# Saddleback Mountain Cooperative - Information Thread & Survey



## salsgang (Aug 17, 2016)

There is a significant effort underway to organize a Saddleback Mountain Cooperative - similar in structure to Mad River Glen.

The organizers of the Saddleback Co-op need to rapidly gauge interest in making Saddleback a skier owned mountain. This survey is open to everyone interested - including all the condo owners, local Rangeley area residents, business owners, and the general public. It's essential that they get as many responses as possible so they can truly understand if we can raise the capital needed to open for the 2016-2017 season and make Saddleback a viable, thriving skiing cooperative!


You can take the survey here:


https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/6M5NXGN

Feel free to discuss and share. I am not a direct organizer, but I would be happy to answer questions as best I can.


----------



## Mapnut (Aug 17, 2016)

Would this be similar to the cooperative that got Big Tupper operating for a couple of seasons, while waiting for the owners to actually do something? Of course Saddleback people would be able to do much better because the lifts have not been out of service for 10 years, and the mountain gets enough snow to operate for much of the winter without snowmaking. Do they really hope to raise enough money to buy the whole property?


----------



## salsgang (Aug 17, 2016)

Mapnut said:


> Would this be similar to the cooperative that got Big Tupper operating for a couple of seasons, while waiting for the owners to actually do something? Of course Saddleback people would be able to do much better because the lifts have not been out of service for 10 years, and the mountain gets enough snow to operate for much of the winter without snowmaking. Do they really hope to raise enough money to buy the whole property?



As I understand it this is an "all-in" co-op meaning the intention is to buy the entire ski area and operate it under the co-op. It will be in chunks but the first chunk of money would be used to buy the ski area itself, then as more fundraising comes in buy other land and put under the cooperative umbrella.


----------



## Jully (Aug 17, 2016)

Any word on what the Berry family thinks of this?


----------



## salsgang (Aug 17, 2016)

Jully said:


> Any word on what the Berry family thinks of this?



I do know the lead organizer has had conversations with members of the Berry family. They are open to it and certainly would need to be supportive of the initiative in order for it to succeed. In the end the co-op has to come up with the funds. Time will tell.


----------



## WWF-VT (Aug 17, 2016)

"_Overall,we need to raise $20 million over four years to make the ski areaself-sustaining.   In the first year, toget the mountain up and running in 2016-2017, we need to raise between $3million and $6 million, and fast.  Thisconcept is based on other successful operating cooperative or club models around the country"  

_Where did they get these numbers  ?


----------



## salsgang (Aug 17, 2016)

WWF-VT said:


> "_Overall,we need to raise $20 million over four years to make the ski areaself-sustaining.   In the first year, toget the mountain up and running in 2016-2017, we need to raise between $3million and $6 million, and fast.  Thisconcept is based on other successful operating cooperative or club models around the country"
> 
> _Where did they get these numbers  ?



Organizers worked with Saddleback Management to ascertain operating budget numbers and pricing on the ski resort and land.


----------



## joshua segal (Aug 17, 2016)

I can pretty much confirm what salsang said.  The plan is well thought out and has been developed over a period of many months.  A few details cited above were taken out of context.


----------



## Jully (Aug 17, 2016)

I wonder what the cost of the ski area and the surrounding land is for the co-op. Will the Berry family give them a slightly more favorable deal?


----------



## joshua segal (Aug 17, 2016)

Jully said:


> I wonder what the cost of the ski area and the surrounding land is for the co-op. Will the Berry family give them a slightly more favorable deal?


While anybody can guess, only the Berrys know the answers.

Please help the "Saddleback Co-op" team by replying to the survey below:

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/6M5NXGN


----------



## mbedle (Aug 17, 2016)

Question on the survey - I don't have a family, so how should I answer those questions? Should I put none or other and explain that I don't have a family or am not interested in something like that?


----------



## joshua segal (Aug 17, 2016)

mbedle said:


> Question on the survey - I don't have a family, so how should I answer those questions? Should I put none or other and explain that I don't have a family or am not interested in something like that?



From the Saddleback Foundation: "They can just put none under that question or not answer it."


----------



## mbedle (Aug 17, 2016)

Thanks you.


----------



## Smellytele (Aug 18, 2016)

While I love Saddleback, I only get to ski there 1 or 2 times over any 2 year period. It is just too far to make a season pass work. As with MRG I just don't see the reward of buying a share. Yes if I was one of the condo owners or a business owner in the area I can see why they are grasping at anything that can make it work. Giving even $500 to me is just not worth it.


----------



## joshua segal (Aug 18, 2016)

Smellytele said:


> While I love Saddleback, I only get to ski there 1 or 2 times over any 2 year period. It is just too far to make a season pass work. As with MRG I just don't see the reward of buying a share. Yes if I was one of the condo owners or a business owner in the area I can see why they are grasping at anything that can make it work. Giving even $500 to me is just not worth it.



The Foundation is trying to gauge the level of public support beyond the obvious  beneficiaries (local businesses and condo owners) and while $500 might not be justifiable in your case, they would feel some love even if you chipped in with as little as $25.


----------



## joshua segal (Aug 18, 2016)

There will be a meeting (open to the public) on Sunday August 21 at Gorham Ski and Bike, 693 Congress Street, Portland at 7PM.  Jamie Wright, the owner, will be hosting the meeting.


----------



## wa-loaf (Aug 18, 2016)

Where can I buy a Save Saddleback t-shirt?


----------



## Edd (Aug 18, 2016)

wa-loaf said:


> Where can I buy a Save Saddleback t-shirt?



I'd buy one of those.


----------



## salsgang (Aug 18, 2016)

Updated Portland Area Informational Meeting Locations and Times:


- Thursday Aug 18 - 7pm at the Hayes Residence 5 Indian Hill Lane in Scarborough. Call 207.885.5512 if you need directions.
- Sunday Aug 21 - 7pm at Gorham Ski & Bike 693 Congress Street, in Portland.


At both meetings Peter Stein will be presenting the latest Co-op plan and answering questions. Thank you to the Hayes family and Jamie Wright for hosting these meetings. No RSVP needed. Please come and learn more!


----------



## doublediamond (Aug 18, 2016)

Mapnut said:


> Would this be similar to the cooperative that got Big Tupper operating for a couple of seasons, while waiting for the owners to actually do something? Of course Saddleback people would be able to do much better because the lifts have not been out of service for 10 years, and the mountain gets enough snow to operate for much of the winter without snowmaking. Do they really hope to raise enough money to buy the whole property?



As far as I konw, Big Tupper was not a co-op like MRG. It is/was a non-profit much like how Big Squaw is run.


----------



## steamboat1 (Aug 18, 2016)

Very sad to see the future of Saddleback come down to this. I wish you luck.


----------



## joshua segal (Aug 20, 2016)

steamboat1 said:


> Very sad to see the future of Saddleback come down to this. I wish you luck.



Sad? No.  Realistic? Yes.

Consider the Berrys put $40M into the ski area, including $6M into the base lodge - and after all of that effort and investment, the area is worth less than the cost of the lodge.  Anyone looking at a big picture of skier visits and the stagnation of the industry would realize that Saddleback is less than an investment-quality investment.

Whereas as a co-op, Saddleback should be able to operate stably and in the black on 80 to 100K skier visits.

Times have changed:
1. There is huge competition for the winter sports dollar
2. The feeder hills for the big areas have disappeared
3. Since the mid-80s trickle-down economics, the middle-class has been slowly disappearing and young people don't have the money for an expensive sport like skiing.

For skiing to survive, a new paradigm is needed.  MRG proved that the co-op model can work.  They were ahead of the times.  It will be interesting to see how Saddleback does, but IMO, in the absence of an angel, the co-op root is their best chance.


----------



## mbedle (Aug 20, 2016)

Joshua - what makes you think that a co-op can operate saddleback in the black on 80 - 100K skier visits, when the Berries couldn't? I am pretty sure that Berry family members have loaned money to keep the resort open over the the past couple of years. MRG has a couple of things going for it that Saddleback does not. They have a very unique marketing campaign (skiers only and the single chair, are located closer to more metropolitan areas and are also a non-profit). They also have a significantly larger resort 15 minutes down the road that most likely feeds them some skiers. They rely on donations and volunteer work days to maintain and operate the resort. If MRG actually had to pay to refurbish the single chair, it never would have happened.  There is nothing wrong with that business model and it has worked for the past 20 years. Saddleback, unfortunately, doesn't have those all those things going for it. I don't want to see this place stay closed, but can't grasp how a co-op is going to turn this business around.


----------



## Newpylong (Aug 20, 2016)

joshua segal said:


> Sad? No.  Realistic? Yes.
> 
> Consider the Berrys put $40M into the ski area, including $6M into the base lodge - and after all of that effort and investment, the area is worth less than the cost of the lodge.  Anyone looking at a big picture of skier visits and the stagnation of the industry would realize that Saddleback is less than an investment-quality investment.
> 
> ...



Even with what little I know about SB I think it is highly unlikely they will operate in the black. I would expect continued investment/subsidies by shareholders yearly for operations. That is, unless operational costs are reduced substantially ie minimal to no snowmaking.

Feeder hills are getting stronger after a steady decline since the early 90s. People are seeing the value of local community run hills and the big boys are supportive in general of them.


----------



## joshua segal (Aug 20, 2016)

To mbedie:  You ask, "what makes you think that a co-op can operate saddleback in the black on 80 - 100K skier visits ...".  Simply, skiing ops (according to data I saw) were in the black 3 of the last 4 seasons they operated with typical skier-visit days averaging 90K per year.  Also, keep in mind that a not-for-profit does not have to provide investment-grade returns.  Keep in mind: ASC skiing operations were profitable.  What killed them was the cost of servicing their debt.

To newpylong: You said, "Feeder hills are getting stronger after a steady decline since the early 90s. People are seeing the value of local community run hills and the big boys are supportive in general of them."  The decline of feeder hills started in the 70s.  (Check http://nelsap.org). The kinds of feeder hills I'm talking about are the ones that are within an hour of a major city.  I can't think of a single new one in the last 30 years!


----------



## xwhaler (Aug 20, 2016)

Massive difference between SB and MRG in the co op operating model is the owned land. MRG can't do anything to add revenue beyond the ski area boundary.   SB co op model will be acquiring lots of land with which to develop/sell off (housing development and/or timber $)


----------



## joshua segal (Aug 20, 2016)

xwhaler said:


> Massive difference between SB and MRG in the co op operating model is the owned land. MRG can't do anything to add revenue beyond the ski area boundary.   SB co op model will be acquiring lots of land with which to develop/sell off (housing development and/or timber $)


The plan is quite complete and I still do not know how much of the plan is public, but xwhaler is right on with this.


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 20, 2016)

Honest question. If the ski area can be profitable at 80k-100k visits, why didn't the Berry's use the plan in the past?


----------



## joshua segal (Aug 20, 2016)

deadheadskier said:


> Honest question. If the ski area can be profitable at 80k-100k visits, why didn't the Berry's use the plan in the past?


I can't second guess the Berry's thinking.  But I can guess that they plain burned out.  The inability to get a bank to loan them the money for the new lift was the last straw.


----------



## mbedle (Aug 21, 2016)

Joshua - sorry, I wasn't aware that this place was making money. My understanding was that family members in the past couple of years had to loan money to the owners to keep the place going. I think when I did the math, based on deed records, it was around a million. I  think they also had to sell off some land to get some cash, but not sure when that happened.  It is also odd, because if they had made money 3 out of 4 last season, you would think they would have been able to obtain financing to replace the lift. And why would anyone shut down a business that is making money? As far as ASC, what do they have to do with Saddleback?


----------



## MEtoVTSkier (Aug 21, 2016)

If it was profitable, then I'm sure somewhere along the line, financing for a replacing the double would have been available. Obviously, no one was willing to take a chance on them, and that is very telling. If they were constantly infusing more money to stay afloat, then I wouldn't finance the lift either.


----------



## machski (Aug 21, 2016)

mbedle said:


> Joshua - sorry, I wasn't aware that this place was making money. My understanding was that family members in the past couple of years had to loan money to the owners to keep the place going. I think when I did the math, based on deed records, it was around a million. I  think they also had to sell off some land to get some cash, but not sure when that happened.  It is also odd, because if they had made money 3 out of 4 last season, you would think they would have been able to obtain financing to replace the lift. And why would anyone shut down a business that is making money? As far as ASC, what do they have to do with Saddleback?



You all need to pay attention.  The "Operation" was profitable but the company was not.  What's the difference?  If you are just operating the mountain, you can make money.  Where the company was bleeding money was on the servicing of the debt for new lifts/lodge/snowmaking.  If you are free of the debt and just plan to operate what is there when you buy, that can be profitable if not bought on debt.


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 21, 2016)

I thought the Berry's self financed the improvements they made no?


----------



## Jully (Aug 21, 2016)

machski said:


> You all need to pay attention.  The "Operation" was profitable but the company was not.  What's the difference?  If you are just operating the mountain, you can make money.  Where the company was bleeding money was on the servicing of the debt for new lifts/lodge/snowmaking.  If you are free of the debt and just plan to operate what is there when you buy, that can be profitable if not bought on debt.



Basically the costs of running the ski area worked out, but operations couldn't support the tens of millions of improvements the Berry's put into the place? Lose that debt and a 90k skier vists/year saddleback works. I could see that.

My only thought though, is why didn't buyers want it then?


----------



## xwhaler (Aug 21, 2016)

machski said:


> You all need to pay attention.  The "Operation" was profitable but the company was not.  What's the difference?  If you are just operating the mountain, you can make money.  Where the company was bleeding money was on the servicing of the debt for new lifts/lodge/snowmaking.  If you are free of the debt and just plan to operate what is there when you buy, that can be profitable if not bought on debt.



This has been the most logical/accurate post in weeks on this topic.  Well said


----------



## salsgang (Aug 21, 2016)

xwhaler said:


> This has been the most logical/accurate post in weeks on this topic.  Well said



Agreed - I think the debt servicing is the killer for the Berry's. If anyone is in the Portland Maine area tonight there is a meeting about the co-op 7pm at Gorham ski and bike 693 Congress Street Portland. The co-op organizers will present the plan and answer questions.


----------



## yeggous (Aug 21, 2016)

joshua segal said:


> To mbedie:  You ask, "what makes you think that a co-op can operate saddleback in the black on 80 - 100K skier visits ...".  Simply, skiing ops (according to data I saw) were in the black 3 of the last 4 seasons they operated with typical skier-visit days averaging 90K per year.  Also, keep in mind that a not-for-profit does not have to provide investment-grade returns.  Keep in mind: ASC skiing operations were profitable.  What killed them was the cost of servicing their debt.
> 
> To newpylong: You said, "Feeder hills are getting stronger after a steady decline since the early 90s. People are seeing the value of local community run hills and the big boys are supportive in general of them."  The decline of feeder hills started in the 70s.  (Check http://nelsap.org). The kinds of feeder hills I'm talking about are the ones that are within an hour of a major city.  I can't think of a single new one in the last 30 years!



Crotched is a new feeder hill.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## Quietman (Aug 21, 2016)

Today Crotched is, and it is still struggling to find its niche.  Interesting to see how it fares under Peaks master plan while pissing off some locals (like me) to be a part of a cog in a big wheel.  Will it be the choice of more that face weekend blackouts at the bigger Peaks areas, or will it suffer as the smallest cog in the northeast wheel?  Sad thing is that mountains of this size and snowmaking firepower are now the "feeder" hills while so many great local hills remain only in peoples memories and are some times documented on NELSAP.  So sad that Ascutney is now gone(with Crotched cherry picking the HS quad), and great areas like Saddleback, Magic and Burke are on the bubble.  Heck, even Mt Abram, Black of ME and so many others are hanging on by a thread. People like to chime in about keeping Magic and MRG alive, while there are a lot of other worthy mountains that are also struggling.  We need to teach our kids to ski, and our ski areas need to accommodate  families and never evers with cheap rates to encourage new skiers or things will go down hill rapidly, and not in a good way.


----------



## joshua segal (Aug 22, 2016)

yeggous said:


> Crotched is a new feeder hill.


Totally disagree.  My definition of a feeder hill is a cheap place where kids can hang out after school with pretty minimal minimal vertical (under 500'), pretty minimal lifts, pretty minimal price and pretty limited amenities.  There are still a dozen or so in New England, but in the greater Boston region, even Nashoba Valley and the Blue Hills have too many amenities and chairlifts to be a feeder hill the way the 50 or so feeder hills(listed in http:/nelsap.org/ma/ma.html) in Eastern MA used to be.


----------



## joshua segal (Aug 22, 2016)

Quietman said:


> Today Crotched is, and it is still struggling to find its niche.  Interesting to see how it fares under Peaks master plan while pissing off some locals (like me) to be a part of a cog in a big wheel.  Will it be the choice of more that face weekend blackouts at the bigger Peaks areas, or will it suffer as the smallest cog in the northeast wheel?  Sad thing is that mountains of this size and snowmaking firepower are now the "feeder" hills while so many great local hills remain only in peoples memories and are some times documented on NELSAP.  So sad that Ascutney is now gone(with Crotched cherry picking the HS quad), and great areas like Saddleback, Magic and Burke are on the bubble.  Heck, even Mt Abram, Black of ME and so many others are hanging on by a thread. People like to chime in about keeping Magic and MRG alive, while there are a lot of other worthy mountains that are also struggling.  We need to teach our kids to ski, and our ski areas need to accommodate  families and never evers with cheap rates to encourage new skiers or things will go down hill rapidly, and not in a good way.


I disagree that CM is trying to find its niche.  It has a similar market to Pats Peak whom I would consider to be its main competitor.  

While a few locals may be a little annoyed with Peak, the bundling of season passes has been very successful with most of the major players in the industry and a lot more people like the bundling than not.


----------



## Tin (Aug 22, 2016)

joshua segal said:


> Totally disagree.  My definition of a feeder hill is a cheap place where kids can hang out after school with pretty minimal minimal vertical (under 500'), pretty minimal lifts, pretty minimal price and pretty limited amenities.



This is Crotched. Kids outnumber adults, it has just the basics, low vertical, and when comparing price others it is quite minimal. I believe it has found its niche with being a "feeder hill", it is a spot loaded with kids, some families, and new skiers. If you go to many places you define as a feeder hill (Blue, Yawgoo, Sundown, etc.) you will see a mirror image of customers. As far as cost, $64 is not minimal for a lift ticket but even places like Yawgoo (with all 230' of vert) and Blue Hill charge $45-$48 for a weekend day, it is just the going rate these days. The Rocket and snowmaking system is not exactly minimal but I believe they had to do something to start getting some of the metro-Boston business and put a dent into Pat's/Ragged business (and mentioning skiing until 3am was not going to cut it in their radio ads). And these days, a high speed lift and great snowmaking are not exactly considered "polish". Ski Sundown was burying all its trails in a 6-7' base and being 100% open before January well before Crotched got its system. I would say the only real places in southern New England that are not "feeder hills" are Jiminy, WaWa, and Berkie seems to be moving off that list. 



Quietman, what is Crotched/Peaks doing to piss off locals? I would be irritated enough with the traffic but the smokey's, or smokey lol, up there seem to be all over it and be handing out tickets.


----------



## Jully (Aug 22, 2016)

Additionally snowmaking is essential for any area in the northeast south of Burlington VT to survive today.


----------



## joshua segal (Aug 22, 2016)

Tin said:


> This is Crotched. Kids outnumber adults, it has just the basics, low vertical, and when comparing price others it is quite minimal. I believe it has found its niche with being a "feeder hill", it is a spot loaded with kids, some families, and new skiers. If you go to many places you define as a feeder hill (Blue, Yawgoo, Sundown, etc.) you will see a mirror image of customers. As far as cost, $64 is not minimal for a lift ticket but even places like Yawgoo (with all 230' of vert) and Blue Hill charge $45-$48 for a weekend day, given what Crotched has, it is just the going rate these days. The Rocket and snowmaking system is not exactly minimal but I believe they had to do something to start getting some of the metro-Boston business and put a dent into Pat's/Ragged business (and mentioning skiing until 3am was not going to cut it in their radio ads).
> 
> 
> Quietman, what is Crotched/Peaks doing to piss off locals? I would be irritated enough with the traffic but the smokey's, or smokey lol, up there seem to be all over it and be handing out tickets.


Except for the immediate after-school programs, I disagree that kids outnumber adults.  Come there on any week day AM, it's mostly retired people!

And Midnight Madness may be primarily the 16 to 35 year-old crowd, it is definitely not a kids program!

And answering for quietman,  there is no longer a Crotched-Mtn-only season pass.  There are a variety of season pass options available that included a variety of Peak resort packages, but for those who want to ski only CM, it was a $100 bump in price.


----------



## Tin (Aug 22, 2016)

joshua segal said:


> Except for the immediate after-school programs, I disagree that kids outnumber adults.  Come there on any week day AM, it's mostly retired people!
> 
> And Midnight Madness may be primarily the 16 to 35 year-old crowd, it is definitely not a kids program!
> 
> And answering for quietman,  there is no longer a Crotched-Mtn-only season pass.  There are a variety of season pass options available that included a variety of Peak resort packages, but for those who want to ski only CM, it was a $100 bump in price.




Of course it will be during weekdays. If there were kids, you would have a serious truancy problem up there. Glad to know there are doing lots of after school programs, get more kids into skiing.

 I had a season pass there for 2012-2013 and 2013-2014, I would say during the day on Sat-Sun and weeknights, kids definitely outnumbered everyone else, mostly in that 8-14 year old range. Since they mostly ski during the day, they are not going to be there at night. Midnight madness is not designed/marketed to be a kids program. In their advertising they clearly try to appeal to more high school/college/people in their 20s (its all about music, a barnfire, and beer in the radio ads I've heard down here). 

That sucks about not having a Crotched only pass. I would be upset as a local as well. The idea that you cannot have a pass for it does make it less of a feeder hill. I definitely think Crotched has found its niche though and is stuck in it due to the area...(unless they expand to the old side, some great terrain over there, and start doing Jiminy-like stuff).

Crotched does not have the traditional boring feeder hill terrain though given the wood/ledges and side areas.


----------



## Edd (Aug 22, 2016)

Any weekday I go to Crotched, it's a complete ghost town in the morning, even by ski area standards. Come afternoon, the kids roar in, which is not the vibe I like, but it's what Crotched needs.


----------



## WWF-VT (Aug 22, 2016)

Back to the original topic.....take a look at the 2016 Mad River Glen 20th Anniversary Co-Op Shareholders meeting to get an inside view of the reality of what it takes to make MRG run:

http://vp.telvue.com/preview?id=T04907&video=272000


----------



## DoublePlanker (Aug 22, 2016)

The MRG coop website is full of information.  http://www.madriverglen.coop/


----------



## salsgang (Aug 25, 2016)

A message from Peter Stein, the lead organizer for the Saddleback Ski Area Co-op initiative. "All – Please keep those surveys coming!!! The response has been tremendous so far and it is driving us forward. It is very important that everyone effected by Saddleback's closure fills in a survey. We are now absorbing all the information and will release a revised plan as soon as possible."


Survey link here - https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/6M5NXGN


----------



## Smellytele (Aug 31, 2016)

Any update on the results?


----------



## Jcb890 (Aug 31, 2016)

joshua segal said:


> Totally disagree.  My definition of a feeder hill is a cheap place where kids can hang out after school with pretty minimal minimal vertical (under 500'), pretty minimal lifts, pretty minimal price and pretty limited amenities.  There are still a dozen or so in New England, but in the greater Boston region, even Nashoba Valley and the Blue Hills have too many amenities and chairlifts to be a feeder hill the way the 50 or so feeder hills(listed in http:/nelsap.org/ma/ma.html) in Eastern MA used to be.



Nowhere has minimal prices any more.  Ward Hill in Shrewsbury is tiny, doesn't have much, but it is still pricey for what it is.  Wachusett is much bigger and more aligned with a normal ski resort/mountain, but still pricey for what it is.

Pretty much everywhere in New England needs snowmaking to be viable.


----------



## salsgang (Aug 31, 2016)

Smellytele said:


> Any update on the results?



Spoke to Peter Stein on the phone today. Peter indicated there is a narrow but viable path to open the ski area this year. Lot of moving parts of course but there is definitely momentum to make this a reality. I think the 'fundraising call' will come soon.


Peter indicated the survey is very impactful in showing community support for the mountain. If you have not filled one out yet it is not too late. Here is the link.


https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/6M5NXGN


I will post more info as I receive it.


----------



## Jully (Aug 31, 2016)

Jcb890 said:


> Nowhere has minimal prices any more.  Ward Hill in Shrewsbury is tiny, doesn't have much, but it is still pricey for what it is.  Wachusett is much bigger and more aligned with a normal ski resort/mountain, but still pricey for what it is.
> 
> Pretty much everywhere in New England needs snowmaking to be viable.



There are a few places further up north that are truly 'cheap' meaning Quoggy Jo, Living Memorial Park, Storrs Hill, etc. However, those are just not really possible in MA and especially not in CT anymore.


----------



## Jully (Aug 31, 2016)

salsgang said:


> Spoke to Peter Stein on the phone today. Peter indicated there is a narrow but viable path to open the ski area this year. Lot of moving parts of course but there is definitely momentum to make this a reality. I think the 'fundraising call' will come soon.
> 
> 
> Peter indicated the survey is very impactful in showing community support for the mountain. If you have not filled one out yet it is not too late. Here is the link.
> ...



Any word on the Co-op action making a traditional buyer step up and move forward?


----------



## bdfreetuna (Aug 31, 2016)

I'm committed to a Saddleback ski trip this year if they open!


----------



## salsgang (Aug 31, 2016)

Jully said:


> Any word on the Co-op action making a traditional buyer step up and move forward?



I have only been privy to info on the co-op effort. Unclear if the other buyers are still in the game or if this is motivating them or not.


----------



## salsgang (Oct 3, 2016)

A message from Peter Stein - lead organizer for the Saddleback co-op initiative.

"We have made considerable progress in our efforts to turn Saddleback into a community owned resort, and begin what would be a model conservation and economic development project. Last week we submitted to the Berry Family a plan that allows us to immediately begin preparations of the ski area for the 2016-2017 season, while fundraising in an achievable fashion to operate the ski area and purchase it and the available land over the following year. Our understanding is the Berrys are evaluating this plan along with other offers. All of us are aware time is running out to begin preparing the ski area for an x-mas holiday opening. At this point our team is waiting for them to make what we are sure are difficult decisions. We will update you as soon as more information becomes available. "


----------



## bdfreetuna (Oct 3, 2016)

Well that's encouraging. Didn't know opening this year was even on the table.


----------



## SIKSKIER (Oct 5, 2016)

bdfreetuna said:


> Well that's encouraging. Didn't know opening this year was even on the table.


I agree but being the wise ass I am I'll say that according to the Berrys SB cant open unless they install that new lift.


----------



## bdfreetuna (Oct 5, 2016)

They should just sell the old lift for some cash, use 1/4 of that cash to install a T-bar in the same spot, and call it a day. Voila, no more wind holds.


----------



## Jully (Oct 5, 2016)

bdfreetuna said:


> They should just sell the old lift for some cash, use 1/4 of that cash to install a T-bar in the same spot, and call it a day. Voila, no more wind holds.



Lol. I'm not even certain that they can install a T-bar with 1/4 the cash. Not sure how much you could get for that double. The Berrys were trying to sell the base terminal for $300,000 two summers ago. Not sure how much more you could get if you included everything...


----------



## dlague (Oct 5, 2016)

bdfreetuna said:


> They should just sell the old lift for some cash, use 1/4 of that cash to install a T-bar in the same spot, and call it a day. Voila, no more wind holds.



Long ass T-bar ride!  And it would take a good run!


----------



## bdfreetuna (Oct 5, 2016)

T-bar on the way up, slalom course on the way down


----------



## dlague (Oct 5, 2016)

bdfreetuna said:


> T-bar on the way up, slalom course on the way down



haha good one!


----------



## Mapnut (Oct 5, 2016)

They could just extend the Cupsuptic T-bar 800 feet.


----------



## dlague (Oct 5, 2016)

Mapnut said:


> They could just extend the Cupsuptic T-bar 800 feet.



Technically that t-bar is already good enough to get to most trails in that pod and you can still make it over to Kennebago Lift.  Not optimal but would be good enough to get the ball rolling with out the double


----------



## Jully (Oct 5, 2016)

They'er definitely just going to operate with the double if they do operate. There was nothing wrong with it, the Berrys juts decided that enough was enough and they could not make a profit with the double as their main lift.


----------



## billski (Oct 24, 2016)

Jully said:


> They'er definitely just going to operate with the double if they do operate. There was nothing wrong with it, the Berrys juts decided that enough was enough and they could not make a profit with the double as their main lift.



This is a nail-biter.  I'm not going to ask if there is anything new, since I'm sure it would show up here in 0.2 nanoseconds.  I'd ski all day in Casablanca assuming I could get there from the double.  No operating expense over there except maybe a rope and sign or two.  Do I have that right?


----------



## joshua segal (Oct 24, 2016)

Peter Stein, who is leading the Saddleback Mountain initiative announced earlier today:

"I am incredibly excited to announce that our initiative will be holding a press conference this Thursday at 11 AM at The Trust for Public Land, 30 Danforth Street, Portland. Please come if you can, wear something Saddleback, and spread the word."

I'm pretty sure this is the good news that all Saddleback fans have been waiting for.


----------



## Jully (Oct 24, 2016)

Good for the Co-Op for actually sticking to their proposed date too! When they said good news next week one week ago I doubted that we would actually hear anything. 

I'm excited to hear what the meeting brings.


----------



## bdfreetuna (Oct 24, 2016)

joshua segal said:


> Peter Stein, who is leading the Saddleback Mountain initiative announced earlier today:
> 
> "I am incredibly excited to announce that our initiative will be holding a press conference this Thursday at 11 AM at The Trust for Public Land, 30 Danforth Street, Portland. Please come if you can, wear something Saddleback, and spread the word."
> 
> I'm pretty sure this is the good news that all Saddleback fans have been waiting for.



:beer::beer::beer:


----------



## jimmywilson69 (Oct 25, 2016)

If they are able to get something rolling, albeit even on a limited basis for this season.  That's nothing short of amazing.


----------



## joshua segal (Oct 25, 2016)

jimmywilson69 said:


> If they are able to get something rolling, albeit even on a limited basis for this season.  That's nothing short of amazing.



Peter Stein, who is leading the effort, insists that despite the short time available, that they will open this season in some form.  He has put together an incredible hi-power team of volunteers.  There probably is not enough time to bring the Rangeley on line for this season, but access to the entire mountain is available without it.

Stay tuned for his Thursday press conference. It would be inappropriate for me to tell more at this time.


----------



## snoseek (Oct 25, 2016)

Fingers crossed this works out!

I could live without the double


----------



## Jully (Oct 25, 2016)

Interesting that the Rangeley requires so much more work than the other lifts. Or maybe it is just that they have to prioritize which lifts they want? In which case obviously the Rangeley gets the boot.


----------



## Smellytele (Oct 25, 2016)

Jully said:


> Interesting that the Rangeley requires so much more work than the other lifts. Or maybe it is just that they have to prioritize which lifts they want? In which case obviously the Rangeley gets the boot.



So how easy is it to get from the top of the sandy double to the t-bar?


----------



## Jully (Oct 25, 2016)

Smellytele said:


> So how easy is it to get from the top of the sandy double to the t-bar?



Its not at all unbearable for a skier IMO. There are many worse lift to lift treks out there. Its just a bit more effort than going Snubber to Superquad at Sugarloaf. Its more important to have the T bar because it opens up that side of the mountain. I'd deal with no Rangeley if we can get the T-bar.


----------



## Jully (Oct 25, 2016)

Double post.


----------



## xwhaler (Oct 25, 2016)

Smellytele said:


> So how easy is it to get from the top of the sandy double to the t-bar?



Couple skate pushes and you can glide right down...its sloped down from the top of the Sandy to the Cupsuptic.
In the 2 yrs I had a pass at Saddleback we almost never rode the Rangeley double---no need when the best skiing is off the Kennebago and T.


----------



## dlague (Oct 25, 2016)

Jully said:


> Its not at all unbearable for a skier IMO. There are many worse lift to lift treks out there. Its just a bit more effort than going Snubber to Superquad at Sugarloaf. Its more important to have the T bar because it opens up that side of the mountain. I'd deal with no Rangeley if we can get the T-bar.



I agree, I have skied off the T-bar and Sandy lift gets you close enough.  Not perfect but.....  The t-bar also gets you to a traverse trail that will get you to Kennebago lift and access to that pod for those not so inclined to ski Kennebago.


----------



## Smellytele (Oct 25, 2016)

I love Saddleback and wish I could get there more often. I have ridden the t-bar and as others have said there really isn't anything you can't ski off the t or Kennebago. Just couldn't remember the contour between the small dbl and the t. Never did that combo


----------



## xwhaler (Oct 27, 2016)

Little preview of the big news coming today at 11. Great news for Saddleback and the Rangeley Lakes Region!
Now the big test will be whether they do raise enough funds quickly to open this yr with limited operations.

http://www.pressherald.com/2016/10/...-agreement-to-buy-troubled-saddleback-resort/


----------



## Jully (Oct 27, 2016)

$2.2 Million is not a bad price for the area! Love to hear more about the $5 million in "pledges"


----------



## mbedle (Oct 27, 2016)

Just think how pissed some of the previous potential purchasers are seeing it got sold for only 2.2 million.  Wasn't it on the market for I think 8 million or was it 12 Million? Got that all wrong - looks like the sale price is 6 million.


----------



## Smellytele (Oct 27, 2016)

mbedle said:


> Just think how pissed some of the previous potential purchasers are seeing it got sold for only 2.2 million.  Wasn't it on the market for I think 8 million or was it 12 Million? Got that all wrong - looks like the sale price is 6 million.



Well maybe that included the land that was sold to the Trust for Public Land


----------



## xwhaler (Oct 27, 2016)

Folks, all the info that you are all debating is contained on this brand new website. I encourage you to read it and then analyze the content.
Too much ill-informed speculation abounds right now in this thread but all we need to know at the moment is nicely presented below.

http://skisaddlebackme.com/


----------



## deadheadskier (Oct 27, 2016)

Surprised they are still talking some grand expansion plans.  I think most would be happy with just getting the Rangeley done and running a lean, sustainable operation.  All that new stuff would be fantastic, but also carries a lot of risk.


----------



## xwhaler (Oct 27, 2016)

Running a limited operations outpost ski area just having replaced the Rangeley may not be enough to make the mtn sustainable for the long term.
They have a stepped plan to add/develop as additional funds are raised. 
I think they also need to show some future development so folks understand the vision and are more willing to donate.

I think the main thing is they are trying to do something different and address some of the obvious shortcomings of why the mtn has been living on the edge for many many yrs.


----------



## bdfreetuna (Oct 27, 2016)

Wow this is great. Even with selling all that land for conservation they still want to go forward with major expansion plans.


----------



## MEtoVTSkier (Oct 27, 2016)

> All that said, if we can raise the funds fast enough, it is this  initiatives intention to open the ski area in some fashion – even if it  is just spinning lifts with little to no other services.  One reason is  to of course provide skiing to our community, but a more important  reason is to buffer the economic impact on the region by being closed  for one more year. * However, it is certain that at least initially any  opening will be limited to members of the community and their guests.*   The last thing we want to do is provide an inferior product to the  general public.



That just doesn't sound very good to me...  Seems you don't want to alienate any potential investors...

Other than that looks good, although I agree, the expansion plans seem optimistic/aggressive. We'll see I guess.


----------



## joshua segal (Oct 27, 2016)

mbedle said:


> Just think how pissed some of the previous potential purchasers are seeing it got sold for only 2.2 million.  Wasn't it on the market for I think 8 million or was it 12 Million? Got that all wrong - looks like the sale price is 6 million.



The newspaper reporter got it wrong.  $2.2 was the cash at closing.  There is also a substantial note payable to the Berry's.  I'm not sure if the amount and terms of that note are public information, so I'll quit there.


----------



## Smellytele (Oct 27, 2016)

so 2.2 plus 3.8m in debt to start.


----------



## joshua segal (Oct 27, 2016)

Smellytele said:


> so 2.2 plus 3.8m in debt to start.



I can confirm that this much is correct


----------



## Tin (Oct 27, 2016)

joshua segal said:


> I can confirm that this much is correct




If youre just going to tease and give the Saddleback lovers bluebells why bother posting? We get it, you have connections. 

I


----------



## mbedle (Oct 27, 2016)

I don't think that is correct. SMCR, LLC needs to raise 4 million before the agreement of sale can be signed. The Berries are requiring 4.9 million in cash to payoff debt they have at the resort. 2.2 million will come from SMCR and 2.7 million will come from the sale of 3,294 acres to the Trust for Public Land. SMCR will generate the 4 million via share sales and donations (not sure who would donate to the for profit company). The remaining 1.8 million is for operating expenses. What I am having a hard time understanding is the separation between SMCR and SMF.


----------



## bdfreetuna (Oct 27, 2016)

Saddleback throws us a curve ball on their Facebook:

Saddlebackers, many of you by now have seen the Saddleback Mountain Foundation's announcement of their initiative to raise monies for the purchase of the mountain. We wish them well with their efforts. We continue to work with the Saddleback Mountain Foundation, in addition to the other qualified buyers who are also in the process of pursuing the purchase of the resort. When the trail is clear we will update you.


----------



## joshua segal (Oct 27, 2016)

FWIW, Peter told me a few minutes ago that they raised $600K (15%) just at the meeting today.  Think about who has the most to lose if Saddleback goes under? The owners of the condos and (the economy of - including real estate values of) Rangeley.  I'm betting that most of the money will be coming from those sources.


----------



## joshua segal (Oct 27, 2016)

Tin said:


> If you're just going to tease and give the Saddleback lovers bluebells why bother posting? We get it, you have connections.


I am only trying to correct some directions in which this thread goes that are blatantly incorrect.  I can't give out confidential information.  I've been on AZ long enough to know some names whose posting I don't bother to read.  Perhaps you should do so with mine!


----------



## tipsdown (Oct 27, 2016)

mbedle said:


> I don't think that is correct. SMCR, LLC needs to raise 4 million before the agreement of sale can be signed. The Berries are requiring 4.9 million in cash to payoff debt they have at the resort. 2.2 million will come from SMCR and 2.7 million will come from the sale of 3,700 acres to the Trust for Public Land. SMCR will generate the 4 million via share sales and donations (not sure who would donate to the for profit company). The remaining 1.8 million is for operating expenses. What I am having a hard time understanding is the separation between SMCR and SMF.



Right on...SMCR and SMF are essentially one in the same...Is structured as such for Legal/Financial/Tax considerations...


----------



## benski (Oct 27, 2016)

joshua segal said:


> FWIW, Peter told me a few minutes ago that they raised $600K (15%) just at the meeting today.  Think about who has the most to lose if Saddleback goes under? The owners of the condos and (the economy of - including real estate values of) Rangeley.  I'm betting that most of the money will be coming from those sources.



How?! Most people have work so how many people could even make it to the meeting. Did that include people who offered money online? sound like they are off to a good start.


----------



## joshua segal (Oct 27, 2016)

benski said:


> How?! Most people have work, so how many people could even make it to the meeting? Did that include people who offered money online? Sounds like they are off to a good start.


I wasn't there, but Peter debriefed me by phone after the meeting.  He estimated attendance at 150. There was coverage from all the local newspapers, AP, all the local TV stations, NECN and I forget who else. He said, that the checks/pledges in hand were just from the meeting today.  He felt they could not accept money until there was an agreement with the Berrys and this press conference was the official roll-out.  The interest shown online is not included and when push comes to shove, he realizes that many of those who showed interest and indicated they would provide support, may not actually come through when the reality of writing a check comes along.


----------



## SnowRider (Oct 27, 2016)

I don't know much about Saddleback but they need a copywriter to outline their plans. They sound indecisive and undecided. If I was an investor anywhere beyond local residents, this site wouldn't give me confidence. "Maybe we'll do this, but maybe we'll do THAT."


----------



## joshua segal (Oct 27, 2016)

SnowRider said:


> I don't know much about Saddleback but they need a copywriter to outline their plans. They sound indecisive and undecided. If I was an investor anywhere beyond local residents, this site wouldn't give me confidence. "Maybe we'll do this, but maybe we'll do THAT."


Really? The plan is quite lengthy and as far as I know has not been posted publicly.  Where did you see it?


----------



## thetrailboss (Oct 27, 2016)

bdfreetuna said:


> Saddleback throws us a curve ball on their Facebook:
> 
> Saddlebackers, many of you by now have seen the Saddleback Mountain Foundation's announcement of their initiative to raise monies for the purchase of the mountain. We wish them well with their efforts. We continue to work with the Saddleback Mountain Foundation, in addition to the other qualified buyers who are also in the process of pursuing the purchase of the resort. When the trail is clear we will update you.



Wow. Just when we thought that was the end of the story.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## MEtoVTSkier (Oct 27, 2016)

joshua segal said:


> Really? The plan is quite lengthy and as far as I know has not been posted publicly.  Where did you see it?



http://skisaddlebackme.com/development-plan.html


----------



## fiddleski (Oct 28, 2016)

thetrailboss said:


> Wow. Just when we thought that was the end of the story.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone



A long way from the end of the story. According to the foundation website:

_On reaching $4 million in cash and binding pledges, SMCR, LLC will sign a purchase and sales agreement and gain exclusivity by providing a $500,000 deposit.
_
I take it that until the $4 mil is in hand and $500,000 put down, there's no change in status.


----------



## thetrailboss (Oct 28, 2016)

fiddleski said:


> A long way from the end of the story. According to the foundation website:
> 
> _On reaching $4 million in cash and binding pledges, SMCR, LLC will sign a purchase and sales agreement and gain exclusivity by providing a $500,000 deposit.
> _
> I take it that until the $4 mil is in hand and $500,000 put down, there's no change in status.



Exactly 


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## joshua segal (Oct 28, 2016)

MEtoVTSkier said:


> http://skisaddlebackme.com/development-plan.html



That ain't it.  That's about 10% of it.


----------



## joshua segal (Oct 28, 2016)

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for another buyer to come along.  All of last year there was a stream of potential buyers that were not able to consummate a deal. As Peter said, it's just a matter of how fast the Foundation can raise the money.


----------



## MEtoVTSkier (Oct 28, 2016)

joshua segal said:


> That ain't it.  That's about 10% of it.



So says you, but that's all they threw out there, so that's all there is for the rest of us to go on. It already seems overly optimistic for the short term, so if there's 90% more that they are keeping secret, then that doesn't inspire a lot of confidence in the plan. Maybe a longer timeline would allow for it all to work, but it seems more like the Berry's are looking for a short-term solution.


----------



## SnowRider (Oct 28, 2016)

MEtoVTSkier said:


> So says you, but that's all they threw out there, so that's all there is for the rest of us to go on. It already seems overly optimistic for the short term, so if there's 90% more that they are keeping secret, then that doesn't inspire a lot of confidence in the plan. Maybe a longer timeline would allow for it all to work, but it seems more like the Berry's are looking for a short-term solution.



Exactly, if their plan is really to crowdfund in order to get back to operational status, plans need to be available to everyone. If I was skier outside of the immediate economic area it impacted, I would want to see more concrete plans than "zipline here, a lift there, new trails over on that mountain" before I invested. It's all wishy-washy "pie in the sky" ideas demonstrated through a quick Microsoft paint graphic. 

The Balsams, no matter how overly optimistic they might be, at least have an well designed website that communicates exactly what they want to do in order to expand and develop the resort.


----------



## joshua segal (Oct 28, 2016)

Until the deal is actually closed, there are certain aspects of confidentiality that have to be maintained.  What's posted is a pretty good overview.  To the extent you are worried about details, the team at the Foundation has thought it out.  They are a really hi-powered team of very successful people.  I'm sure if you wanted to contact them pertaining a donation or a membership share, that they will accommodate your request for more information.  There is a difference between keeping something secret and not broadcasting it.


----------



## salsgang (Oct 28, 2016)

I think the co-op / Saddleback Mountain foundation model is the best viable path forward for the mountain and the region as a whole. It will be a tremendous challenge for the foundation but I will be rooting them on and helping all that I can to make this a reality. I put a post on my blog for those wanting to read a more long-winded explanation of support. 

http://www.maineskifamily.com/2016/10/editorial-opinion-on-current-saddleback-situation.html


----------



## joshua segal (Oct 28, 2016)

I agree with salsang.  Looking over the financials and knowing the last two owners and their horror stories, the co-op/foundation has finally come to the conclusion that perhaps its time to move beyond the "built-it-and-it-will-be-profitable-model". I can't imagine an investor in his right mind dumping more money into the mountain with the hope of profitability.


----------



## bdfreetuna (Oct 28, 2016)

"trails on that mountain over there" sounds good to me. I'm not investing though. If I had an extra $2000 to kick down and I lived a little closer, I would.


----------



## salsgang (Oct 31, 2016)

As part of the fundraising effort to get to the initial $4MM the organization will be selling 'membership levels' that will entitle folks to different benefits depending on the membership level. I hear the group will be able to start accepting funds later this week. 


I have been authorized to post a preview of the membership form - I have it up on my Facebook page - you should be able to view it even if you don't have Facebook as my page is public.


https://www.facebook.com/MaineSkiFamily/


Long ways to go but steps forward are being made! More info on the organizations efforts are available on their website:

http://www.skisaddlebackme.com/


----------



## AdironRider (Oct 31, 2016)

2 grand for 1 adult and 1 teen/kid pass, at Saddleback. Oh you get a free drink at a restaurant. 

I wish all of you luck but you aren't going to succeed with that pricing.


----------



## salsgang (Oct 31, 2016)

AdironRider said:


> 2 grand for 1 adult and 1 teen/kid pass, at Saddleback. Oh you get a free drink at a restaurant.
> 
> I wish all of you luck but you aren't going to succeed with that pricing.



All comments / feedback welcome of course but it is more than just getting a season pass. Contributors are helping a community organization to purchase a ski mountain... for the community. More info on the Saddleback foundation website.

http://www.skisaddlebackme.com/


----------



## cdskier (Oct 31, 2016)

AdironRider said:


> 2 grand for 1 adult and 1 teen/kid pass, at Saddleback. Oh you get a free drink at a restaurant.
> 
> I wish all of you luck but you aren't going to succeed with that pricing.



Honestly that isn't unreasonable. This is somewhat similar to shares at MRG (although at MRG you're an actual owner with a share while here that's not officially the case). MRG shares cost $2K and you don't get a season pass with that...


----------



## Newpylong (Nov 1, 2016)

AdironRider said:


> 2 grand for 1 adult and 1 teen/kid pass, at Saddleback. Oh you get a free drink at a restaurant.
> 
> I wish all of you luck but you aren't going to succeed with that pricing.



With a mindset that this is competing with typical yearly season passes, then no it isn't a good deal. But it isn't - this is for people with a stake in the mountain to make an investment, the return is the mountain continues to operate. Better than any season's pass.

However If I were an investor or potential customer what I would be wary of is the front and center mention of expansion plans. I think they are going to find any and all capital that is acquired either via donation, membership fees, or operating revenue is going to need to go back into operational costs and capital investment to existing infrastructure. Operating a ski area is highly costly and ebbs and flows with the weather. I find it surprising that they mention expansion at all rather than presenting the business/development plan as operating the (existing) ski area in a sustainable way.


----------



## MEtoVTSkier (Nov 1, 2016)




----------



## mbedle (Nov 1, 2016)

First off, my hat is off to these guys for trying to bring back SB in some shape or form. After going through the website and the draft membership form, I do have a couple of questions. How much are the owners of SMCR putting into the pot? Is the initial 4 million part of the 25 million that SMF is going to try to raise? When will SMCR transfer the ownership of the ski area and assets to the SMF? What, if any, will SMF pay SMCR for the ski area? What will trigger that transfer and what guarantee is in place to make sure that happens? Their website talks about "Shares" in SMCR, however, the draft form is for a membership in "Saddleback Mountain" with non binding, advisory only voting power. Is there still an option to buy actual shares in SMCR? Before I make any type of donation to this organization, I would want to know their capabilities in managing this transaction, operating a resort and making the correct decisions. Understanding that SMCR is not going to publish their business model, it might be helpful to some people if they provided a little more insight into how the relationship works between them and the SMF. Where in the big picture is SMCR's revenue stream coming from? Management fees, ticket sales, development oversight fees? Ultimately, after taking over ownership of the ski area, is SMF's only source of income the royalties generated by real estate sales? 

As far as the draft membership form - proofread, the donation levels listed in the total section and description section are different. Might be good to add who to make the checks out to for the membership. Needs to be clearer about what you are becoming a member to. Given the amount that some people maybe donating, it might be a good idea to include some legal backup to this document.


----------



## MEtoVTSkier (Nov 1, 2016)

Newpylong said:


> With a mindset that this is competing with typical yearly season passes, then no it isn't a good deal. But it isn't - this is for people with a stake in the mountain to make an investment, the return is the mountain continues to operate. Better than any season's pass.
> 
> However If I were an investor or potential customer what I would be wary of is the front and center mention of expansion plans. I think they are going to find any and all capital that is acquired either via donation, membership fees, or operating revenue is going to need to go back into operational costs and capital investment to existing infrastructure. Operating a ski area is highly costly and ebbs and flows with the weather. I find it surprising that they mention expansion at all rather than presenting the business/development plan as operating the (existing) ski area in a sustainable way.



I think it's a little pricey for the *average* middle-class family, but it's not totally outrageous either. I think it'd be an easier sell if the voting rights were more along the lines of MRG's

Completely agree on the expansion being front and center. It's the first thing that turned me off on it. Especially on the Baselodge... wasn't that just re-done for many millions?

I think people really want to hear, and rally around the Rangley being replaced. I think that if they can get it installed for the 500k downpayment, then that should be what the focus is on. I'm also hoping that while they are talking fixed-grip, that they are giving serious consideration to it being carpet-fed and run at the 600fpm rate (ala Spillway). It will quiet some that are still hoping for high-speed detachable.

At the end of the day, at least SOMETHING is happening with Saddleback's situation.


----------



## Jully (Nov 1, 2016)

mbedle said:


> First off, my hat is off to these guys for trying to bring back SB in some shape or form. After going through the website and the draft membership form, I do have a couple of questions. How much are the owners of SMCR putting into the pot? Is the initial 4 million part of the 25 million that SMF is going to try to raise? When will SMCR transfer the ownership of the ski area and assets to the SMF? What, if any, will SMF pay SMCR for the ski area? What will trigger that transfer and what guarantee is in place to make sure that happens? Their website talks about "Shares" in SMCR, however, the draft form is for a membership in "Saddleback Mountain" with non binding, advisory only voting power. Is there still an option to buy actual shares in SMCR? Before I make any type of donation to this organization, I would want to know their capabilities in managing this transaction, operating a resort and making the correct decisions. Understanding that SMCR is not going to publish their business model, it might be helpful to some people if they provided a little more insight into how the relationship works between them and the SMF. Where in the big picture is SMCR's revenue stream coming from? Management fees, ticket sales, development oversight fees? Ultimately, after taking over ownership of the ski area, is SMF's only source of income the royalties generated by real estate sales?
> 
> As far as the draft membership form - proofread, the donation levels listed in the total section and description section are different. Might be good to add who to make the checks out to for the membership. Needs to be clearer about what you are becoming a member to. Given the amount that some people maybe donating, it might be a good idea to include some legal backup to this document.



This. Hats off to Peter and everyone for getting something done though. It was no small task!


----------



## tipsdown (Nov 1, 2016)

mbedle said:


> First off, my hat is off to these guys for trying to bring back SB in some shape or form. After going through the website and the draft membership form, I do have a couple of questions. How much are the owners of SMCR putting into the pot? Is the initial 4 million part of the 25 million that SMF is going to try to raise? When will SMCR transfer the ownership of the ski area and assets to the SMF? What, if any, will SMF pay SMCR for the ski area? What will trigger that transfer and what guarantee is in place to make sure that happens? Their website talks about "Shares" in SMCR, however, the draft form is for a membership in "Saddleback Mountain" with non binding, advisory only voting power. Is there still an option to buy actual shares in SMCR? Before I make any type of donation to this organization, I would want to know their capabilities in managing this transaction, operating a resort and making the correct decisions. Understanding that SMCR is not going to publish their business model, it might be helpful to some people if they provided a little more insight into how the relationship works between them and the SMF. Where in the big picture is SMCR's revenue stream coming from? Management fees, ticket sales, development oversight fees? Ultimately, after taking over ownership of the ski area, is SMF's only source of income the royalties generated by real estate sales?
> 
> As far as the draft membership form - proofread, the donation levels listed in the total section and description section are different. Might be good to add who to make the checks out to for the membership. Needs to be clearer about what you are becoming a member to. Given the amount that some people maybe donating, it might be a good idea to include some legal backup to this document.



All great questions...I can speak to the relationship between SMCR and SMF, which clears up a few of the Q's.  The SMF, when approved, will sit atop the organization.  They will lease the land to SMCR (don't know for what, ask the tax attorney). As I understand it, there will essentially be 3 ways to invest...The membership as illustrated for $500-$25,000, the shares for > $25,000, and Tax Deductible Donations under the 501c3 foundation...That's not yet available since approval is pending.  SMCR revenue stream will come from land royalties, continued sale of shares/memberships, and most importantly grants and tax credits from the SMF...The SMF is the key to the model.  The $4mil raise is part of the $25mil campaign. The projected numbers support the expansion.  Of course land sales will dictate how quickly the development moves along..Ticket prices and season's passes figures are still being hashed out.

The biggest takeaway from talking with the key stakeholders is even in it's current state, the model wasn't all that broken.  Staying mostly debt-free, especially under this model is critical.  With no debt (and $2mil in working capital) they should be able to make money from the jump, with year 1 being the exception...It's too late in the game to make money this year but it still may be worthwhile to open to get the community behind the initiative...Rangeley lost almost $20mil in revenue last year with Saddleback closed.


----------



## Jully (Nov 1, 2016)

That makes more sense, thank you for clarifying! So full shares are also available it sounds like? Just for a substantially larger price than the mrg share, but this isn't the mrg model obviously.


----------



## dlague (Nov 1, 2016)

MEtoVTSkier said:


> View attachment 20938



So there will be visual status symbols based on apparel - how will the Red Tiger Hat guy feel next to the Dark Wizard Ski Jacket guy?


----------



## salsgang (Nov 1, 2016)

All good feedback and discussion. Posting of the preliminary membership form all intended to get the juices flowing and discussion going. Form is undergoing final review and edit as I understand it. Looking at the foundation website (http://www.skisaddlebackme.com/) it says 'under construction' so more news soon I trust.

There is a public meeting at Rangeley High School on Weds Nov 2 at 5:30pm. Presentation followed by Q&A.


----------



## bdfreetuna (Nov 1, 2016)

dlague said:


> So there will be visual status symbols based on apparel - how will the Red Tiger Hat guy feel next to the Dark Wizard Ski Jacket guy?



Hopefully Red Tiger Hat guy derives his self-confidence from sources other than his new Red Tiger Hat as well.


----------



## SIKSKIER (Nov 1, 2016)

From watching that FB video,I didn't get the feeling this was going to allow SB to open this year based on needing to raise that 4 million to then start the process.Seemed unlikely but maybe I missed something.


----------



## tipsdown (Nov 1, 2016)

SIKSKIER said:


> From watching that FB video,I didn't get the feeling this was going to allow SB to open this year based on needing to raise that 4 million to then start the process.Seemed unlikely but maybe I missed something.



You didn't miss anything..They're being careful not to over-promise and under-deliver.  If they raise the money quickly and the community gets behind this with their wallets, they will likely open in some capacity this year...


----------



## VTKilarney (Nov 1, 2016)

It will be interesting to see how this plays out, especially compared to Mad River Glen.  A major advantage I can see with Mad River Glen is that shareholders in a co-op feel a sense of ownership with their investment.  MRG investors are all in it together rather than hitching their wagon to somebody else.  

But that may prove to be academic.  What matters most is that enough people are out there who want to support the mountain - however that support takes shape.  Saddleback is just too good of a ski area to sit dormant - so my fingers are crossed.


----------



## fiddleski (Nov 1, 2016)

SIKSKIER said:


> From watching that FB video,I didn't get the feeling this was going to allow SB to open this year based on needing to raise that 4 million to then start the process.Seemed unlikely but maybe I missed something.



Video? I must have missed that.


----------



## salsgang (Nov 2, 2016)

_An email went out announcing the start of the fundraising effort. Below is a pasted copy of it. It's going to be an interesting few weeks!

_Congratulations! 

 Thanks to the generosity of people like you, we are delighted to let you know that we have reached an agreement to acquire the Saddleback Mountain Ski area assets from the current owners.  This is a huge conservation and economic development step for the Rangeley region.  If successful, this will assure the continuous operation of the ski area within a well-capitalized and stable financial framework.  When this transaction is completed, the community will own and control the resort:

- The ski area real estate will be owned by the Saddleback Mountain Foundation (SMF), a non-profit whose mission will be to preserve the beautiful pristine region for generations to come.

- The resort will be operated by the Saddleback Mountain Community Resort (SMCR, LLC), a community owned company that plans to reinvest all profits back into the resort.

We are truly humbled by the outpouring of support for this initiative. Through the survey and verbally, from home owners, businesses, and dedicated Saddlebackers, we have already obtained commitments approaching $5,000,000. Of course, we can only accomplish this if we receive the contributions from everyone who committed their support.

We now need to raise $4,000,000 (from the $5,000,000 in commitments) in order to secure our exclusive right to buy the resort and to fully capitalize the operating company.  If we don’t reach this target, the chance to build this incredible lasting foundation for future generations could be lost.

We are raising funds by selling memberships in the Saddleback Community Resort. Please look closely through the attached forms, do not hesitate to contact us with any questions, and send in your payments as soon as possible. 

Thanks again for helping to preserve this priceless place for generations to come.  As a founding member, you, through your contribution today, are making history.

Skifully!

Peter Stein,
President,SMCR,LLC

Payment Form https://gallery.mailchimp.com/fe4bb1d0fd62ea84c5be652ad/files/PAYMENT_FORM_General_1611_02.pdf

Saddleback Resort Membership Enrollment Form https://gallery.mailchimp.com/fe4bb1d0fd62ea84c5be652ad/files/Enrollment_Form_1610_12.pdf

FAQ 
https://gallery.mailchimp.com/fe4bb1d0fd62ea84c5be652ad/files/FAQ_General_1611_02.pdf


----------



## Smellytele (Nov 2, 2016)

I guess I may have missed the part where Peter and the SMCR board (if there is any) are putting in money. Not trying to be "that guy" but if they need 4m and only 4m to buy it then why does it all need to come from "memberships".


----------



## SIKSKIER (Nov 2, 2016)

fiddleski said:


> Video? I must have missed that.



https://www.facebook.com/MsKyleJones/videos/1208867849185587/


----------



## fiddleski (Nov 2, 2016)

SIKSKIER said:


> https://www.facebook.com/MsKyleJones/videos/1208867849185587/



Thanks!


----------



## joshua segal (Nov 3, 2016)

The Saddleback Foundation FB Group has just changed from Private to Public if any of  you want to follow the progress.  Don't underestimate Peter Stein and/or the team he has assembled.


----------



## salsgang (Nov 7, 2016)

_Latest update from the community group / Peter Stein._

Our fundraising is now underway!!! In case you have questions, we are planning informational meetings for Thursday, November 10th in Portland at Three Dollar Deweys at 6pm and in Farmington, on Monday November 14th location and time TBD. There are some of us (read me) that love nothing more than answering questions about this initiative.

It has been a short two weeks since we reached a complete agreement with the Berry Family. Since then we have:

-Formalized a resort membership package that has received excellent reviews.
-Arranged and conducted a press conference in Portland and a town meeting in Rangeley.
-Geared up personnel and other resources for fundraising
-Initiated and developed a first version of a web site.
-Set up bank accounts with lock box services.
-Developed a fund raising package.
-Merged and managed mailing lists

Our team consisting of many volunteers with solid professional experience, is working feverishly to make the dream of a community owned resort a reality!!

Many of you have asked for a more financial and operational information. We are working on materials to address these and other questions, which we plan to distribute next week.

We have received a great many excellent suggestions on how to improve the resort membership structure. We are listening and tracking all of these ideas. While we cannot make changes to the membership plans during this campaign, once we reach our $4,000,000 target we will examine all the input we received to look for ways to make our membership plans even better. At that time, members will have the opportunity change their plans to take advantage of any new benefits we offer.

If you have already sent in your check THANK YOU. If not, please send it in today. The sooner we can reach our $4,000,000 fundraising target, the sooner we will be able to secure the future of Saddleback Mountain.

Many of you have asked us about operating the lifts this winter. With this goal in mind, we are making a special push to see if we can reach our fundraising target before Cyber Monday. Everyone who sends in their membership payment before November 27, 2016 will get the following extra benefits:

-Royal Tiger/Green Weaver members will have the option of replacing their minor pass with:
-A book of 10 day tickets
-A senior pass (valid for skiers over 65)

Tightline and Dark Wizard Couples special:
Add a Dark Wizard membership for your spouse for an extra $5,000 or a Tightline membership for an extra $3,000, with the purchase of the corresponding plan for yourself. Simply add this fee to your enrollment payment!

All members will AUTOMATICALLY get these benefits when we receive their payment by thanksgiving. I look forward to seeing you at our informational meetings. Meanwhile, if you have any questions, please feel free to contact us at info@skisaddlebackme.com.


Skifully, Peter Stein

Attachments:
*Enrollment Form*
https://gallery.mailchimp.com/fe4bb..._Membership_Enrollment_Form_1610_12_1_.01.pdf

*Payment Form*
https://gallery.mailchimp.com/fe4bb1d0fd62ea84c5be652ad/files/PAYMENT_FORM_General_1611_02.01.pdf

*FAQ*
https://gallery.mailchimp.com/fe4bb1d0fd62ea84c5be652ad/files/FAQ_General_1611_02.01.pdf


P.S. If you would like to upgrade your membership to take advantage of our Cyber Monday Special, simply send in the form with the incremental payment, indicate the plan you would like, and indicate on the form that you are upgrading your membership.


----------



## salsgang (Nov 14, 2016)

For Maine based Alpinezoner's - There is a presentation / Q&A from the Saddleback Mountain Foundation group at University of Maine - Farmington North Dining Hall at 5:30pm tonight (Monday, November 14).


----------



## salsgang (Nov 23, 2016)

Peter Stein (lead organizer) sent out an email update yesterday. $400k memberships in Escrow. There is a donor(s) matching 1 to 1 first $600k so $1MM in the door. Still working through mechanics of taking credit cards. They expect to release more info on the operating business plan "soon". 


Still a long way to go and things never go in a straight line or as planned... but overall this is an impressive community effort to date IMO. 


I posted the entire update message on my blog.


http://www.maineskifamily.com/2016/11/november-22-update-saddleback-community-resort.html


----------



## Smellytele (Nov 23, 2016)

math is a little off 800k in the door. How much more do they need to raise?


----------



## salsgang (Nov 23, 2016)

Smellytele said:


> math is a little off 800k in the door. How much more do they need to raise?



Of course - typed before my morning cup of Joe. They need to get to $4MM to enter purchase and sale with the Berry's (owners).


----------



## Cat in January (Nov 24, 2016)

So just 10% of the needed  funds (letting off the matching) raised so far.  That has to be disappointing.

Is there a clear sense what will happen to the raised money if they fail to reach their goal or if another buyer steps in?


----------



## joshua segal (Nov 24, 2016)

Cat in January said:


> So just 10% of the needed  funds (letting off the matching) raised so far.  That has to be disappointing.
> 
> Is there a clear sense what will happen to the raised money if they fail to reach their goal or if another buyer steps in?



It's in an escrow account: It will be refunded.  

The organizers are quite happy and see things as being pretty much on target.  Putting together an organization of this size is non-trivial and it involves all kinds of legal requirements.  A number of people are reviewing information the more detailed plans with their own legal and financial teams before diving in.

IMO, this season is in jeopardy as there is no planned prep activity for prepping the Mountain to open that is going on - and probably won't happen until the closing.  That being said, Peter insists that something will be available in some form by Feb.


----------



## Cat in January (Nov 24, 2016)

Thanks for the update and wishing them the best of luck for sure.


----------



## mbedle (Dec 15, 2016)

For you guys that are close to this, what exactly does this text from their email yesterday mean? 

"For those that might be confused, we are no longer entertaining the concept of selling equity ownership in our community resort as a bridge to ownership by the non-profit.  This change in course takes us directly to a closing where the Saddleback Mountain Foundation purchases the land and ski area assets and the Saddleback Mountain Community Resort (SMCR, LLC) is a wholly owned subsidiary."


----------



## salsgang (Dec 15, 2016)

mbedle said:


> For you guys that are close to this, what exactly does this text from their email yesterday mean?
> 
> "For those that might be confused, we are no longer entertaining the concept of selling equity ownership in our community resort as a bridge to ownership by the non-profit.  This change in course takes us directly to a closing where the Saddleback Mountain Foundation purchases the land and ski area assets and the Saddleback Mountain Community Resort (SMCR, LLC) is a wholly owned subsidiary."



I am not one of the organizers (I just help spread the word) so this is a bit of a educated guess. The original plan was for the SMCR (the organization that is providing the memberships) to raise the $4mm via resort memberships (smaller money) and equity shares (bigger money) to enter a purchase and sale agreement with the Berry's (mountain owners) and complete the purchase. At that point the non-profit would be formed and the ownership of the mountain would transfer to the non-profit. 

I think it was done this way as setting up the non-profit and 501-3(c) takes some time & money... and they were making a push to get lift-serviced skiing going this winter.

While they have made great progress IMO and have received a number of resort memberships, I am estimating that the "big money" is less motivated to contribute without taking advantage of the tax break they would get with the 501-3(c). Thus they are making a push to get this set up to help them get more quickly to $4mm. This is a bit of a conjecture but my best guess.

The full text of the email can be found here:

http://www.maineskifamily.com/2016/12/december-14-update-from-saddleback-mountain-foundation.html


----------



## skiMEbike (Feb 8, 2017)

Fire last night at Saddleback......Hmmmmm...May raise some eyebrows with the Insurance companies....Fortunately no injuries.

http://www.dailybulldog.com/db/news/condominium-fire-draws-county-firefighters-to-saddleback/


----------



## bdfreetuna (Feb 8, 2017)

Got this about a week ago in email:

Dear Saddlebackers,

The slopes have been covered with snow and the woods in northern New England are all filled in.  

Looking up at the mountains covered in snow just makes me even more determined than ever to get Saddleback Mountain reopened for all those who love skiing this unique place in Maine. Everyday, whether up at the mountain, in the Portland area, or places in between or beyond, I am motivated and inspired by the people who share with me their passion for Saddleback and the emotion of again being active on that mountain.

I hear in people who I meet the continued love of place and again skiing with family and friends. All have questions - what about that ambitious plan announced in the fall and reopening the ski area, what is the business plan, are you raising the money?

These are all excellent, valid questions. I want people to know I haven't wavered a bit in the vision I championed in the fall, and I want people to also know I am not out there alone.  Every day since October a core group of talented, committed people have kept their shoulders to the (bull) wheel.

I so deeply regret that we couldn't get those lifts spinning for this season. We meant it and we were motivated to succeed in that goal. But even though those lifts sit idle as we come into February, I and early champions, The Trust for Public Land, the New England Forestry Foundation, and others continue to work very closely together confronting and working to overcome complex business details one question at a time.

We have added significant expertise: 


    The foundation has hired the Portland law firm Drummond Woodsum. We have met with the new legal team several times over the past month and are making good progress particularly around the 501(c)(3) nonprofit piece.  



    The foundation has hired the Litman Gerson, LLC accounting firm to ensure the numbers we are working from are rock solid.


As we continue to move forward, we are looking at how our partnerships between the Saddleback Mountain Foundation, the New England Forestry Foundation, and The Trust for Public Land can be more closely aligned and strengthened and enable a deal with the Berry family.

We have added to our roster with:


    Six board members and are talking with several others to contribute their talents at this formative, historic stage. 



     A search for an Executive Director for the foundation and a General Manager for the resort and we have strong interest for both positions from well qualified individuals.



    We have also hired an internal web developer and our new website will be available soon.    



Our message and plan are becoming crystal clear. 

As you can tell, we are working full speed ahead and we will touch base with you as often as we can.  Thank you for your support, patience, and mostly your desire to see Saddleback Mountain back opened and community owned and controlled. 


Skifully,

Peter Stein


----------



## Jully (Feb 8, 2017)

Well, they are still moving pieces around trying to get things set up. I do wish them all the best, but the lack of details as to how much money they have raised recently and a lack of communication in general in recent months has curbed my own enthusiasm a bit. Maybe I am just not looking in the right places though...


----------



## JDMRoma (Feb 8, 2017)

Could have sworn i heard there was a condo fire there last night .....or some type of fire


----------



## Smellytele (Feb 8, 2017)

JDMRoma said:


> Could have sworn i heard there was a condo fire there last night .....or some type of fire



A few posts up


----------



## JDMRoma (Feb 8, 2017)

Smellytele said:


> A few posts up



Whoops didn't go back a page, my bad


----------



## Edd (Feb 15, 2017)

Spending a few days at the Loaf and watching it dump out I had a depressing thought. How f*****g great would Saddleback be right now?


----------



## wa-loaf (Feb 15, 2017)

Edd said:


> Spending a few days at the Loaf and watching it dump out I had a depressing thought. How f*****g great would Saddleback be right now?



Probably some sweet earned turns ...


----------



## bdfreetuna (Mar 20, 2017)

The latest episode of keeping hope alive...

Saddleback Mountain Foundation Newsletter
March 20th, 2017





Hello Everyone,



The first thing of importance is that the skiing here in Maine is fantastic. Wednesday was an amazing powder day at Black Mountain, made possible by a fellow Saddlebacker who led an effort to raise the funds required to open the mountain for the day.  This was a true demonstration of community power getting powder.   Friday, The Loaf was nothing but soft powder bumps – another amazing day. 


The Saddleback Mountain Foundation initiative continues to make great progress and we are increasingly positive about the outcome. Last Thursday evening, the first official board meeting of the Saddleback Mountain Foundation was held.   At this meeting, we accepted the By-laws of the foundation, elected two new board members -- now bringing us to 7 -- and elected officers.   All seven board members, Steve Philbrick, Carol Millhouse, Vittorio Pareto, Chad Cloutier, myself, and our two newest members, Luke Labbe and Bill Richards, were present at the meeting. 


The officers of the Saddleback Mountain Foundation Board of Directors are now Carol Millhouse, Secretary; Luke Labbe, Treasurer, and Peter Stein, President and Chairman.  We plan to announce our Executive Director in the near future and are actively in the process of interviewing for the General Manager position.


We also voted to allow for submission of the 501(c)(3) application and to accept the assignment of SMCR, LCC to the Saddleback Mountain Foundation.   The transfer of SMCR, LLC is now in process and we hope to report its completion by the next board meeting scheduled for April 6.  


This board is unwavering in its commitment to get Saddleback opened.  Much of the board meeting went towards discussing our next primary task to be completed, finalizing and submitting our 501(c)(3) application.  We cannot emphasize how important this document is to our future. Our goal is now to submit this document within the next month. 


More news coming soon folks.  Get those turns in because spring is here.  Although this ski season will soon end, we are already looking forward to the next one with a heightened level of anticipation.



Skifully, 

Peter


----------

