted a link to the blog and asked for "thoughts", i.e. scrutiny.



Why thank you boss...I was going to mention that it was never posted as fact, just as an interesting thought. 

Then folks got a bit carried away with the Sherlock Holmes syndrome and had to prove or disprove it. 

I think we can all agree it isn't fact, and I'll bet few of us ever thought it was. 

And I'm stubbornly trying to discuss it from the hypothetical "just for argument's sake" point of view as if it were true.

And I'm blowing some gaskets in the process...something must be wrong with me.


----------



## Sparky (Jul 7, 2006)

JimG. said:
			
		

> Why thank you boss...I was going to mention that it was never posted as fact, just as an interesting thought.
> 
> Then folks got a bit carried away with the Sherlock Holmes syndrome and had to prove or disprove it.
> 
> ...



You haven't been skiing recently. It effects the mind.


----------



## David Metsky (Jul 7, 2006)

Hey, I read the link and the blog posted appeared to think this was true.  In reading more and the bogus "retraction under pressure from Burton" I agree that this person is just hoaxing.  But, honestly, I read the link and responded to it, not to your original post.  Others came along after that and were addressing the rumor as if it were fact, and off we went.  Perhaps it got too technical, but I think people were addressing real questions.

As to the hypothetical situaltion, I think it would be bad for MRG to remove the snowboarding ban.  MRG is unique in a few ways, and that is the only think keeping it alive.  It's not big enough, nor does it have the real estate or infrastructure to compete head-to-head with the other big boys.  It chose a different track and is supported in this effort by a core group of diehards that are willing to buy shares to back up their words.  For better or worse, I think you'd lose a big part of this core group if they attempted to lift the snowboard ban.

This is, unfortunately, bad for the snowboarders who want to ride MRG.  But I think MRG would go downhill (sorry) quickly if that core group abandoned the ski area.  It really only works today as a throwback to an earlier era.  Slow lifts, little snowmaking, limited grooming, small and intimate lodge, and no snowboards are all part of that throwback.  I don't think it is an absolute requirement for a throwback ski area, but in this case it seems to be.

 -dave-


----------



## JimG. (Jul 7, 2006)

David Metsky said:
			
		

> As to the hypothetical situaltion, I think it would be bad for MRG to remove the snowboarding ban.  MRG is unique in a few ways, and that is the only think keeping it alive.  It's not big enough, nor does it have the real estate or infrastructure to compete head-to-head with the other big boys.  It chose a different track and is supported in this effort by a core group of diehards that are willing to buy shares to back up their words.  For better or worse, I think you'd lose a big part of this core group if they attempted to lift the snowboard ban.
> 
> This is, unfortunately, bad for the snowboarders who want to ride MRG.  But I think MRG would go downhill (sorry) quickly if that core group abandoned the ski area.  It really only works today as a throwback to an earlier era.  Slow lifts, little snowmaking, limited grooming, small and intimate lodge, and no snowboards are all part of that throwback.  I don't think it is an absolute requirement for a throwback ski area, but in this case it seems to be.
> 
> -dave-



No doubt MRG serves a niche market. 
Even more important is that this niche market is fanatical and wants MRG to stay the way it is.
And MRG simply can't ignore that fact.

I'm sure they would lose a large portion of their current customers if they did allow snowboards. Just look at the fevered response to this thread. I agree that the area would lose out if that happened.

Would they be able to recoup revenue with increased snowboard visits? Would snowboarders flock to MRG? Would so many snowboarders go there to make them forget skiers? Snowboarders, what say you?


----------



## SkiDog (Jul 7, 2006)

I would assume that any "ridership" lost due to lifting the snowboard ban would be made up for 10 fold by snowboarders...now would they return year after year like the current "ridership" that would remain to be seen...and would be a risk it seems MRG is VERY unwilling to take.

M


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 7, 2006)

I'm just going to say this....not being offensive or anything...but honestly, MRG is only one of *three* places in North America that don't permit snowboarders.  Only one of three.  There are hundreds of other places and thousands of acres that are open.  Is MRG really that great?  Go to Jay.  Go to Bolton.  Go to Sugarbush.  Go to Magic.  Go to Burke.  Similar terrain and snow.  Why is there such an attraction to MRG?  Is it the psychological desire because you can't ride there?


----------



## David Metsky (Jul 7, 2006)

WWF-VT said:
			
		

> From the original  blog: http://powderjihad.wordpress.com/
> 
> Burton to Purchase Mad River? — Update 3
> May 16th, 2006 by powderjihad
> *At the request of Burton Management, this post has been removed. *.


The whole blog has now been removed.  I don't think his posting style was much appreciated by Burton, MRG, or WordPress.

 -dave-


----------



## David Metsky (Jul 7, 2006)

thetrailboss said:
			
		

> MRG is only one of *two* places in North America that don't permit snowboarders.  Only one of two.


Three actually; MRG, Alta, and Taos.

 -dave-


----------



## riverc0il (Jul 7, 2006)

> Here's what you're really saying...you don't like the idea of a snowboard company buying MRG and you won't even discuss the idea because you can't give it any mental space; it just doesn't work for you.


um... how about no. while that is my sentiment, it is not the reason why any one is suggesting this whole thing is a hoax. what is this? you call a spade a spade and get accused of being biased? c'mon jim, call me anal, fine. i am. i frequently get caught up in logical and semantical discourse. that much is true. but because of that very reason, my bias is not strong. the lack of reason is why society is such a mess right now.

in non-analyzing opininated terms, i think new england would loose something very special if such a deal ever went through. if it was ever sold, we would see huge snow making, trail widening, grooming, slopeside, high speed lifts, the death of the single, and complete destruction of the great atmosphere that mrg has. yes, i don't like the idea and it doesn't work for me. that is not why i posted previously about the hoax being not accurate. but if you want to take this thread down this direction, long live MRG in its current form.


----------



## JimG. (Jul 7, 2006)

thetrailboss said:
			
		

> I'm just going to say this....not being offensive or anything...but honestly, MRG is only one of *two* places in North America that don't permit snowboarders.  Only one of two.  There are hundreds of other places and thousands of acres that are open.  Is MRG really that great?  Go to Jay.  Go to Bolton.  Go to Sugarbush.  Go to Magic.  Go to Burke.  Similar terrain and snow.  Why is there such an attraction to MRG?  Is it the psychological desire because you can't ride there?



Actually 3...MRG, Alta, and Taos, NM.

This is the common argument...and you will never understand how snowboarders feel because your sliding tool of choice, skis, is allowed and their tool of choice, snowboards, isn't.

It's easy to tell an excluded party to go elsewhere when you have no restrictions. And while it's impossible to actually tell, how would you feel if there was a mountain that one group of folks raves about but you can't experience because your sliding tool isn't allowed to play?


----------



## riverc0il (Jul 7, 2006)

JimG. said:
			
		

> So, other than the "skiers only" MRG mystique, you feel things would be pretty much the same. I kind of agree.


i agree with that. the skiers only mystique is a powerful pull and i like it the way it is. but i will admit not much would change if boarders were allowed. most boarders don't care about mrg. no park, lots of bumps, elitist attitude, not welcoming of them, etc. i suspect mrg would draw folks like dmc that keep it real, not the park kids. i don't see many boarders showing up and the actual mountain itself wouldn't change much. good boarders don't destroy bumps any more than bad skiers do, so that doesn't hold up if the mountain only attracts good boarders. i still enjoy the mountain as is. their slogan wouldn't work any other way


----------



## riverc0il (Jul 7, 2006)

dave touches on an interesting point of economics: if the ban were removed, could MRG survive? no way would enough snowboarders go to MRG to off set the mass exodous of people that would rather not ski MRG than see boarders there.


----------



## riverc0il (Jul 7, 2006)

SkiDog said:
			
		

> I would assume that any "ridership" lost due to lifting the snowboard ban would be made up for 10 fold by snowboarders...now would they return year after year like the current "ridership" that would remain to be seen...and would be a risk it seems MRG is VERY unwilling to take.
> 
> M


i don't see this. what would draw boarders to MRG? certainly, really good boarders would have a field day at MRG. but most boarders don't like bumps, a good porition of them like terrain parks. boarders are generally younger than skiers and the younger population tends to enjoy resorty things like snowmaking, grooming, parks, pipes, hits, etc. that MRG doesn't have. also, there is the issue of the safety concern of derailing the single. that would have to be addressed or boarders would be stuck riding the double. i think MRG would attract good boarders if such a thing ever occurred, i don't see how a few good boarders could replace the die hard dollars of departing skiers though. what boarder is going to get a pass at MRG? some might, but not enough to make up for a mass exodous of skier pass holders.


----------



## riverc0il (Jul 7, 2006)

thetrailboss said:
			
		

> There are hundreds of other places and thousands of acres that are open.  Is MRG really that great?  Go to Jay.  Go to Bolton.  Go to Sugarbush.  Go to Magic.  Go to Burke.  Similar terrain and snow.


whoa boss! nothing similar about MRG! only jay gets better snow than those areas mentioned and only bush or jay could hold a candle to MRG's terrain. :smile:


----------



## JimG. (Jul 7, 2006)

riverc0il said:
			
		

> in non-analyzing opininated terms, i think new england would loose something very special if such a deal ever went through. if it was ever sold, we would see huge snow making, trail widening, grooming, slopeside, high speed lifts, the death of the single, and complete destruction of the great atmosphere that mrg has. yes, i don't like the idea and it doesn't work for me. that is not why i posted previously about the hoax being not accurate. but if you want to take this thread down this direction, long live MRG in its current form.



That's all I was looking for...your opinion. Forget about the false article, we all know it was nonsense. But it did spur a conversation about the ban topic, and recently it has been pretty civil which makes me glad. And that's all that interested me.

Sorry I got on your case, but your post kind of summarized everything I didn't care about regarding this thread and I was determined to bring the conversation back to the hypothetical scenario of a snowboard company taking over MRG. So yes, I do want to take the thread down that path. Moderator's perogative I guess.

Alot of folks feel like you. I for one do not think that the mountain would be trashed as you suggest because of snowboards. In fact, I think a vast majority of snowboarders would want the mountain to stay exactly as it is...its' current state IS the reason they want to ride there. But I would agree with you if a company like ASC took over and I would never want to see that.

Not that I support the sale of MRG to anyone for that matter. But I've got alot of snowboard buddies who can't enjoy the place when I go there and frankly, that bothers me.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 7, 2006)

riverc0il said:
			
		

> in non-analyzing opininated terms, i think new england would loose something very special if such a deal ever went through.



I agree. 



> if it was ever sold, we would see huge snow making, trail widening, grooming, slopeside, high speed lifts, the death of the single, and complete destruction of the great atmosphere that mrg has. yes, i don't like the idea and it doesn't work for me. that is not why i posted previously about the hoax being not accurate. but if you want to take this thread down this direction, long live MRG in its current form.



Whoa.  Just because snowboards would be allowed *does not guarantee* that these actions would take place.  The place could be sold to a private group, ala Haystack, and the same thing could happen.  Those factors have little or nothing to do with snowboarding.



			
				riverc0il said:
			
		

> whoa boss! nothing similar about MRG! only jay gets better snow than those areas mentioned and only bush or jay could hold a candle to MRG's terrain. :smile:



Well, you just said that MRG, Jay, and SB "could hold a candle" to the terrain...that seems to imply that they are similar.  Stowe is also pretty close...the BC options at least.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 7, 2006)

JimG. said:
			
		

> Not that I support the sale of MRG to anyone for that matter. But I've got alot of snowboard buddies who can't enjoy the place when I go there and frankly, that bothers me.



They can go....they just get a free ski/tele rental.


----------



## riverc0il (Jul 7, 2006)

> Whoa. Just because snowboards would be allowed does not guarantee that these actions would take place. The place could be sold to a private group, ala Haystack, and the same thing could happen. Those factors have little or nothing to do with snowboarding.


i should have clarified that statement. i would find it hard to believe that any one would buy MRG and not want to turn a profit. if you enjoy MRG and don't care about profit, you buy a share. therefore, it seems logical that someone buying MRG would only do so either to A: keep it the same if it was in danger or B: do it for profit. in order to run at a profit, the area would need substantial work, especially considering that a sale of the area would likely piss off the mountain's primary clientel that put the most money into the place (i.e. the current share holders and die hards). haystack doesn't seem like a good comparison, that place is getting the high speeder resort treatment. could it potentially be bought out and not changed? it theoretically could happen? is it likely? no, i think that is even less likely than the coop selling out to begin with. it just seem likely to follow that the mountain would remain the same if it was sold. it doesn't have anything to do with snowboarding on the surface, but it does have everything to do with how for profit ski areas operate, and i would think that to be profitable after selling out it's major shareholders, the place would certainly need to appeal more to a mainstream audience, snowboarders and skiers alike.

this is all so moot it is beyond reason. sorry it has to come back to that, but it is ludicrous to talk about mrg being sold.


----------



## AdironRider (Jul 8, 2006)

River, your being just a tad hypocritical. In the last 5 pages of replies, at least a third are yours, yet you continue to rant about how we shouldnt talk about it. 

Making assumptions that boarders only care about pipes, hits, and widening of trails is a vast assumption made on your part. Watch any snowboard flick of the last 4 years and its filmed mostly in the backcountry. More and more snowboarders would rather take a romp through the trees, or a nice backcountry and find different hits/lines/etc on natural terrain. Anyone can hit a booter, but a natural hit  ... thats something that you can make your own. The sport has changed from the mid ninties, something you wouldnt understand as youve probably never given the time of day to really think it through. Just because Burton would be the "hypothetical" owner doesnt mean theyre going to McMountain the whole place. Just because Burton is a snowboard company doesnt mean theyre going to bulldoze paradise, make it a 200 yard wide groomer, and put a superpipe right where the single is, beneath a new high speed six pack or something. Since when does making a profit mean all the previously mentioned things? I agree, a new private owner would be interested in those things, but only a moron would buy a place like MRG, then completely remake the place into something its not. The only reason people go there now is because the place has that old school feel and great natural terrain, a new owner would want to keep these aspects alive. If they didnt, theyd go buy some other palce, where they could do just as you assume a new owner would, and deal with infinately less red tape. Dont take my comments the wrong way, but you have a very biased opinion on the issue, and your opinion is leading to some vast assumptions about the sport. .


----------



## riverc0il (Jul 8, 2006)

> River, your being just a tad hypocritical. In the last 5 pages of replies, at least a third are yours, yet you continue to rant about how we shouldnt talk about it.


perhaps i got caught up in a debative spirit or rather i don't like seeing posts stand that i disagrree with without a proper rebutal. which is the only reason i am replying once more, then i am taking my soap box and leaving this thread. you are right, i am biased on this issue, but i think my points are valid and you have not considered my entire arguement, but rather, you have only responded to the points of my arguement that support your view of the situation, which also suggests that you are very biased on the issue and are probably like wise making assumptions. watch any ski flick of the last 4 years and its fimled mostly in the back country. that doesn't mean ski areas that ignore groomers can make any money if it isn't a niche market. MRG would never have survived if it wasn't a niche market, and the niche market is skiers. there are not enough board popular to make up for that niche market. which is the very point you failed to address in your reply. 



> Since when does making a profit mean all the previously mentioned things?


how many other areas are profitable or sustainable business that don't have those things? you have turned my entire arguement around into an anti boarder arguement or made it appear that way when it is not the case. my arguement is how else could the mountain potentially survive without its hardcore niche base? that not enough boarders would ever go to MRG to make up for that niche base, which is also considering the fact that a boarders are a smaller percentage of the overall sliders in the area. i just don't see it, without a niche market, the mountain would need to change to survive, if it could survive at all (doubtful).

i'm off this hot potato. no sense being "hypocritical" just to ensure some words of reason are being heard.


----------



## sledhaulingmedic (Jul 8, 2006)

David Metsky said:
			
		

> Three actually; MRG, Alta, and Taos.
> 
> -dave-



I thought it was 4 MRG, Taos, Alta and Dear Valet?


----------



## John84 (Jul 8, 2006)

sledhaulingmedic said:
			
		

> I thought it was 4 MRG, Taos, Alta and Dear Valet?



It is.


----------



## JimG. (Jul 10, 2006)

riverc0il said:
			
		

> the niche market is skiers. there are not enough board popular to make up for that niche market. which is the very point you failed to address in your reply.
> 
> 
> my arguement is how else could the mountain potentially survive without its hardcore niche base? that not enough boarders would ever go to MRG to make up for that niche base, which is also considering the fact that a boarders are a smaller percentage of the overall sliders in the area. i just don't see it, without a niche market, the mountain would need to change to survive, if it could survive at all (doubtful).



You assume alot here.

Yes, the current niche market is skiers. How do you know there would not be enough snowboarder business to make up for even a total loss of skier visits? How do you know that all skier visits would cease? If there were enough boarder visits to make up for a total loss of skiers, why would the mountain have to change? Why couldn't boarders run it the same way as today? Why do you assume boarders would run it for profit?

I'm not up on snowboarder demographics, but I think we need some factual numbers here to back up these assumptions or these statements are as speculative as the post that started this thread.


----------



## highpeaksdrifter (Jul 10, 2006)

JimG. said:
			
		

> You assume alot here.
> 
> How do you know there would not be enough snowboarder business to make up for even a total loss of skier visits? .



I think they'd do more business with boarders. Where would the skiers who frequent MRG go to? Oil will probably say they'll earn their turns, some probablly will, but I still think it would be a net plus for their revenue.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 10, 2006)

Again, I'm not sure what the burning desire is.....

Is it folks want to snowboard there because they *can't?*

Or is it because of the terrain?  

I just don't understand why there is so much attention to this issue and so much energy spent on it.  It is only *one of three/four or so areas that snowboarders aren't allowed.*  Is there a snowboards only place anywhere?


----------



## JimG. (Jul 10, 2006)

highpeaksdrifter said:
			
		

> I think they'd do more business with boarders. Where would the skiers who frequent MRG go to? Oil will probably say they'll earn their turns, some probablly will, but I still think it would be a net plus for their revenue.



I think alot of current MRG skiers would still ski there as much as now. They would groan and moan about it, and probably threaten too, and I'm sure a bunch would cut off their own noses to spite their faces and stop going, but most MRG skiers would still ski there.

In a year nobody would even notice the change.


----------



## JimG. (Jul 10, 2006)

thetrailboss said:
			
		

> Again, I'm not sure what the burning desire is.....
> 
> Is it folks want to snowboard there because they *can't?*
> 
> ...



Some because they can't. The forbidden fruit thing. 

But I think the majority because of the terrain and vibe of the place. These riders are not the park rats who spend all day in the pipe. They are the freeriders who would eat up the terrain at MRG. Most of them wouldn't even want to see a terrain park and most wouldn't even use it.


----------



## Greg (Jul 10, 2006)

JimG. said:
			
		

> But I think the majority because of the terrain and vibe of the place. These riders are not the park rats who spend all day in the pipe. They are the freeriders who would eat up the terrain at MRG. Most of them wouldn't even want to see a terrain park and most wouldn't even use it.


I can see the off-trail stuff, but are there really that many riders that are into bumps which almost all official trails at MRG will have?


----------



## JimG. (Jul 10, 2006)

Greg said:
			
		

> I can see the off-trail stuff, but are there really that many riders that are into bumps which almost all official trails at MRG will have?



Good riders have no issues with bumps.

Who goes to MRG for the official trails though?


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 10, 2006)

JimG. said:
			
		

> Some because they can't. The forbidden fruit thing.
> 
> But I think the majority because of the terrain and vibe of the place. These riders are not the park rats who spend all day in the pipe. They are the freeriders who would eat up the terrain at MRG. Most of them wouldn't even want to see a terrain park and most wouldn't even use it.



Why not go to Castlerock then?  That is open to all.....

On that vein, how have snowboarders impacted C-Rock vs. MRG since the terrain is very similar?


----------



## JimG. (Jul 10, 2006)

thetrailboss said:
			
		

> Why not go to Castlerock then?



Sorry, I don't know how else to put this...

because it's not MRG.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 10, 2006)

JimG. said:
			
		

> Sorry, I don't know how else to put this...
> 
> because it's not MRG.



So it is the "forbidden fruit" thing then.  

Again, I wonder if you can compare impacts of CR to MRG to see how things would come out.


----------



## David Metsky (Jul 10, 2006)

highpeaksdrifter said:
			
		

> I think they'd do more business with boarders. Where would the skiers who frequent MRG go to? Oil will probably say they'll earn their turns, some probablly will, but I still think it would be a net plus for their revenue.


We're all engaging in wild speculation, but I seriously doubt it.  I just don't think there is much of a market for boarders who ski that kind of terrain or conditions.  Sure, there are some, but not many and not many who would come there repeatedly.  And you would lose some skiers who feel that MRG would be turning into just another small New England ski area.  Some skiers enjoy the place because it's different.  They fear the vibe would change, rightly or wrongly.

And I think you underestimate the core of MRG, the shareholders.  These are the folks who have voted for the snowboard ban and show no signs of changing their minds.  I'm not sure what it would take to convince them to lift the ban.  Keep in mind, they aren't looking to drastically increase the number of skiers/riders at MRG.  There's no uphill capacity for them anyways, the weekend lines already hit 30 minutes at times.

The only thing that might make sense to me would be to open things to boarders on weekdays, when there is excess capacity.  If that went well for a few years, it might open the door to full access.  That would be an interesting experiment.

 -dave-


----------



## Greg (Jul 10, 2006)

David Metsky said:
			
		

> I'm not sure what it would take to convince them to lift the ban.


*Source:* (item #5)



			
				Eric Friedman said:
			
		

> There are a few snowboards who own shares and they have not been terribly vocal about the issue. It really is a non-issue for the management and the shareholders. It only takes 3 trustees (out of 9) or a petition of 10% of the shareholders to bring it to a vote. This has never happened and there has never even been an initiative of any kind. In fact there was only one “straw poll” taken during the co-op’s first season and it has never come up again.


----------



## JimG. (Jul 10, 2006)

thetrailboss said:
			
		

> So it is the "forbidden fruit" thing then.
> 
> Again, I wonder if you can compare impacts of CR to MRG to see how things would come out.



But I don't think you can randomly apply that psychology to the entire group.

In reverse, I'm sure there are snowboarders who would never go to MRG even if the ban was lifted simply because there was a snowboard ban.

And while CR is somewhat similar to MRG, it's still CR and MRG is MRG.


----------



## JimG. (Jul 10, 2006)

David Metsky said:
			
		

> I just don't think there is much of a market for boarders who ski that kind of terrain or conditions.  Sure, there are some, but not many and not many who would come there repeatedly.
> -dave-



This is the key variable I just don't know. I'm hoping that since we've been civilized that some snowboarders might want to join in and sound off on what they think.


----------



## knuckledragger (Jul 10, 2006)

I will diagree with Dave on this one. The main reason I wnt to ride at mr is that very reson. I enjoy the trails that have not been groomed out and sculpted by dynamite. One of my favorite places was big spruce and specifically whirla way. This is a perfect example of a  trail in its natural state( now this has changed). Seeing how the same man who had a lot to do with the trails at stowe left stowe to buy and run mr it is probably the only place left except for castlerock.When i ride in the b.c. I know that there will be ups as well as downs water and boulders in my way. This surfing the terrain is what I look for. it is much more fun than riding down a trail that is 100 ft wide and has been sterlized for my protection.


----------



## David Metsky (Jul 10, 2006)

knuckledragger, I know that boarders like you exist.  I just don't think there are enough like you to offset the loss of skiers and the "vibe" that the MRG Co-op is seeking to preserve.  I never doubted that there are some folks like you, I know several personally, but I just don't think it would be enough who would put up with the often lousy conditions, slow lifts, and lack of amenities.

I'm not sure how you could conduct a real survey to find out numbers.  As I stressed in a previous post, the numbers themselves wouldn't convince the co-op to change.  Since they don't see a financial problem right now, coming up with a way to increase ticket sales isn't a top priority.  Preseving the "MRG experience" is more important to the shareholders.  And for better or worse, right now that includes the snowboard ban.

 -dave-


----------



## dmc (Jul 10, 2006)

David Metsky said:
			
		

> knuckledragger, I know that boarders like you exist.  I just don't think there are enough like you to offset the loss of skiers and the "vibe" that the MRG Co-op is seeking to preserve.  I never doubted that there are some folks like you, I know several personally, but I just don't think it would be enough who would put up with the often lousy conditions, slow lifts, and lack of amenities.
> 
> I'm not sure how you could conduct a real survey to find out numbers.  As I stressed in a previous post, the numbers themselves wouldn't convince the co-op to change.  Since they don't see a financial problem right now, coming up with a way to increase ticket sales isn't a top priority.  Preseving the "MRG experience" is more important to the shareholders.  And for better or worse, right now that includes the snowboard ban.
> 
> -dave-



So how about you let boarders in with a recomendation from an existing shareholder(s)...?
That way you could preserve your "MRG experience" and allow people who ride the way you like to enjoy the mountain with you...

Unless it is truley about excluding snowboarders then I'm wasting my breath.....


----------



## AdironRider (Jul 10, 2006)

Dave, your vastly misunderstanding the snowboarding community. I can confidently say that I have yet to meet a snowboarder who wouldnt go to a mountain because it didnt have a park, or didnt have a 200 foot wide groomer to blow past gapers or something. Every snowboarder I know would rather have sick natural terrain to play on, than the same old 30 foot tables you can get at even the smallest bunny hills these days. That is the lure of MRG, the whole "ski if  you can" aspect. Face it, most people if they try it a couple times could land a jump in the park, or 50 50 a rail these days. Its not really that hard, but riding a rediculous natural line takes alot more skill than that Besides, just as many skiers enjoy the park these days as boarders, go down any park in the east and there will just as many skiers  as boarders. In fact at Whiteface, I often see more skiers in the park than boarders, and half of them are in full race gear.


----------



## David Metsky (Jul 10, 2006)

Guys, I'm not a shareholder nor am I a big fan of the ban.

But, it exists.  I know a lot of the shareholders at MRG and it's not me you need to convince.  The people who are in charge of MRG don't see things the way you guys do.  And they don't have a great incentive to change things.  To the people who matter, nothing is broken, so there's no need to change.

Having said that, I think you underestimate how strongly shareholders feel about keeping things the way they are.  Part of the self-image is the exclusivity of the place, the fact that they are bucking the trend of the world of skiing.  The more snowboarders want in, the more it reinforces the desire to keep them out.  They'd never add snowmaking, or change the Single, or groom, or allow boarders because to do so would be a surrender to the forces on modernization.

I wish you luck, but it ain't gonna happen any time soon.

 -dave-


----------



## AdironRider (Jul 11, 2006)

I dont think any of us boarders are going to lose any sleep over the issue, but its fun to dream.


----------



## JimG. (Jul 11, 2006)

AdironRider said:
			
		

> I dont think any of us boarders are going to lose any sleep over the issue, but its fun to dream.



And that's all we're doing in this thread...a little dreaming.

I think Dave hit the nail on the head about the exclusivity factor...it seems that MRG's co-op likes the image the mountain has and will do alot to buck current ski resort trends. The more snowboarders want to ride there, the more the notion meets resistance. 

I give props to the snowboarders who responded here...you took a chance and I hope you see that we aren't trying to flame you guys. Your opinions are valued here and always welcomed.

I think dmc summed it up best...it's all about the ban and nothing else. Being in the middle and seeing both sides of the argument, I'll admit I don't see any way a peaceable resolution could be reached. A shame in my book, but I'll also admit I won't stop going there because of it.


----------



## Greg (Jul 11, 2006)

JimG. said:
			
		

> I think Dave hit the nail on the head about the exclusivity factor...it seems that MRG's co-op likes the image the mountain has and will do alot to buck current ski resort trends. The more snowboarders want to ride there, the more the notion meets resistance.


This is possible. As they say, any publicity is good publicity and just look at the popularity of this and similar threads about the MRG snowboard ban. However, I do not think the share holders are specifically maintaining the ban for this psedo-marketing value. I really think they simply just want to preserve the current MRG "experience", whether snowboarders (or skiers for that matter) agree with it or not.


----------



## JennyRousseau (Jul 11, 2006)

David Metsky said:
			
		

> No, you are wrong.  The MRG Co-operative is a non-profit cooperative.



Dave --

Thanks for correcting me on this issue.  However, the MRG Cooperative does "rebate" profits to it's shareholders through something called a "Patronage Rebate".  In essence, it allocates profits from the ski area operations back to the shareholders. So, it isn't a non-profit as you suggest as all profits after expenses are rebated to the shareholders.

Article X of the MRG Bylaws shows that the mountain is "non-profit" to its shareholders in that it does not retain earnings, rather it passes them through to its owners.

An example of a non-profit that you suggest that MRG is would be the Cochran's Ski Area. It clearly says that it is Not for Profit and is registered with the Federal Government as a 501(c)3 Non-Profit and is recognized as such under the IRS code.  This Page contains more information about Cochran's non-profit status.

To the best of my knowledge, Mad River Glen is not recognized as a non-profit by the IRS.  It is registered with the Vermont Secretary of State's offices as a "Marketing Cooperative" which is a special kind of "for profit" corporation established for the benefits -- including financial benefits -- of it's members.

I'm not a lawyer, but there are plenty here who could comment with some authority, other than quoting magazine articles.


----------



## JimG. (Jul 11, 2006)

JennyRousseau said:
			
		

> Dave --
> 
> Thanks for correcting me on this issue.  However, the MRG Cooperative does "rebate" profits to it's shareholders through something called a "Patronage Rebate".  In essence, it allocates profits from the ski area operations back to the shareholders. So, it isn't a non-profit as you suggest as all profits after expenses are rebated to the shareholders.
> 
> ...



Damned good retort and 2nd post Jenny...you guys are the experts on this legal stuff.


----------



## David Metsky (Jul 11, 2006)

Excellent response, and stuff to think about.  Has a patronage rebate ever been issued?  AFAIK, shareholders are required to spend a certain amount of "annual service committment" each year, which started at $200 and presumably has risen each year since.  Any extra money has gone to the Single Replacement fund or other capital improvements.

You are correct that there is a framework for profit to be distributed to shareholders but I don't think it has ever been used.  At some point in the future it is possible that shares of MRG could be a money making proposition, but that isn't the case today nor for the foreseeable future.  The shareholders know this and no one has purchased a share there with the intent of making money.  They know that a share will continue to cost them money each year.  It certainly is possible that shareholders would change their minds, but I have a hard time picturing it.

All this is based on conversations with shareholders and reading the bylaws, so I could be completely off base.  I'm not a lawyer and don't understand the laws relating to non-profit status.

 -dave-



			
				JennyRousseau said:
			
		

> Dave --
> 
> Thanks for correcting me on this issue.  However, the MRG Cooperative does "rebate" profits to it's shareholders through something called a "Patronage Rebate".  In essence, it allocates profits from the ski area operations back to the shareholders. So, it isn't a non-profit as you suggest as all profits after expenses are rebated to the shareholders.
> 
> ...


----------



## Mr MRG (Jul 11, 2006)

*Yikes!!!*

Wow, you take a little vacation and all hell breaks loose on "the zone". As you can ascertain from Burton's "request for removal" this story has absolutely no validity. I know all too well who perpetrated this crap. I prefer to take the high road on this one and just leave it at that. Pretty entertaining thread though!

Enjoy and....

THINK SNOW!!!!

Eric


----------



## Greg (Jul 11, 2006)

Mr MRG said:
			
		

> Wow, you take a little vacation and all hell breaks loose on "the zone". As you can ascertain from Burton's "request for removal" this story has absolutely no validity. I know all too well who perpetrated this crap. I prefer to take the high road on this one and just leave it at that. Pretty entertaining thread though!
> 
> Enjoy and....
> 
> ...


Well, there you have it. Not that many believed it anyways...


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 11, 2006)

Mr MRG said:
			
		

> Wow, you take a little vacation and all hell breaks loose on "the zone". As you can ascertain from Burton's "request for removal" this story has absolutely no validity. I know all too well who perpetrated this crap. I prefer to take the high road on this one and just leave it at that. Pretty entertaining thread though!
> 
> Enjoy and....
> 
> ...



The official word.  How many websites have this kind of info?  Not many.


----------



## Greg (Jul 11, 2006)

thetrailboss said:
			
		

> The official word.  How many websites have this kind of info?  Not many.


And I'd be curious to know how Burton got word of it. Via the blog itself, or this thread...


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Jul 11, 2006)

Mr MRG said:
			
		

> Wow, you take a little vacation and all hell breaks loose on "the zone". As you can ascertain from Burton's "request for removal" this story has absolutely no validity. I know all too well who perpetrated this crap. I prefer to take the high road on this one and just leave it at that. Pretty entertaining thread though!
> 
> Enjoy and....
> 
> ...


Eric Eric Eric......

Don't you know that there are people on this board who USED to actually work at Burton, and are therefore privy to the REAL information on what's going on?  They said it themselves in this very thread!  Looks like you're really getting the wool pulled over your eyes.


----------



## David Metsky (Jul 11, 2006)

Tin Woodsman said:
			
		

> Don't you know that there are people on this board who USED to actually work at Burton, and are therefore privy to the REAL information on what's going on?  They said it themselves in this very thread!  Looks like you're really getting the wool pulled over your eyes.


To be fair, all they said was that the encounter between Betsy and the 2 snowboards that is supposed to have taken place at the ski area in fact took place in town.  I have no problem believing that either or both happened, it doesn't seem to change things in the long run.

I think everyone (or almost everyone) safely came to the conclusion that the blog was made up out of whole cloth.  But the conversation has brought up some interesting points along the way.  And it's July, this is the only skiing we can talk about. 

 -dave-


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Jul 11, 2006)

David Metsky said:
			
		

> To be fair, all they said was that the encounter between Betsy and the 2 snowboards that is supposed to have taken place at the ski area in fact took place in town.  I have no problem believing that either or both happened, it doesn't seem to change things in the long run.


Doh!  My bad.


----------



## JennyRousseau (Jul 11, 2006)

David Metsky said:
			
		

> Excellent response, and stuff to think about.


Thanks, Dave.



			
				David Metsky said:
			
		

> Has a patronage rebate ever been issued?  AFAIK, shareholders are required to spend a certain amount of "annual service committment" each year, which started at $200 and presumably has risen each year since.  Any extra money has gone to the Single Replacement fund or other capital improvements.


Yep -- I'm pretty sure that the Board of MRG has voted them in the past.  With regards to actually paying them out, I'm not sure that it has been done.  I think that it sits in some form of a reserve fund -- presumably one that could be accessed for the single (or other unforseen capital expense).  I know that the powderjihad posting referenced a potential assessment on shareholders for the "financing hole" on the single lift.  

As I understand it, there are a lot of variables in actually paying for the single.  Losing $200K (at a minimum) this year can't have helped.

As it was explained to me, your patronage rebate share is calculated using your contributions (Annual Purchase Requirement, Pass Spending, Mad Money Purchase and other "trackables") as the numerator and all shareholder "trackables" as the denominator.  That ratio is applied against the total declared Patronage Rebate and is, acording to the by-laws, supposed to be done annually with notification to the shareholder as to the amount "on account".  I have no idea how that is actually done.

I recall a past board meeting where it was discussed as how to limit shareholder family member spending as it could potentially increase a shareholder's ratio.  The discussion, and its negative tone, convinced me that it wasn't the right place for me to invest.

I'm a weekday skier anyways -- the attitude of the weekend people at MRG drive me crazy and I'd rather be in the backcountry.


----------



## smootharc (Jul 12, 2006)

*Wouldn't mind an elaboration....*



			
				JennyRousseau said:
			
		

> I'm a weekday skier anyways -- the attitude of the weekend people at MRG drive me crazy and I'd rather be in the backcountry.



....on that particular observation....just out of curiosity.


----------



## Mr MRG (Jul 12, 2006)

*Patronage Rebates at MRG Co-op*

Yes, the Mad River Glen does offer Patronage Rebates to its shareholders in good seasons. The decision is made annually by the board of trustees (Mother Nature made the decision for them this season!) The way it works is that the shareholder would recieve the percentage of the net profits on THEIR actual spending. That is why we track shareholder spending with Mad Money. If my memory serves me correctly we have offered patronage rebates 3 times since the Co-op started. The shareholders receive a letter outlining their spending and their rebate. It also explains how if they don't take the rebate the money will go back "into the till". If they want to collect the money all they have to do is send in a letter requesting it. Over the years we have received only a handful of such request. The bottom line is that the rebates are relatively small $ amounts and the vast majority of shareholders just want the $ plowed back into the Co-op. Another great example of why our Co-op shareholders are so awesome. They are involved to protect and preserve the unique experience not to get deals. What a concept in this day and age!

Eric


----------



## JimG. (Jul 12, 2006)

Mr MRG said:
			
		

> Yes, the Mad River Glen does offer Patronage Rebates to its shareholders in good seasons. The decision is made annually by the board of trustees (Mother Nature made the decision for them this season!) The way it works is that the shareholder would recieve the percentage of the net profits on THEIR actual spending. That is why we track shareholder spending with Mad Money. If my memory serves me correctly we have offered patronage rebates 3 times since the Co-op started. The shareholders receive a letter outlining their spending and their rebate. It also explains how if they don't take the rebate the money will go back "into the till". If they want to collect the money all they have to do is send in a letter requesting it. Over the years we have received only a handful of such request. The bottom line is that the rebates are relatively small $ amounts and the vast majority of shareholders just want the $ plowed back into the Co-op. Another great example of why our Co-op shareholders are so awesome. They are involved to protect and preserve the unique experience not to get deals. What a concept in this day and age!
> 
> Eric



The unique experience is the deal...a true win-win.


----------



## JimG. (Jul 12, 2006)

JennyRousseau said:
			
		

> I'm a weekday skier anyways -- the attitude of the weekend people at MRG drive me crazy and I'd rather be in the backcountry.



Nice...wish I could swing that kind of work schedule and ski more weekdays than weekends.

My last trip to MRG was for a week...the weekend days were alot more crowded than the weekdays to be sure, but it was still alot calmer than other resorts on weekends. The weekdays were relatively empty except for the 2 powder days we had midweek and even then I was alone when skiing for the most part. Seems to me that's almost standard for any resort though. 

I guess it's different when you're a regular there. Being from NY, the vibe at MRG is so calm I'd have trouble getting worked up about anything.


----------



## JennyRousseau (Jul 12, 2006)

JimG. said:
			
		

> Nice...wish I could swing that kind of work schedule and ski more weekdays than weekends.


Yes, I am very lucky.  My job (and hours) are extremely flexible.

I find that I dress completely differently when I'm headed over the AppGap during the week. I drop at least a layer of insulation due to the fact that I keep moving.

On the rare times that I am there on the weekend, there is so much waiting around that I tend to get cold.

With regard to your other question, Jim, I find that most MRG Weekenders feel that they know the mountain well (and many do), but they have only experienced it with their weekend crowd -- and rarely during the week or pre- and post-lift turning.  So they only have 2/7th of the experience.  When they are around during a week, it's usually a ski week so that doesn't count.

I'm not big on the Aprés Ski social stuff anyway.


----------



## JimG. (Jul 12, 2006)

JennyRousseau said:
			
		

> When they are around during a week, it's usually a ski week so that doesn't count.
> 
> I'm not big on the Aprés Ski social stuff anyway.



Assuming you mean holiday ski week when you say "ski week", I totally agree. In fact, I don't like to ski at resorts during holiday periods and will avoid it unless I just won't be able to ski any other way (cause I'm not going to MISS a day of skiing you know).

It's difficult for us to adhere to this...we're a family of 5 and with 3 boys in school, it's tough to find times for family ski vacations outside of holiday periods. But we make it work even if we have to pull the boys out of school for a few days to do it. We just don't want to ski with everyone else who is going skiing for their 3-5 days of the season and pay inflated resort prices for a less than ideal experience. We often do the week before or week after holiday thing.

As for a social life, I spend alot of time with my pillow and blanket after chasing 3 young boys around all day.


----------



## Mad Skier (Jul 12, 2006)

JennyRousseau said:
			
		

> I'm not big on the Aprés Ski social stuff anyway.



Whats wrong w/ Apres ski??


----------



## David Metsky (Jul 12, 2006)

Mad Skier said:
			
		

> Whats wrong w/ Apres ski??


Not to speak for Jenny, but she never said anything about it being wrong, just that she wasn't big on it.  I feel the same way about snowboarding. :-D 

Sorry about that.

Except for having a beer in the bar, I don't think there's much Apres-Ski at MRG.  Well, the Telefest party is a lot of fun, but other than that...

 -dave-


----------



## Mad Skier (Jul 12, 2006)

Yeah and a little live music by the Stark Mtn boys and others for a couple of hours every so often.


----------



## smootharc (Jul 12, 2006)

*Sir, you should be arrested....*



			
				JimG. said:
			
		

> ...it's tough to find times for family ski vacations outside of holiday periods. But we make it work even if we have to pull the boys out of school for a few days to do it.



....for pulling your boys out of school. 

Even a day or two of missing being spoon-fed the "dumbed down for the lowest common denominator, standardized testing distilled, closed-minded, hyper-focused teaching of the average American school" to go skiing....and they might actually begin to think creatively for themselves.  That could lead to resistance to being pressed into the cookie cutter, and eventually result in anarchy and madness, destabilizing the American Way.  Would you want that?  What the heck kind of parent, and indeed human being, are you, anyways ?!#$!

And if you keep them in school, I won't be fighting the little runny-nosed buggers for first tracks, either !  Sheesh....


----------



## JimG. (Jul 12, 2006)

smootharc said:
			
		

> ....for pulling your boys out of school.
> 
> Even a day or two of missing being spoon-fed the "dumbed down for the lowest common denominator, standardized testing distilled, closed-minded, hyper-focused teaching of the average American school" to go skiing....and they might actually begin to think creatively for themselves.  That could lead to resistance to being pressed into the cookie cutter, and eventually result in anarchy and madness, destabilizing the American Way.  Would you want that?  What the heck kind of parent, and indeed human being, are you, anyways ?!#$!
> 
> And if you keep them in school, I won't be fighting the little runny-nosed buggers for first tracks, either !  Sheesh....



Since their absences for these ski trips are referred to as "illegal absences" on their report cards, you're right, I should be arrested. That's because I'm an idiot and told the truth when asked where they were, instead of lying and covering it up like some folks do. So bring on those handcuffs.

It's OK, because the best ski day my 2 oldest sons David and Peter ever had was during that trip to MRG...2 feet of fresh as their first real powder day. Their first day skiing glades. They still talk about it.


----------



## SkiDog (Jul 12, 2006)

JimG. said:
			
		

> Since their absences for these ski trips are referred to as "illegal absences" on their report cards, you're right, I should be arrested. That's because I'm an idiot and told the truth when asked where they were, instead of lying and covering it up like some folks do. So bring on those handcuffs.
> 
> It's OK, because the best ski day my 2 oldest sons David and Peter ever had was during that trip to MRG...2 feet of fresh as their first real powder day. Their first day skiing glades. They still talk about it.




i'd call that "life schooling" and some might call it "home schooling"...either way..tell those snot nosed school administrators to jump off a bridge...they hardly know anything anyway...you know whats best for your kid...they CERTIANLY do not...

no offense to teaching or school adminsitrators that may frequent this board....i know you'd never do something like this...you'd be out sliding too anyway ;-)

M


----------



## smootharc (Jul 12, 2006)

*Now that's what I call....*



			
				JimG. said:
			
		

> It's OK, because the best ski day my 2 oldest sons David and Peter ever had was during that trip to MRG...2 feet of fresh as their first real powder day. Their first day skiing glades. They still talk about it.



....good learnin'....

If I could home school and have the Mad River Valley as my ski classroom, well, I'd make my boys call me professor....


----------



## ALLSKIING (Jul 12, 2006)

My last trip to the bush over Pres day weekend was very busy and my daughters skiing class had a ton of kids in it and she really did not get much out of the class. After that trip I decided on our next trip I would pull her out of school, that was a great call she was the only person in her class...an 8 hr private lesson for $100 can't beat that and she really improved alot in 1 day.


----------



## JimG. (Jul 13, 2006)

ALLSKIING said:
			
		

> I decided on our next trip I would pull her out of school, that was a great call she was the only person in her class...an 8 hr private lesson for $100 can't beat that and she really improved alot in 1 day.



It really is the way to go for maximum enjoyment.


----------



## bigbog (Jul 13, 2006)

smootharc said:
			
		

> ....for pulling your boys out of school.
> 
> Even a day or two of missing being spoon-fed the "dumbed down for the lowest common denominator, standardized testing distilled, closed-minded, hyper-focused teaching of the average American school" to go skiing....and they might actually begin to think creatively for themselves.  That could lead to resistance to being pressed into the cookie cutter, and eventually result in anarchy and madness, destabilizing the American Way.  Would you want that?  What the heck kind of parent, and indeed human being, are you, anyways ?!#$!...


Good for you smootharc!...really needed to be said... :flag:  ..so JimG...this means you neglected to obey the administration's doctrine of USB2_port insertion & TCP/IP configuration with CNN.COM at birth..:blink:   Talk about a slacker parent...man o' man....


----------



## JimG. (Jul 13, 2006)

bigbog said:
			
		

> Good for you smootharc!...really needed to be said... :flag:  ..so JimG...this means you neglected to obey the administration's doctrine of USB2_port insertion & TCP/IP configuration with CNN.COM at birth..:blink:   Talk about a slacker parent...man o' man....



Just call me Neo.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 13, 2006)

bigbog said:
			
		

> Good for you smootharc!...really needed to be said... :flag:  ..so JimG...this means you neglected to obey the administration's doctrine of USB2_port insertion & TCP/IP configuration with CNN.COM at birth..:blink:   Talk about a slacker parent...man o' man....



:-?  Let's keep this on MRG and not on politics...

:wink:


----------



## highpeaksdrifter (Jul 13, 2006)

200 posts. I never would have thought that this thread with have this kinda run. MRG & borders has been talked about alot. I guess it will get talked about alot more. It is an interesting topic.


----------



## JimG. (Jul 13, 2006)

highpeaksdrifter said:
			
		

> 200 posts. I never would have thought that this thread with have this kinda run. MRG & borders has been talked about alot. I guess it will get talked about alot more. It is an interesting topic.



It's been driving the forum the past few days. That's why I've been nuturing it and trying to keep it from breaking out in flames.

I think everyone has been really good about keeping it that way. I know I stepped on a few toes along the way, most notably rivec0il who I think is still a little upset at me. I just didn't want to get caught up in analyzing the credibility of the source of the blog that started the conversation. I hope most folks took it with a 200 pound grain of salt from the start.

It's obvious that the skier/snowboarder feud and the MRG/snowboard debate has alot of play left in it.


----------



## Mad Skier (Jul 13, 2006)

this is about as friendly as this thread has ever been I would say.;-)


----------



## AdironRider (Jul 13, 2006)

JimG. said:
			
		

> It's been driving the forum the past few days. That's why I've been nuturing it and trying to keep it from breaking out in flames.
> 
> I think everyone has been really good about keeping it that way. I know I stepped on a few toes along the way, most notably rivec0il who I think is still a little upset at me. I just didn't want to get caught up in analyzing the credibility of the source of the blog that started the conversation. I hope most folks took it with a 200 pound grain of salt from the start.
> 
> It's obvious that the skier/snowboarder feud and the MRG/snowboard debate has alot of play left in it.



While I agree that the MRG/Boarder fued is still ongoing, I really dont see much of the skier/boarder hate going on much more, frankly, I see it more from older dudes with opinions formed in the mid eighties, a time that produced my favorite car of all time (the bmw e30 m3) but a stupid war between those who just want to get out and enjoy the snow. Ive noticed with the younger crowd, noone gives a rats ass, its always been skiing and boarding, and youd pick whichever one for some odd reason. Thoughts....


----------



## highpeaksdrifter (Jul 13, 2006)

AdironRider said:
			
		

> While I agree that the MRG/Boarder fued is still ongoing, I really dont see much of the skier/boarder hate going on much more, frankly, I see it more from older dudes with opinions formed in the mid eighties, a time that produced my favorite car of all time (the bmw e30 m3) but a stupid war between those who just want to get out and enjoy the snow. Ive noticed with the younger crowd, noone gives a rats ass, its always been skiing and boarding, and youd pick whichever one for some odd reason. Thoughts....



That's been discussed hear before and the concensous was pretty much what you stated.


----------



## BeanoNYC (Jul 13, 2006)

AdironRider said:
			
		

> While I agree that the MRG/Boarder fued is still ongoing, I really dont see much of the skier/boarder hate going on much more, frankly, I see it more from older dudes with opinions formed in the mid eighties, a time that produced my favorite car of all time (the bmw e30 m3) but a stupid war between those who just want to get out and enjoy the snow. Ive noticed with the younger crowd, noone gives a rats ass, its always been skiing and boarding, and youd pick whichever one for some odd reason. Thoughts....



One of my "Skiing Buddies":


----------



## SkiDog (Jul 14, 2006)

I basically only "ski" with boarders...my bro in law is a boarder, best friend. I actually go on all my west trips with at least one of those 2, and it made it so I didn't ski atla....but I did get snowbird and that was nice...I didn't hold a grudge or anything, we had plenty of fun at Park city and Snowbird...and if you don't know what you're missing you can't really miss it right? Maybe thats how the boarders should view MRG??? Just a thought... 

M


----------



## bruno (Jul 14, 2006)

David Metsky said:
			
		

> .  I feel the same way about snowboarding. :-D
> 
> Sorry about that.
> 
> -dave-



i agree wif bruthah metsky on this one! snowboarding is EVIL!!!:flame: :smash: :uzi: ;-) ;-) :argue: :flag:


----------



## skibum1321 (Jul 14, 2006)

I only ski with skiers. This is partly by design and partly because most of my friends ski. The only thing that I don't like about going with boarders is waiting for them to strap in. I also have very little patience waiting for slow skiers.


----------



## JimG. (Jul 14, 2006)

I slide with folks who can keep up.

I slide with folks who like the steeps. 

I slide with folks who like to explore the woods.

I slide with folks who like to earn turns when appropriate.

And I slide with folks who find alternate routes to keep up if they don't like one of the above.

I couldn't care less what's on their feet.


----------



## SkiDog (Jul 14, 2006)

JimG. said:
			
		

> I slide with folks who can keep up.
> 
> I slide with folks who like the steeps.
> 
> ...



Likewise.....so...when we slidin? 

M


----------



## BeanoNYC (Jul 14, 2006)

If you're laying on the ground, gasping for air and someone is coming to breathe life into you, does it matter if he/she ski's or rides?  (I give this speech to my students but substitute ski or rides with what race they are)


----------



## JimG. (Jul 14, 2006)

SkiDog said:
			
		

> Likewise.....so...when we slidin?
> 
> M



Starting mid-November. Just let me know when you're coming up.

When you moving up to NH? I'm planning a few trips to NH this coming season too.


----------



## awf170 (Jul 14, 2006)

JimG. said:
			
		

> Starting mid-November. Just let me know when you're coming up.
> 
> When you moving up to NH? I'm planning a few trips to NH this coming season too.



You bump bashers need a Wildcat AZ day in early april...


----------



## SkiDog (Jul 14, 2006)

JimG. said:
			
		

> Starting mid-November. Just let me know when you're coming up.
> 
> When you moving up to NH? I'm planning a few trips to NH this coming season too.



Still trying to find a house....but we've been traveling up to look and there are a few that are in the "running" so to speak. Likely by this winter at the latest though.

Phone interviewed for a position in Littleton Hospital for Net Admin, but I can never tell how those things go when not face 2 face....eh..time will tell..i'll find something.

T-Minus 3 3/4 months and counting til skiing starts...well roughly... ;-)

M


----------



## JennyRousseau (Oct 8, 2006)

*What's Up with MRG?*

This weekend, I heard that the single chairlift replacement may be delayed... can anyone confirm the stuff on that website?


----------



## bvibert (Oct 9, 2006)

JennyRousseau said:


> This weekend, I heard that the single chairlift replacement may be delayed... can anyone confirm the stuff on that website?



Last I heard it was still on track for work to start in Spring 07.  Have you heard otherwise?

http://forums.alpinezone.com/8283-mad-river-glens-single-chair.html
http://www.madriverglen.com/press/Press_Releases/?Page=single.html


----------



## Greg (Oct 9, 2006)

Yes. They're replacing it with a gondola... :roll:


----------



## bvibert (Oct 9, 2006)

Greg said:


> Yes. They're replacing it with a gondola... :roll:



Are you sure it's not a tram??


----------



## John84 (Oct 9, 2006)

I heard it was a gold plated elevator straight to the summit. Where did you guys get your crazy info from?


----------

