# [2013] Vail/Canyons/PCMR Management Issue affecting MountainSide



## alchook

_An attorney representing the Talisker Corporation side in its defense against a lawsuit filed by Park City Mountain Resort on Thursday submitted a memo to the judge in the case indicating that Talisker Corporation will not allow PCMR to remain on its land under the same circumstances as it has through the 1 1/2 years of litigation._

http://www.parkrecord.com/news/ci_2...-strong-stand-made-against?source=most_viewed

With Vail taking over the lease dispute it’s starting to look more and more likely as if PCMR’s future as a separate entity is in danger. 

Actually, over the long haul this may be a good thing for the Utah ski industry, but may involve some short term pain for PCMR and its customers until this thing is settled.


----------



## hipslo

prediction: at some point the lawsuit is settled, and in the settlement (i) the lease is extended, at a higher rental rate than the old lease but lower than what talisker is seeking, and (ii) pcmr and canyons are linked by a new lift and customers will have the option to buy a combined ticket, or separate tickets (like at snowbird/ alta). 

 highly doubtful that pcmr loses control of its resort.


----------



## ondeadlin

hipslo said:


> highly doubtful that pcmr loses control of its resort.



My practice area focuses primarily on commercial disputes between companies of similar size to Talisker and PCMR, particularly contract disputes.  This case - which I have followed pretty closely - could easily go Talisker's way, especially with these latest revelations.

Your prediction is a good once, since most cases settle, but if they were to take it all the way, Talisker would be the favorite to win IMO.


----------



## hipslo

ondeadlin said:


> My practice area focuses primarily on commercial disputes between companies of similar size to Talisker and PCMR, particularly contract disputes.  This case - which I have followed pretty closely - could easily go Talisker's way, especially with these latest revelations.
> 
> Your prediction is a good once, since most cases settle, but if they were to take it all the way, Talisker would be the favorite to win IMO.



Perhaps, but what would the result be if Talisker were to win? PCMR is the plaintiff, and they are seeking declaratory relief that they validly extended their lease (to my recollection, anyway).  Lets say PCMR loses that point.  Who else would Talisker lease the land to, given that PCMR owns and controls the base facilities, the parking lot, the lifts and the snowmaking equipment?  If the parties didnt enter into a new lease, wouldnt that be a lose/ lose?  Its hard to come up with a scenario where they wouldnt just enter into a new lease at a higher rent. 

PCMR is also seeking damages to recover the tens of millions (or more) they spent on capital improvements based on joint discussions with Talisker over potentially connecting the two resorts, and that claim does not depend on a finding that the lease was extended.  I'm not so sure that one would be as likely to go in Talisker's favor.

Bottom line, I think my predicition is the most likely result regardless of the outcome of the lawsuit.


----------



## alchook

hipslo said:


> Perhaps, but what would the result be if Talisker were to win? PCMR is the plaintiff, and they are seeking declaratory relief that they validly extended their lease (to my recollection, anyway).  Lets say PCMR loses that point.  Who else would Talisker lease the land to, given that PCMR owns and controls the base facilities, the parking lot, the lifts and the snowmaking equipment?  If the parties didnt enter into a new lease, wouldnt that be a lose/ lose?  Its hard to come up with a scenario where they wouldnt just enter into a new lease at a higher rent.



I would agree, except for the fact that Talisker has no interest in more rent. The lease payments now go to Vail under the terms of the new agreement.

The question is what Vail has in mind. They’ve committed $1.25 _billion_ over the next 50 years to running Canyons, which doesn’t appear to make a whole lot of sense, in that Canyons has maybe half a million skier days per year. The real prize appears to be PCMR. The talk in PC right now is that Vail is looking at a hostile take-over of PCMR, after which it will combine the two and re-market it as the largest ski resort in North America.

I was in Park City earlier this month and met Vail’s lodging director. He didn’t do much to dispel this idea. He did mention that Vail had been trying to get a foothold in Utah for years, and probably wasn’t planning to stop at Canyons.


----------



## hipslo

alchook said:


> I would agree, except for the fact that Talisker has no interest in more rent. The lease payments now go to Vail under the terms of the new agreement.
> 
> The question is what Vail has in mind. They’ve committed $1.25 _billion_ over the next 50 years to running Canyons, which doesn’t appear to make a whole lot of sense, in that Canyons has maybe half a million skier days per year. The real prize appears to be PCMR. The talk in PC right now is that Vail is looking at a hostile take-over of PCMR, after which it will combine the two and re-market it as the largest ski resort in North America.
> 
> I was in Park City earlier this month and met Vail’s lodging director. He didn’t do much to dispel this idea. He did mention that Vail had been trying to get a foothold in Utah for years, and probably wasn’t planning to stop at Canyons.



I agree that Vail is likely interested in the two resorts being combined, (which Talisker and PCMR had already been discussing for several years, from an operational, rather than an ownership, standpoint).  As part of Vail's agreement with Talisker, Vail now controls the litigation with PCMR, and I believe also has the right to acquire the land on which PCMR operates, so Vail effectively steps into Talisker's shoes.  If the lease were terminated, Vail would then have leverage over PCMR to increase the rent and cause the two resorts to be operated on a linked/ combined basis.  

Given that PCMR is a private company, I am not sure I understand the "hostile takeover" scenario.  The shareholders behind PCMR have
some pretty deep pockets themselves, so even if they were to lose the lawsuit, I dont see how that allows Vail to take over/ gain control of PCMR, unless the PCMR owners decided to sell. 

I still see higher rent, which would be paid by PCMR to Vail, and the two resorts being linked, with PCMR retaining ownership/ control of its own mountain, as the most likely scenario.  I guess time will tell.


----------



## hipslo

I took another look at the reporting on the lawsuit in the PC paper. I believe the rent for the land would still go to Talisker (not to Vail). However, Talisker has granted Vail the right to operate on the lands, if the PCMR lease is terminated.  How Vail could do so without PCMR being on board when PCMR owns the parking, base facilities, lifts and snowmaking is at least somewhat difficult to understand.  PCMR is also challenging the validity of the Vail/ Talisker agreement in that regard.  

I guess if the court determines that the lease was not terminated, Talisker/ Vail could just wait PCMR out, causing PCMR to shut down, and try to bleed them out of business until they have no choice but to sell to Vail/ Talisker. While that is possible, it seems like a highly unlikely outcome to me.  The Cumming family, which owns PWDR corp (owner of PCMR) reportedly has a net worth of over 600 million, so they are no pushovers and likely have plenty of staying power.


----------



## SueDonJ

I'm confused reading this thread and the link in the first post, as to whether this impacts the local Marriott resort directly?  If not, would this thread be better moved to another TUG forum where it will be seen by others who may also be impacted?

Thanks for clearing it up ...


----------



## alchook

SueDonJ said:


> I'm confused reading this thread and the link in the first post, as to whether this impacts the local Marriott resort directly?  If not, would this thread be better moved to another TUG forum where it will be seen by others who may also be impacted?
> 
> Thanks for clearing it up ...



If Talisker prevails in the lawsuit, terminates the lease, and shuts down PCMR I imagine it will impact the Marriott resorts pretty heavily.

If the resorts combine and become the largest ski resort in North America it’s pretty big news to Marriott timeshare owners as well.

Mountainside only exists because of the ski resort. I don’t see how ownership of the resort can fail to impact the timeshare.


----------



## jeepie

*Agreed it's relevant...*



alchook said:


> ...If the resorts combine and become the largest ski resort in North America it’s pretty big news to Marriott timeshare owners as well.
> 
> Mountainside only exists because of the ski resort. I don’t see how ownership of the resort can fail to impact the timeshare.


For those MVC owners who are skiers, Vail's expansion into PC area is relevant. One can buy a Vail EPIC season pass for not much more than $500, and MVC owners can stay and ski in several Colorado and California areas as well. Cheers.


----------



## alchook

hipslo said:


> I took another look at the reporting on the lawsuit in the PC paper. I believe the rent for the land would still go to Talisker (not to Vail). However, Talisker has granted Vail the right to operate on the lands, if the PCMR lease is terminated.  How Vail could do so without PCMR being on board when PCMR owns the parking, base facilities, lifts and snowmaking is at least somewhat difficult to understand.  PCMR is also challenging the validity of the Vail/ Talisker agreement in that regard.
> 
> I guess if the court determines that the lease was not terminated, Talisker/ Vail could just wait PCMR out, causing PCMR to shut down, and try to bleed them out of business until they have no choice but to sell to Vail/ Talisker. While that is possible, it seems like a highly unlikely outcome to me.  The Cumming family, which owns PWDR corp (owner of PCMR) reportedly has a net worth of over 600 million, so they are no pushovers and likely have plenty of staying power.



Maybe I’m misunderstanding the legal issue here, but according to the news Vail’s purchase of resort operations includes the lease on the PCMR land. I assumed if they had the lease they got the revenue from the lease.

The bigger issue is why Vail is in Utah in the first place. Canyons has about 500,000 skier days per year. Vail is paying $25M a year to run the resort, which works out to $50 per lift ticket sold. I just bought 4 Canyons tickets for next season at $60 a piece. They can’t be planning to make money that way.

My hunch is that Vail really wants to run PCMR as well. That may not involve a takeover per se, they may just look for the same arrangement they have with Talisker. 

Frankly, as a Mountainside owner I think having the two resorts combined and run by Vail would be great. Obviously if PCMR shuts down for a season or two there’s going to be a lot of short term pain.


----------



## SkyBlueWaters

alchook said:


> Maybe I’m misunderstanding the legal issue here, but according to the news Vail’s purchase of resort operations includes the lease on the PCMR land. I assumed if they had the lease they got the revenue from the lease.
> 
> The bigger issue is why Vail is in Utah in the first place. Canyons has about 500,000 skier days per year. Vail is paying $25M a year to run the resort, which works out to $50 per lift ticket sold. I just bought 4 Canyons tickets for next season at $60 a piece. They can’t be planning to make money that way.
> 
> My hunch is that Vail really wants to run PCMR as well. That may not involve a takeover per se, they may just look for the same arrangement they have with Talisker.
> 
> Frankly, as a Mountainside owner I think having the two resorts combined and run by Vail would be great. Obviously if PCMR shuts down for a season or two there’s going to be a lot of short term pain.



As an owner @ Mountainside, I'm slightly hopeful that Vail would make the resort more excludive and upscale creating value in the resort and my ts ownership. However, as a consumer I hate Vail's pricing and would make our ski trips ridiculously more expensive the way they are charging at Vail.


----------



## hipslo

alchook said:


> Maybe I’m misunderstanding the legal issue here, but according to the news Vail’s purchase of resort operations includes the lease on the PCMR land. I assumed if they had the lease they got the revenue from the lease.
> 
> The bigger issue is why Vail is in Utah in the first place. Canyons has about 500,000 skier days per year. Vail is paying $25M a year to run the resort, which works out to $50 per lift ticket sold. I just bought 4 Canyons tickets for next season at $60 a piece. They can’t be planning to make money that way.
> 
> My hunch is that Vail really wants to run PCMR as well. That may not involve a takeover per se, they may just look for the same arrangement they have with Talisker.
> 
> Frankly, as a Mountainside owner I think having the two resorts combined and run by Vail would be great. Obviously if PCMR shuts down for a season or two there’s going to be a lot of short term pain.



As a MS owner, I would love it if PCMR and Canyons were linked (which could be done via a single new left in each resort, rising to a common ridgeline).  However, I would prefer to see PCMR remain under independent ownership, rather than under Vail's control.  Same sort of arrangement as Alta and Snowbird.

In any event, I find it highly unlikely that any scenario would result in PCMR shutting down for any period of time, though I suppose anything is possible.


----------



## hipslo

SkyBlueWaters said:


> As an owner @ Mountainside, I'm slightly hopeful that Vail would make the resort more excludive and upscale ....



Not me.  I like PCMR just the way it is.  I dont prefer the Deer Valley vibe, or the vibe that Canyons is striving for (but hasnt really been able to achieve yet).  Would hate to see PCMR become just another bland "exclusive and upscale" ski resort.  There are already plenty of those around to choose from.


----------



## SkyBlueWaters

hipslo said:


> Not me.  I like PCMR just the way it is.  I dont prefer the Deer Valley vibe, or the vibe that Canyons is striving for (but hasnt really been able to achieve yet).  Would hate to see PCMR become just another bland "exclusive and upscale" ski resort.  There are already plenty of those around to choose from.



That is why I'm conflicted. Creation of value versus my own personal preference. I love the price point and more casual vibe at PCMR which we think is the best mountain in the area. I suppose for my own sake I do side more with PCMR when I think more about our use and economic consequences.


----------



## SkyBlueWaters

jeepie said:


> For those MVC owners who are skiers, Vail's expansion into PC area is relevant. One can buy a Vail EPIC season pass for not much more than $500, and MVC owners can stay and ski in several Colorado and California areas as well. Cheers.



Yes, but right now we can buy tickets at COSTCO at a reduced price and have no intention to go mountain hopping in a season. Vail is a greedy corporation.


----------



## alchook

SkyBlueWaters said:


> As an owner @ Mountainside, I'm slightly hopeful that Vail would make the resort more excludive and upscale creating value in the resort and my ts ownership. However, as a consumer I hate Vail's pricing and would make our ski trips ridiculously more expensive the way they are charging at Vail.



Interestingly, Vail’s ultimate goal is to stop selling lift tickets entirely. As I was told, they figure lift tickets are just going to get more and more expensive. They want to see everyone buying a season pass.

A season pass at Vail used to cost $1800. Vail’s Epic pass is $689 and covers Vail as well as 10 other mountains, if bought pre-season. They’re hoping to lock people into a pass early to avoid losing the market share to whoever happens to have the best snow. They’re also starting to buy small resorts in the midwest, figuring there’s a whole market that takes a trip out west once a year and now will ski at a Vail resort.


----------



## SueDonJ

alchook said:


> If Talisker prevails in the lawsuit, terminates the lease, and shuts down PCMR I imagine it will impact the Marriott resorts pretty heavily.
> 
> If the resorts combine and become the largest ski resort in North America it’s pretty big news to Marriott timeshare owners as well.
> 
> Mountainside only exists because of the ski resort. I don’t see how ownership of the resort can fail to impact the timeshare.



Thanks, alchook.  No problem at all with the thread staying where it is.


----------



## SkyBlueWaters

alchook said:


> Interestingly, Vail’s ultimate goal is to stop selling lift tickets entirely. As I was told, they figure lift tickets are just going to get more and more expensive. They want to see everyone buying a season pass.
> 
> A season pass at Vail used to cost $1800. Vail’s Epic pass is $689 and covers Vail as well as 10 other mountains, if bought pre-season. They’re hoping to lock people into a pass early to avoid losing the market share to whoever happens to have the best snow. They’re also starting to buy small resorts in the midwest, figuring there’s a whole market that takes a trip out west once a year and now will ski at a Vail resort.



K. Now I'm completely siding with PCMR regardless of the allegations. Fraud is pretty serious but then so is greed and monopolization.


----------



## ondeadlin

hipslo said:


> Lets say PCMR loses that point.



At that point, Vail/Talisker shuts PCMR off the slopes and, quite honestly PCMR goes out of business because they have no incoming revenue.  It doesn't cost Vail/Talisker anything to simply deny PCMR access to the leased parcels, but it would cost PCMR their entire business.  

At which point, Vail/Talisker would buy the assets out of bankruptcy.

It would almost certainly never get to that point, of course, but the leverage Vail/Talisker would possess after winning the case would essentially allow them to dictate terms of a takeover to PCMR.  The only question would be whether Vail/Talisker allowed PCMR to continue to exist as an independent entity in any form as a way of saving some face with the community and easing hard feelings.  Even if they did that, though, PCMR would only continue to exist at the whim of Vail/Talisker.  It would do what Vail/Talisker wanted it to do.


----------



## ondeadlin

SkyBlueWaters said:


> However, as a consumer I hate Vail's pricing and would make our ski trips ridiculously more expensive the way they are charging at Vail.



I have skied both Park City and Vail resorts multiple times and, quite frankly, I don't find any constructive difference in prices between the two.  Vail's passes are a tremendous value, on-mountain food is probably cheaper at PCMR, but I see that as a very marginal value.


----------



## SkyBlueWaters

ondeadlin said:


> At that point, Vail/Talisker shuts PCMR off the slopes and, quite honestly PCMR goes out of business because they have no incoming revenue.  It doesn't cost Vail/Talisker anything to simply deny PCMR access to the leased parcels, but it would cost PCMR their entire business.
> 
> At which point, Vail/Talisker would buy the assets out of bankruptcy.
> 
> It would almost certainly never get to that point, of course, but the leverage Vail/Talisker would possess after winning the case would essentially allow them to dictate terms of a takeover to PCMR.  The only question would be whether Vail/Talisker allowed PCMR to continue to exist as an independent entity in any form as a way of saving some face with the community and easing hard feelings.  Even if they did that, though, PCMR would only continue to exist at the whim of Vail/Talisker.  It would do what Vail/Talisker wanted it to do.



What issues would there be under anti-trust laws?


----------



## SkyBlueWaters

ondeadlin said:


> I have skied both Park City and Vail resorts multiple times and, quite frankly, I don't find any constructive difference in prices between the two.  Vail's passes are a tremendous value, on-mountain food is probably cheaper at PCMR, but I see that as a very marginal value.



5 out of 7 for $340 (Costco price) at PCMR. $500 at Vail. ???

Do you work PR for Vail?


----------



## hipslo

ondeadlin said:


> At that point, Vail/Talisker shuts PCMR off the slopes and, quite honestly PCMR goes out of business because they have no incoming revenue.  It doesn't cost Vail/Talisker anything to simply deny PCMR access to the leased parcels, but it would cost PCMR their entire business.
> 
> At which point, Vail/Talisker would buy the assets out of bankruptcy.
> 
> It would almost certainly never get to that point, of course, but the leverage Vail/Talisker would possess after winning the case would essentially allow them to dictate terms of a takeover to PCMR.  The only question would be whether Vail/Talisker allowed PCMR to continue to exist as an independent entity in any form as a way of saving some face with the community and easing hard feelings.  Even if they did that, though, PCMR would only continue to exist at the whim of Vail/Talisker.  It would do what Vail/Talisker wanted it to do.



I dont know.  If Vail/ Talisker took that tack, PCMR could  shut down the resort (or threaten to do so). Given the deep pockets of the owners of PCMR (whose wealth is not derived from the ski industry), I wouldnt think they would be under any great pressure to sell. Vail/ Talisker would then have to decide whether they'd prefer to rent the land to pcmr for a higher rent, and link the two resorts, both of which would benefit Vail/ Talisker,  or sit there with the land as a non-performing asset, unable to monetize it, and continue to pour resources into a second tier ski resort in a town that would likely see a pretty steep decline in skier visits  as a result of the shutdown of the resort that sits in the center of town.  Seems like it would be a stalemate.  Given that, I still see a scenario in which the parties agree to a new lease and a linking of the resorts, which would remain under separate ownership, as the most likely scenario.


----------



## jeepie

*Apples to Apples?*



SkyBlueWaters said:


> 5 out of 7 for $340 (Costco price) at PCMR. $500 at Vail. ???
> 
> Do you work PR for Vail?


I paid $529 for a SEASON'S PASS with Vail for 2013-14 (EPIC Local). Included some Perk's by buying in April. http://www.snow.com/epic-pass/passes.aspx
I will ski Vail, Canyons, Heavenly, Northstar, and Kirkwood this season for an average cost of maybe $20 per day (less hopefully )...and stay often at MVC resorts.
Is the COSTCO price for 5 days out of one week? That would be almost $50 per day. Not bad, but for frequent skiers, no comparison.
Sure, Vail is for-profit. Last I checked, so is POWDR (look at their prices for Mt. Bachelor too as an example...NOT a good value. Of course, locals have few choices. It's supply & demand). Vail has strategically priced themselves very attractively for some segments of the business...they got mine! Ymmv! Cheers.


----------



## SkyBlueWaters

jeepie said:


> I paid $529 for a SEASON'S PASS with Vail for 2013-14 (EPIC Local). Included some Perk's by buying in April. http://www.snow.com/epic-pass/passes.aspx
> I will ski Vail, Canyons, Heavenly, Northstar, and Kirkwood this season for an average cost of maybe $20 per day (less hopefully )...and stay often at MVC resorts.
> Is the COSTCO price for 5 days out of one week? That would be almost $50 per day. Not bad, but for frequent skiers, no comparison.
> Sure, Vail is for-profit. Last I checked, so is POWDR (look at their prices for Mt. Bachelor too as an example...NOT a good value. Of course, locals have few choices. It's supply & demand). Vail has strategically priced themselves very attractively for some segments of the business...they got mine! Ymmv! Cheers.



We have to work or go to school...in general, most families who ski are like us. We look forward to that one week in a year. We don't need a season pass or can afford to go around skiing. We would lose clients or have failing grades. 5 days is max for us, the 2 days to recover. Then we go local for the other times of the season.

I didn't say they should be non-profit but a healthy competition is what keeps the economy going. 

P.S. Youth Pass right now is $160.


----------



## SkyBlueWaters

*It gets complicated*

From the comments in the OP's link:

"For Talisker's attack dogs to feign righteous indignation over a supposedly improper backdating of a letter is ironic beyond measure. These coin-operated spokesmodels have absolutely no shame or conscience. Talisker, its principal Jack Bistricer, and its hoard of Salt Lake Lawyers, have made a mockery of ethical business and legal practices since they rode into town in their black hats a decade ago. They knowingly misled citizens, governments and judges about the Canyons golf course (or lack thereof) for years, and bamboozled a court into handing them an unwarranted $60 million windfall judgment several years ago - with which they still failed to deliver the promised golf course. Now the truth is out - they lacked the financial capacity to build the golf course all along, and even their lenders have had it with them. Talisker (and the many entities through which it tries to disguise its activities) has entered into a long string of contracts with smaller landowners and service providers only to refuse to make good on obligations their lawyers could not even dispute with a straight face. Talisker and Bistricer have thumbed their noses at their victims, essentially repeating the playground bully's line "make me" when confronted with requests to make good on their promises. And their hired legal guns have smugly backed them up all the way - literally laughing out loud at times over what they've been able to squeeze out of this town. The list of local landowners and businesspeople forced into bankruptcy by these well-dressed thugs is long, and if you've lived here for more than a few years, you probably know somebody on it. Attorney Lund's well-compensated dismay wreaks of hypocrisy. Park City will be a better place when the rest of Bistricer's lenders finish sacking him and his cronies take their polished briefcases and fat retainer checks back to Salt Lake. We can only hope that Vail, as well as the lenders seizing control from Bistricer, see clearly that quietly permitting or facilitating Talisker's nefarious adventures to continue will come back to haunt them. This community is not stupid, and we are watching. These new players need to establish clearly, unequivocally and quickly in the eyes of this community that they do not subscribe to the Machiavellian modus operandi that has been worn by Bistricer and Talisker as a badge of honor."

Looks like Vail is not the only party to this mess. Talisker's creditors as well? Bistricer throwing in the towel and Lund feigning indignation. I'm sure Talisker knew when the original mail date was. They received it and never raised the issue. For goodness sake that was two years ago!


----------



## ondeadlin

jeepie said:


> I paid $529 for a SEASON'S PASS with Vail for 2013-14 (EPIC Local). Included some Perk's by buying in April. http://www.snow.com/epic-pass/passes.aspx
> I will ski Vail, Canyons, Heavenly, Northstar, and Kirkwood this season for an average cost of maybe $20 per day (less hopefully )...and stay often at MVC resorts.
> Is the COSTCO price for 5 days out of one week? That would be almost $50 per day. Not bad, but for frequent skiers, no comparison.



Exactly.  The customers being targeted by both companies are not folks who ski five days a year - and for those who ski more Vail Resorts has been the No. 1 force in driving down prices in the season pass market.  I'll ski about 12 to 20 days on a Vail pass next year, making my cost-per-day less than I would have paid to ski the same amount of days 10 years ago.


----------



## ondeadlin

SkyBlueWaters said:


> What issues would there be under anti-trust laws?



Eh, there's an argument to made, but not a great one IMO.


----------



## ondeadlin

hipslo said:


> I dont know.  If Vail/ Talisker took that tack, PCMR could  shut down the resort (or threaten to do so). Given the deep pockets of the owners of PCMR (whose wealth is not derived from the ski industry), I wouldnt think they would be under any great pressure to sell. Vail/ Talisker would then have to decide whether they'd prefer to rent the land to pcmr for a higher rent, and link the two resorts, both of which would benefit Vail/ Talisker,  or sit there with the land as a non-performing asset, unable to monetize it, and continue to pour resources into a second tier ski resort in a town that would likely see a pretty steep decline in skier visits  as a result of the shutdown of the resort that sits in the center of town.  Seems like it would be a stalemate.  Given that, I still see a scenario in which the parties agree to a new lease and a linking of the resorts, which would remain under separate ownership, as the most likely scenario.



Vail/Talisker would build new infrastructure if it really had to.  If they were committed enough to essentially lock PCMR out, they would certainly be committed enough to build new infrastructure.  It wouldn't be as nice at first, but they'd be generating revenue and PCMR would not be.


----------



## SkyBlueWaters

ondeadlin said:


> Eh, there's an argument to made, but not a great one IMO.



I sure hope the DOJ has another one.


----------



## SkyBlueWaters

ondeadlin said:


> Vail/Talisker would build new infrastructure if it really had to.  If they were committed enough to essentially lock PCMR out, they would certainly be committed enough to build new infrastructure.  It wouldn't be as nice at first, but they'd be generating revenue and PCMR would not be.



This could backfire. On a local level the residents through local government could arm themselves denying all sorts of permits. Which I hope they do.


----------



## ondeadlin

SkyBlueWaters said:


> I sure hope the DOJ has another one.



I was actually just part of an antitrust case with the DOJ.  I'd be surprised if this interested them.  Vail doesn't have enough power in the Utah market to implicate antitrust concerns IMO, even if it controlled the Canyons and PCMR.


----------



## SkyBlueWaters

ondeadlin said:


> I was actually just part of an antitrust case with the DOJ.  I'd be surprised if this interested them.  Vail doesn't have enough power in the Utah market to implicate antitrust concerns IMO, even if it controlled the Canyons and PCMR.



If they take over PCMR and Canyons, that's huge. The pricing of these two will be greatly affected. I wonder what the HHI of the market Vail has now, and how the skiing market will be defined. The former's particularly will be affected. Right now, ski school is only $200, $500 in Vail! There are only three ski mountains in Park City.

Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp.


----------



## hipslo

SkyBlueWaters said:


> This could backfire. On a local level the residents through local government could arm themselves denying all sorts of permits. Which I hope they do.



right.  plus, I dont think there is anywhere else they could build a new parking facility.  realistically, with that kind of uncertainty, its hard to see it playing out like this, when there is a better resolution available.


----------



## alchook

SkyBlueWaters said:


> 5 out of 7 for $340 (Costco price) at PCMR. $500 at Vail. ???
> 
> Do you work PR for Vail?



I just bought a Canyons  4-pack (4 lift tickets) for $242.

And that was directly from Vail, not through a third party.

(And no, I don’t work for Vail.)


----------



## alchook

SkyBlueWaters said:


> This could backfire. On a local level the residents through local government could arm themselves denying all sorts of permits. Which I hope they do.



Sure, if they wanted to shut down completely, put the whole town out of work, and lose their entire tax base.


----------



## alchook

hipslo said:


> I dont know.  If Vail/ Talisker took that tack, PCMR could  shut down the resort (or threaten to do so). Given the deep pockets of the owners of PCMR (whose wealth is not derived from the ski industry), I wouldnt think they would be under any great pressure to sell. Vail/ Talisker would then have to decide whether they'd prefer to rent the land to pcmr for a higher rent, and link the two resorts, both of which would benefit Vail/ Talisker,  or sit there with the land as a non-performing asset, unable to monetize it, and continue to pour resources into a second tier ski resort in a town that would likely see a pretty steep decline in skier visits  as a result of the shutdown of the resort that sits in the center of town.  Seems like it would be a stalemate.  Given that, I still see a scenario in which the parties agree to a new lease and a linking of the resorts, which would remain under separate ownership, as the most likely scenario.



I’m not sure that Vail would be unable to monetize the land. Couldn’t they simply expand into it? They have the lease and the resources. PCMR is their main competition in PC. They’d probably make more money from the increase in skier days than they would by leasing the land. The locals would grumble (it’s what they’re good at) but they wouldn’t stop skiing.

And would PCMR really be free to shut down? I’m guessing they’d be under lots of pressure from lots of other parties, most notably Marriott, which has a huge investment in the resort.


----------



## hipslo

alchook said:


> I’m not sure that Vail would be unable to monetize the land. Couldn’t they simply expand into it? They have the lease and the resources. PCMR is their main competition in PC. They’d probably make more money from the increase in skier days than they would by leasing the land. The locals would grumble (it’s what they’re good at) but they wouldn’t stop skiing.
> 
> And would PCMR really be free to shut down? I’m guessing they’d be under lots of pressure from lots of other parties, most notably Marriott, which has a huge investment in the resort.



Vail likely gets the same increase in skier days if the two resorts continue to operate independently and are linked, with some sort of revenue sharing arrangement, without having to invest what is likely hundreds of millions of dollars and at least several years to put in new lifts, base facilities, snow making equipment (not sure Vail could even get the water rights to support snowmaking, which are currently owned by PCMR), etc, and the added cost of operating another resort.  When is the last time Vail built a brand new resort from scratch?  That's essentially what would be required.  And without parking there would be no day skiers.

 I think it all depends on how the Cumming family decides to proceed in that case.  Much of it would likely come down to ego.  And, given their decades long presence in town, and the status of Vail and Talisker as newcomers (troublesome ones at that, as to Talisker) the locals would likely back them over Vail/ Talisker. 

If PCMR offers increased rent for a lease extension and Vail/ Talisker refuse to negotiate (which I believe is where things currently stand), the locals would likely blame Vail/ Talisker for a shutdown, rather than PCMR. 

 I dont see why PCMR would be at all beholden to or subject to pressure from Marriott, unless there is some sort of joint venture there that I am not aware of (which is certainly possible).


----------



## ondeadlin

Bottom line?  Both sides have a lot of exposure here and no ideal solution, but PCMR ultimately has a lot more exposure because Talisker/Vail can effectively shut down PCMR if it prevails in the suit.  There is effectively no downside to Talisker/Vail - the worst outcome they have to gameplan for is that status quo, i.e. PCMR pays them more rent for the same land.

The most likely outcome IMO is a deal where PCMR pays significantly increased rent and agrees to an arrangement similar to the Alta/Bird ticket.  Vail probably wouldn't such access standard on its Epic Passes, but would allow skiers to pay an upgrade charge for it.  Everybody wins, because Vail makes more money and PCMR continues to operate while making a little more money off the new passes.  

The second most likely outcome would be PCMR simply sells to Vail.

Any outcome where Vail/Canyons doesn't gain an entrance point into PCMR would surprise me.

I don't think Vail cares very much about local sentiment at this point.  It's a consideration, but not a huge one.  The fact is, the relationship between resort operators and ski town locals is always some variation of love/hate, just like the relationship between locals and large colleges, locals and military bases, etc.


----------



## hipslo

ondeadlin said:


> Bottom line?  Both sides have a lot of exposure here and no ideal solution, but PCMR ultimately has a lot more exposure because Talisker/Vail can effectively shut down PCMR if it prevails in the suit.  There is effectively no downside to Talisker/Vail - the worst outcome they have to gameplan for is that status quo, i.e. PCMR pays them more rent for the same land.
> 
> The most likely outcome IMO is a deal where PCMR pays significantly increased rent and agrees to an arrangement similar to the Alta/Bird ticket.  Vail probably wouldn't such access standard on its Epic Passes, but would allow skiers to pay an upgrade charge for it.  Everybody wins, because Vail makes more money and PCMR continues to operate while making a little more money off the new passes.



Well said. Agreed.


----------



## ondeadlin

hipslo said:


> Well said. Agreed.



Well, when it's all said and done I'm just agreeing with what you said in the second post of this thread, as I did earlier.

So you said it well first.


----------



## ondeadlin

alchook said:


> I just bought a Canyons  4-pack (4 lift tickets) for $242.
> 
> And that was directly from Vail, not through a third party.
> 
> (And no, I don’t work for Vail.)



Nicely done.


----------



## alchook

hipslo said:


> Vail likely gets the same increase in skier days if the two resorts continue to operate independently and are linked, with some sort of revenue sharing arrangement, without having to invest what is likely hundreds of millions of dollars and at least several years to put in new lifts, base facilities, snow making equipment (not sure Vail could even get the water rights to support snowmaking, which are currently owned by PCMR), etc, and the added cost of operating another resort.  When is the last time Vail built a brand new resort from scratch?  That's essentially what would be required.  And without parking there would be no day skiers.
> 
> I think it all depends on how the Cumming family decides to proceed in that case.  Much of it would likely come down to ego.  And, given their decades long presence in town, and the status of Vail and Talisker as newcomers (troublesome ones at that, as to Talisker) the locals would likely back them over Vail/ Talisker.
> 
> If PCMR offers increased rent for a lease extension and Vail/ Talisker refuse to negotiate (which I believe is where things currently stand), the locals would likely blame Vail/ Talisker for a shutdown, rather than PCMR.
> 
> I dont see why PCMR would be at all beholden to or subject to pressure from Marriott, unless there is some sort of joint venture there that I am not aware of (which is certainly possible).



Would they have to put in new lifts? I’m not an attorney, and I certainly don’t know the PC arrangements, but as a general principle, any permanent structure built on leased property belongs to the property owner. So if I rent an apartment and hang a picture I can take it with me when I move. If I put in new carpeting the carpeting now belongs to my landlord.

I don’t know what arrangement Marriott has with PC, but I own some property there and it seems as though everyone is suing everyone. Great place to be a lawyer. So if PCMR closed through what appears to be gross negligence on their part (they forgot to renew a lease?) I would be surprised if Marriott took that lying down.

In fact, as a Mountainside owner I’d be pretty unhappy if they did.

And I’m not sure that Vail is terribly concerned about local sentiment. In fact, as a publicly traded corporation its legal responsibility is to its shareholders.


----------



## ondeadlin

alchook said:


> Would they have to put in new lifts? I’m not an attorney, and I certainly don’t know the PC arrangements, but as a general principle, any permanent structure built on leased property belongs to the property owner. So if I rent an apartment and hang a picture I can take it with me when I move. If I put in new carpeting the carpeting now belongs to my landlord.



The law is usually different for trade fixtures on commercial property, which can typically be removed within a certain (short) period of time if any damage to the property is repaired in the process.  Removing lifts would be such an expensive process, though, that I couldn't really see it happening.  Again, there would almost certainly be an arrangement reached.


----------



## alchook

ondeadlin said:


> The law is usually different for trade fixtures on commercial property, which can typically be removed within a certain (short) period of time if any damage to the property is repaired in the process.  Removing lifts would be such an expensive process, though, that I couldn't really see it happening.  Again, there would almost certainly be an arrangement reached.



Thanks, I didn’t know that.

I guess the other question is what you do with left over ski lifts. I don’t imagine they bring much at a garage sale.


----------



## hipslo

alchook said:


> So if PCMR closed through what appears to be gross negligence on their part (they forgot to renew a lease?) I would be surprised if Marriott took that lying down.
> 
> In fact, as a Mountainside owner I’d be pretty unhappy if they did.



Marriott would have to show that PCMR had some legal duty to Marriott to continue to operate the resort.  In the absence of some sort of contractual relationship between the parties (which could exist, I just dont know the facts), I dont see how Marriott could show that.


----------



## alchook

hipslo said:


> Marriott would have to show that PCMR had some legal duty to Marriott to continue to operate the resort.  In the absence of some sort of contractual relationship between the parties (which could exist, I just dont know the facts), I dont see how Marriott could show that.



Right, but neither do I understand the legal basis behind suing someone because you neglected to renew your lease. That obviously didn’t stop PCMR .


----------



## hipslo

alchook said:


> Right, but neither do I understand the legal basis behind suing someone because you neglected to renew your lease. That obviously didn’t stop PCMR .



I believe PCMR is seeking a declaratory judgment that they did, in fact renew their lease.  Failing that, I think they are seeking to estop Talisker from terminating the lease based on PCMR's reliance on Talisker's  conduct and discussions concerning each side spending tens of millions of dollars on new capital improvements in anticipation of linking the resorts, which of course for PCMR wouldnt have made any sense if they knew Talisker intended to terminate the lease. And, as a last ditch effort, failing that, they are seeking to be reimbursed those tens of millions of dollars spent on capital improvements that would unjustly enrich Talisker if the lease is terminated.


----------



## alchook

hipslo said:


> I believe PCMR is seeking a declaratory judgment that they did, in fact renew their lease.  Failing that, I think they are seeking to estop Talisker from terminating the lease based on PCMR's reliance on Talisker's  conduct and discussions concerning each side spending tens of millions of dollars on new capital improvements in anticipation of linking the resorts, which of course for PCMR wouldnt have made any sense if they knew Talisker intended to terminate the lease. And, as a last ditch effort, failing that, they are seeking to be reimbursed those tens of millions of dollars spent on capital improvements that would unjustly enrich Talisker if the lease is terminated.



I sued a developer in PC a few years ago. I had put down $35K in earnest money on a condo which was never released for occupancy, and which the developer eventually sold as a timeshare. The developer was honestly shocked that I wanted my money back.

When I presented my case to an attorney, the first thing he told me was that judges in Utah are notorious sticklers for strict enforcement of contractual deadlines. 

The other thing I’ve been told is that if you really want to get on a judge’s bad side, there’s probably no more efficient way to do that than to present the court with tampered evidence, which PCMR has now admitted to having done.

That’s why my impression is that they’e really going nowhere with this lawsuit.


----------



## ondeadlin

SkyBlueWaters said:


> 5 out of 7 for $340 (Costco price) at PCMR. $500 at Vail. ???



Not quite parity, but you don't have to go to Costco to get it, and it appears to be available with no blackouts with some associated discounts.

http://www.snow.com/epic-pass/info/epic-day.aspx?CMPID=BACCP2852


----------



## SkyBlueWaters

ondeadlin said:


> Nicely done.



You guys don't get it. Do ya really think that the prices of lift tickets will just go cheaper when Vail takes over?

That's not how monopolies work.


----------



## SkyBlueWaters

*Value of Mountainside*

Legal issues aside. Would like to hear what others think about how the value of properties surrounding Park City Mountain would be affected, specifically Mountainside. Is there a possibility we would be shut out.

Up or down? 

We are so ready to go to Deer Valley (husband hates Vail operations for some reason). But then we would have just lost the most precious amenity offered on slopside lodging. Sigh.


----------



## ondeadlin

SkyBlueWaters said:


> You guys don't get it. Do ya really think that the prices of lift tickets will just go cheaper when Vail takes over?
> 
> That's not how monopolies work.



Vail has been the No. 1 force in pushing season prices down nationally in the ski industry.  I pay less to ski today than I did 10 years ago.  Every resort that Vail moves into, season pass prices fall.  That's a fact, not a wish or a projection - season pass prices, for example, are considerably cheaper at the Canyons this year than they were last year.

Now, you may be correct that someone who skis only 5 days a year and buys their passes at Costco will pay a few dollars more per person for lift tickets, but (a) that's a very small group of skiers; and (b) that's the way the entire industry is headed - higher lift ticket prices, lower season pass prices.  Season pass holders get the best deals.  That's not surprising, because season pass holders are guaranteed revenue, while those who buy lift tickets may or may not show up and may or may not switch between resorts every year.

You can pay $340 for 5 days at Costco, but Vail offers a _*season *_pass at Keystone/A-Basin for $279 or Tahoe for $439 or Vail/Breck/Beaver Creek for $529 (Christmas and Presidents' blacked out).  I think most folks would see the greater value in the Vail passes, but with the 4-day pass priced at $349, it's not as if Vail is breaking your bank compared to Costco.


----------



## hipslo

SkyBlueWaters said:


> Legal issues aside. Would like to hear what others think about how the value of properties surrounding Park City Mountain would be affected, specifically Mountainside. Is there a possibility we would be shut out.
> 
> Up or down? .



One way or another, it seems inevitable that PCMR and Canyons will be linked.  Whether that is under separate ownership or common ownership, either way I would think it would make MS more desirable (and perhaps more valuable, but who knows), since the terrain that could be accessed on a ski in, ski out basis would more than double.

Any scenario under which PCMR actually shuts down strikes me as highly unlikely.


----------



## alchook

SkyBlueWaters said:


> You guys don't get it. Do ya really think that the prices of lift tickets will just go cheaper when Vail takes over?
> 
> That's not how monopolies work.



I really don’t care.

I have limited time on the mountain, so I look at value rather than price. If you know of a company that does a better job of managing a ski mountain than Vail I’d be happy to hear about it.

Skiers constantly wax nostalgic about how cheap lift tickets were “in the day.” Myself, I really don’t miss 45 minute lift lines and long, slow, cold chairlift rides.

So if Vail took over and gave me access to a resort with maybe eight to ten thousand skiable acres accessed by high speed lifts I’d be happy to spend a few more bucks on lift tickets in return.


----------



## Cobra1950

Vail is an outstanding mountain, we have skied their often in the past before we bought our first of two weeks at Summittwatch in 1999.  It was our "main mountain" for family skiing, I will always remember "the Back Bowls" there.      
   Frankly I am glad Vail is doing something positive about lift tickets, the greed of ski areas is driving out too many younger generation skiiers and boarders in this poor economy that has singled out young people for abuse.
   A $100 lift ticket is _*obscene*_ and Vail seems to recognize that the "golden goose" of lift ticket pricing will soon see dramatically decreasing sales and their marketing approach of "bundling" multiple ski areas and having one administration, insurance, legal, etc cost to help reduce overhead and ticket costs is a very, very smart play what has become a pretty stupidly run ski industry.:whoopie:
    The danger of course is them eventually raising prices, but I think they are too smart to do that, at least in the medium term.


----------



## ondeadlin

Cobra1950 said:


> Vail is an outstanding mountain, we have skied their often in the past before we bought our first of two weeks at Summittwatch in 1999.  It was our "main mountain" for family skiing, I will always remember "the Back Bowls" there.
> Frankly I am glad Vail is doing something positive about lift tickets, the greed of ski areas is driving out too many younger generation skiiers and boarders in this poor economy that has singled out young people for abuse.
> A $100 lift ticket is _*obscene*_ and Vail seems to recognize that the "golden goose" of lift ticket pricing will soon see dramatically decreasing sales and their marketing approach of "bundling" multiple ski areas and having one administration, insurance, legal, etc cost to help reduce overhead and ticket costs is a very, very smart play what has become a pretty stupidly run ski industry.:whoopie:
> The danger of course is them eventually raising prices, but I think they are too smart to do that, at least in the medium term.



Well, to be fair, Vail is raising their single-day prices as fast as anyone, and their 3-6 day lift ticket packages are, at best, average for the industry.

But they were the first elite resort to offer low-priced passes and continue to lead the market in that area IMO.  

I don't get folks who are hostile to Vail.  Only positive experiences for me.


----------



## SkyBlueWaters

ondeadlin said:


> Well, to be fair, Vail is raising their single-day prices as fast as anyone, and their 3-6 day lift ticket packages are, at best, average for the industry.
> 
> But they were the first elite resort to offer low-priced passes and continue to lead the market in that area IMO.
> 
> I don't get folks who are hostile to Vail.  Only positive experiences for me.



If you have young kids, you have to develop them. At $500 per day at ski school, you will not have the talented ones but with less resources developed properly. Even for recreation purposes, proper and graduated instruction is important for the sport. PCMR has been a hub of Olympic Skier development because of its accessibility in terms of location and price. 

A mountain is a mountain, we don't need an "elite" resort to run it. We love PCMR just fine.

.


----------



## SkyBlueWaters

alchook said:


> I really don’t care.
> 
> I have limited time on the mountain, so I look at value rather than price. If you know of a company that does a better job of managing a ski mountain than Vail I’d be happy to hear about it.
> 
> Skiers constantly wax nostalgic about how cheap lift tickets were “in the day.” Myself, I really don’t miss 45 minute lift lines and long, slow, cold chairlift rides.
> 
> So if Vail took over and gave me access to a resort with maybe eight to ten thousand skiable acres accessed by high speed lifts I’d be happy to spend a few more bucks on lift tickets in return.



So how many kids do you have? This seems to me a pretty self-centered approach. Remember, if the mountain runs out of families who ski it, the young ones will not learn or want to ski. We may be spending a short time there, but we've got volume and the future of the industry.


----------



## SkyBlueWaters

Cobra1950 said:


> Vail is an outstanding mountain, we have skied their often in the past before we bought our first of two weeks at Summittwatch in 1999.  It was our "main mountain" for family skiing, I will always remember "the Back Bowls" there.
> Frankly I am glad Vail is doing something positive about lift tickets, the greed of ski areas is driving out too many younger generation skiiers and boarders in this poor economy that has singled out young people for abuse.
> A $100 lift ticket is _*obscene*_ and Vail seems to recognize that the "golden goose" of lift ticket pricing will soon see dramatically decreasing sales and their marketing approach of "bundling" multiple ski areas and having one administration, insurance, legal, etc cost to help reduce overhead and ticket costs is a very, very smart play what has become a pretty stupidly run ski industry.:whoopie:
> The danger of course is them eventually raising prices, but I think they are too smart to do that, at least in the medium term.



"Obscene" is the exact word my husband used!


----------



## alchook

SkyBlueWaters said:


> If you have young kids, you have to develop them. At $500 per day at ski school, you will not have the talented ones but with less resources developed properly.



What kind of lessons are getting? Are you talking about private lessons? I've taken group lessons at Vail and I remember them costing about what they cost anywhere else.


----------



## alchook

SkyBlueWaters said:


> So how many kids do you have? This seems to me a pretty self-centered approach. Remember, if the mountain runs out of families who ski it, the young ones will not learn or want to ski. We may be spending a short time there, but we've got volume and the future of the industry.



I don't have any kids, but you asked a question and I answered it.

As I and others have pointed out already, Vail is offering a terrific value for people who ski 10 or more days a year. And for people such as yourself who ski five days a year they offer short term passes roughly on the same scale as you mentioned buying at Costco. Currently, you can get 4 tickets at Canyons for $249.

Again, I don't see what's "obscene" about that, and I still don't know anyone who runs a mountain better than Vail.


----------



## SMHarman

Cobra1950 said:


> Vail is an outstanding mountain, we have skied their often in the past before we bought our first of two weeks at Summittwatch in 1999.  It was our "main mountain" for family skiing, I will always remember "the Back Bowls" there.
> Frankly I am glad Vail is doing something positive about lift tickets, the greed of ski areas is driving out too many younger generation skiiers and boarders in this poor economy that has singled out young people for abuse.
> A $100 lift ticket is _*obscene*_ and Vail seems to recognize that the "golden goose" of lift ticket pricing will soon see dramatically decreasing sales and their marketing approach of "bundling" multiple ski areas and having one administration, insurance, legal, etc cost to help reduce overhead and ticket costs is a very, very smart play what has become a pretty stupidly run ski industry.:whoopie:
> The danger of course is them eventually raising prices, but I think they are too smart to do that, at least in the medium term.


With, call it what you want but ultimately a shorter winter season in many resorts, the same overhead to cover in land lease etc, additional costs for turbofan man made snow (fuel, water pumps etc) the ticket costs though high generally lead to a resort that is breaking even, not having the owners fly about in their gulfstreams.


ondeadlin said:


> Well, to be fair, Vail is raising their single-day prices as fast as anyone, and their 3-6 day lift ticket packages are, at best, average for the industry.
> 
> But they were the first elite resort to offer low-priced passes and continue to lead the market in that area IMO.
> 
> I don't get folks who are hostile to Vail.  Only positive experiences for me.


Many of my friends love the Epic.  The pass is sufficient value that even living in NY you can two a couple of weeks out west or a week and two long weekends and get great value from the pass.  I know people that do that over buying a pass for Killington or somewhere East.


SkyBlueWaters said:


> If you have young kids, you have to develop them. At $500 per day at ski school, you will not have the talented ones but with less resources developed properly. Even for recreation purposes, proper and graduated instruction is important for the sport. PCMR has been a hub of Olympic Skier development because of its accessibility in terms of location and price.
> 
> A mountain is a mountain, we don't need an "elite" resort to run it. We love PCMR just fine.
> 
> .


WTF lessons are you paying for at $500 a day.  It's $180 a day (including the lift ticket and lunch at Stowe which is an expensive east coast resort.
Killington will do 3 full days of lessons for $219 thats $73 a day.  About $10 an hour which is cheaper than day care!



SkyBlueWaters said:


> So how many kids do you have? This seems to me a pretty self-centered approach. Remember, if the mountain runs out of families who ski it, the young ones will not learn or want to ski. We may be spending a short time there, but we've got volume and the future of the industry.


Interestingly there are more skiers than boarders coming to the sport now!
http://travel.nytimes.com/2013/01/20/travel/has-snowboarding-lost-its-edge.html?pagewanted=all

NY is doing a great job of getting parents and kids onto sticks and planks.  http://www.44free.com/

My first season of East Coast skiing when I moved over the pond was expensive.  Then I learned about ski clubs, discount lift tickets, group buying programs, www.liftopia.com www.snow.com even costco
http://travel.nytimes.com/2011/12/11/travel/how-to-get-a-deal-on-lift-tickets.html

If you are paying over $60 a day for adult tickets (weekends) and $40 for kids you are looking in the wrong place and not planning.  Thats the same as complaining about air to HI when you bought the last 4 seats on the plane, at the ticket counter, at the airport.  Walkup rates for ski mountains are very similar and not a rate you should be using to complain about the cost of skiing.


----------



## ondeadlin

SkyBlueWaters said:


> If you have young kids, you have to develop them. At $500 per day at ski school, you will not have the talented ones but with less resources developed properly. Even for recreation purposes, proper and graduated instruction is important for the sport. PCMR has been a hub of Olympic Skier development because of its accessibility in terms of location and price.



I have three kids.  They've been in lessons at Vail, Breck, Beaver Creek,  Deer Valey, Canyons, and PCMR.  I haven't felt any one of the bunch was a particular value over the others.  I don't think I have ever paid more than $125 day for a group kids lesson, so I don't know where the $500 figure comes from.

Vail Resorts runs some tremendous value kids programs for locals in Colorado.  Always been jealous that I haven't been able to take advantage of them.

In the end, you're refusing to recognize that Vail is actually a significantly better economic value for a lot of posters here than what's currently offered at PCMR or Deer Valley (or the Canyons in the past) - and is either a push or $100 or so per person worse for your Costco lift ticket example.  It's a little hard to understand.


----------



## ondeadlin

Coincidentally, the Salt Lake Trib just did a story three days ago about how Vail's entry into Utah is driving down pass prices:



> "I think when Vail came in, it definitely — I don’t know if I would call it pressured, but it did encourage our resorts to look at some different pass options," English said. "It’s a wonderful thing if all it does is get more people on the slopes. It’s really exciting for us."



http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/money/56768646-79/pass-ski-resorts-resort.html.csp

It appears to me that all the new joint passes being created by Utah resorts still appear to be more expensive than the Epic Pass.

It also notes that, thanks to Vail, a season pass at the Canyons costs $310 less this year.


----------



## alchook

*PCMR evicted? Dicier yet.*

Vail ups the ante:

http://www.parkrecord.com/ci_23966883/talisker-corporation-moves-evict-pcmr-matter-days


----------



## EducatedConsumer

Wow, what drama.

Thought I was watching the Jerry Springer Show.


----------



## ondeadlin

alchook said:


> Vail ups the ante:
> 
> http://www.parkrecord.com/ci_23966883/talisker-corporation-moves-evict-pcmr-matter-days



Not familiar with Utah law, but in some jurisdictions you have to move against a non-paying tenant within a certain window or the tenant gains some advantages going forward.  Realistically, there's almost no way they're forcing PCRM off the land any time soon.  This is just tactical legal manuevering IMO.

PCMR is in a tough position, having to admit they have previously lied about intentionally back-dating their response to the lease.  Talisker/Vail has the moral (and probably legal) high ground now, and they know it:



> "Despite our dispute and us not receiving a fair rent from you, we have made every effort to be constructive and patient with this process, because we know how important this situation is to the community in which we both operate. Unfortunately this is no longer just a good faith disagreement, but a question of how you have chosen to do business. Your backdating of this notice and your apparent efforts to keep it hidden force us to take a different approach to our dispute and long-term relationship."


----------



## alchook

ondeadlin said:


> Not familiar with Utah law, but in some jurisdictions you have to move against a non-paying tenant within a certain window or the tenant gains some advantages going forward.  Realistically, there's almost no way they're forcing PCRM off the land any time soon.  This is just tactical legal manuevering IMO.



Wouldn’t the situation change if fraud is involved?

I’m not an attorney, but I’ve been told that judges take a dim view of tampering with legal records.


----------



## ondeadlin

In a case like this, where you're dealing with large entities that are important to a community, courts will typically be very deliberate and will often preserve the status quo until the legal outcome is clear.  Here, that probably means preserving the status quo until the initial case is decided, at least at the district court level.


----------



## Cobra1950

*Talisker/Vail Issue 5 Day Eviction notice on Park City Ski Resort*

Just got update on SnoCountry that Talisker has issued Eviction notice on Park City Mountain Resort they must vacate the premises in 5 days.  PMCC has of course told them to take a long walk off a short pier but looks like things are heating up in this squabble, hope it straightens out by time we are there March 2?


----------



## hipslo

Not surprisingly, Vail acknowledges that eviction notice is but a legal formality to preserve their position and will have no impact on upcoming season:

http://www.parkrecord.com/news/ci_2...e-pcmr-during-upcoming-ski?source=most_viewed


----------



## SkyBlueWaters

*To buy or not to buy season passes PCMR*

Deadline for the cheapest deal is coming up soon, Sep. 15. But Vail is really stepping up the pressure. Eviction notice issued Wed. Despite pending litigation. Sigh.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/56798697-78/park-resorts-resort-ski.html.csp


----------



## SkyBlueWaters

*Did OP change orig. title*



ondeadlin said:


> I have three kids.  They've been in lessons at Vail, Breck, Beaver Creek,  Deer Valey, Canyons, and PCMR.  I haven't felt any one of the bunch was a particular value over the others.  I don't think I have ever paid more than $125 day for a group kids lesson, so I don't know where the $500 figure comes from.
> 
> Vail Resorts runs some tremendous value kids programs for locals in Colorado.  Always been jealous that I haven't been able to take advantage of them.
> 
> In the end, you're refusing to recognize that Vail is actually a significantly better economic value for a lot of posters here than what's currently offered at PCMR or Deer Valley (or the Canyons in the past) - and is either a push or $100 or so per person worse for your Costco lift ticket example.  It's a little hard to understand.



Two seasons ago, we paid $200 per child at PCMR. Last season, we checked prices at Vail for full day, it was at least twice that. When was the last time you paid for full day regular season, or I may be losing out on some deals that I am unaware of. We need at least one day full ski classes to have the kids get up to speed with a new terrain and skills that may have been forgotten.

Sorry, I posted news in a new thread. Didn't see this thread because the title was changed. Moderator, please feel free to transfer my new thread, althouh I feel that could stand on its own.


----------



## ondeadlin

Paid for lessons at Breck last season.

Are you talking per day or for a series of days?  Because it wasn't $200 per day, let alone $400.  If you're talking per-day, I think you may have been looking at individual private lessons and not ski school prices.

Here's a link to Breck's ski school prices for last season.  I believe I paid $847 for 5 days lift-and-less (hand-me-down equipment, so no rental needed).  So it's more than I estimated above (a figure that may have been influenced by what I paid for my older children), but slightly less than you paid per-day at PCMR.

http://www.breckenridge.com/ski-and-ride-school/child-lessons/childrens-group-lessons.aspx

I hope you'll reconsider your impressions of Vail Resorts.  They're really out of date and not accurate.  I think you'll be pleasantly surprised when/if you give them a chance.


----------



## ondeadlin

SkyBlueWaters said:


> Deadline for the cheapest deal is coming up soon, Sep. 15. But Vail is really stepping up the pressure. Eviction notice issued Wed. Despite pending litigation. Sigh.
> 
> http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/56798697-78/park-resorts-resort-ski.html.csp



As was covered in the other thread (and the link you posted above), the eviction notice is a legal technicality that Vail was forced to file for legal reasons.  Vail has issued multiple statements this week that it will not do anything to interfere with operations at PCMR this season.

If you want to ski PCMR, nothing in the litigation should impact you this season.


----------



## SkyBlueWaters

ondeadlin said:


> Paid for lessons at Breck last season.
> 
> Are you talking per day or for a series of days?  Because it wasn't $200 per day, let alone $400.  If you're talking per-day, I think you may have been looking at individual private lessons and not ski school prices.
> 
> Here's a link to Breck's ski school prices for last season.  I believe I paid $847 for 5 days lift-and-less (hand-me-down equipment, so no rental needed).
> 
> http://www.breckenridge.com/ski-and-ride-school/child-lessons/childrens-group-lessons.aspx
> 
> So basically Vail Resorts charged me less per day than you paid in PCMR.  I hope you'll reconsider your impressions of Vail Resorts.  They're really out of date and not accurate.  I think you'll be pleasantly surprised when/if you give them a chance.



Could you share how much? I was only looking at Vail.


----------



## SueDonJ

_Moderator Note:  Please do not start new threads with information related to this situation at Park City Ski Resort.  Thank you.  _


----------



## ondeadlin

SkyBlueWaters said:


> Could you share how much? I was only looking at Vail.



In my experience the prices between Breck and Vail are usually either identical or Vail is slightly higher (10% or so).  In fact, I think two years ago Vail sold a pack of kids lessons that could be used at any of their resorts and I used them at Vail, BC and Breck.

So the prices that I paid at Breck (listed above) are probably very close to identical to what you would have paid at Vail last season.


----------



## alchook

ondeadlin said:


> Vail has issued multiple statements this week that it will not do anything to interfere with operations at PCMR this season.
> 
> If you want to ski PCMR, nothing in the litigation should impact you this season.



Emphasis on “this season.” I think it’s pretty clear that Vail’s plan is to take over PCMR one way or the other. Obviously it’s impossible to link the two resorts before the start of the season, but I would bet they’re making plans to do so next year.

I’m trying to get a handle on what territory is covered. I see PCMR has the base facilities, parking, and the Town Lift. I’m assuming they control the acreage under Payday?

So if Vail were to annex the land they now control with the lease it may not be devastating to Mountainside. The King chair is just a short walk. I know instructors who use it routinely as a quick way to get to the other side of the mountain.

And we have our own parking.

Summit Watch is another story, of course.


----------



## ondeadlin

Good graphic Powder mag put up Friday listing season pass prices at seemingly all the major ski resorts in America.  

http://www.powdermag.com/first-chair/deals-and-deadlines-2014-season-passes/


----------



## Cobra1950

Actually since Summittwatch is at the base of the Town Lift and PCMR owns the Town Lift, we are probably in the same boat as Mountainside.  
    This is a stupid, stupid situation all for want of a letter mailed one day late to renew the lease!  I am surprised none of the dozens of lawyers on both sides have come up with a legal precedent that would apply in this situation one way or another to end it quickly.
    Anyway, Vail is claiming that all physical facilities "attached to the land" are now theirs and PCMR can only take personal possessions with them.  So if that holds in court, Vail will get everything, base lodges, lifts, buildings, so in the end other than new owners the Park City resort will continue in some fashion unless the courts do a "Solomon" and cut the baby in half or something weird.


----------



## ondeadlin

Cobra1950 said:


> Actually since Summittwatch is at the base of the Town Lift and PCMR owns the Town Lift, we are probably in the same boat as Mountainside.
> This is a stupid, stupid situation all for want of a letter mailed one day late to renew the lease!  I am surprised none of the dozens of lawyers on both sides have come up with a legal precedent that would apply in this situation one way or another to end it quickly.
> Anyway, Vail is claiming that all physical facilities "attached to the land" are now theirs and PCMR can only take personal possessions with them.  So if that holds in court, Vail will get everything, base lodges, lifts, buildings, so in the end other than new owners the Park City resort will continue in some fashion unless the courts do a "Solomon" and cut the baby in half or something weird.



There is precedent to end it (relatively) quickly, and that precedent is firmly against PCMR.  There is little doubt that whatever resolution is ultimately arrived at, it will be a much better deal for Vail/Talisker, it's just a question of how hard Vail/Tailsker want to push.  If they really want to push, they could very well end up forcing PCMR off the mountain, but that would obviously have a potentially negative impact on how Vail/Talisker is viewed in the community.

Complex commercial litigation in federal court is typically slow, particularly with these kind of stakes.

The outcome will ultimately have no impact on skiers and riders or timeshare owners IMO.  Someone will run the resort.  It will be a great resort.  And there will be access for both Summitwatch and Mountainside.


----------



## hipslo

ondeadlin said:


> The outcome will ultimately have no impact on skiers and riders or timeshare owners IMO.  Someone will run the resort.  It will be a great resort.  And there will be access for both Summitwatch and Mountainside.



Agreed.  My money would be on PCMR retaining control of its resort and the two resorts operating on some sort of a combined basis, though it is not inconceivable that PCMR loses control. If I had to guess when the situation will be resolved, it would be spring or summer of 2014, though any number of things could happen to make it drag on longer than that. 

I dont see any realistic outcome that could be anything other than neutral or positive for MS or SW.


----------



## SkyBlueWaters

Cobra1950 said:


> Actually since Summittwatch is at the base of the Town Lift and PCMR owns the Town Lift, we are probably in the same boat as Mountainside.
> This is a stupid, stupid situation all for want of a letter mailed one day late to renew the lease!  I am surprised none of the dozens of lawyers on both sides have come up with a legal precedent that would apply in this situation one way or another to end it quickly.
> Anyway, Vail is claiming that all physical facilities "attached to the land" are now theirs and PCMR can only take personal possessions with them.  So if that holds in court, Vail will get everything, base lodges, lifts, buildings, so in the end other than new owners the Park City resort will continue in some fashion unless the courts do a "Solomon" and cut the baby in half or something weird.



Of course not. This is all grandstanding tactic by Vail, I belatedly realized. What they want is a new lease agreement. That's all. 

Sorry for being redundant. Just read previous posts. Please delete if necessary as I can't seem to do that at my end.


----------



## SkyBlueWaters

*Park City can buy the mountain?*

So maybe they lost the lease but according to the court they could buy the mountain!

http://www.kutv.com/news/top-stories/stories/vid_6876.shtml

Also, first snow already fell today. Looks like it's going to be a good year at Mountainside.


----------



## hipslo

SkyBlueWaters said:


> So maybe they lost the lease but according to the court they could buy the mountain!
> 
> http://www.kutv.com/news/top-stories/stories/vid_6876.shtml



The court is allowing pcmr to expand the lawsuit to argue that they had the right of first refusal to buy the land, which the arrangement with Vail (allegedly) triggered. 

Substantively,I dont think this is a strong argument. The right of first refusal was contained in the lease.  So, if the lease wasn't validly extended, the right of first refusal would presumably have terminated.  

Unless pcmr can show that Talisker had reached the lease agreement with Vail prior to the pcmr lease having expired.  That could be an interesting argument, depending what comes out in the depositions.


----------



## ondeadlin

Yeah, no news here from a legal perspective.  They're trying to add anything that might help them hold on.  The judge is letting them because that's what judges almost always do unless the claims have absolutely no merit.

As for the argument itself, I'm skeptical.  If the clause was in the lease, it was dead when the lease was dead.  Even if they were already negotiating with Vail prior to the lease running out, they didn't have any legal obligation to make that known to PCMR until they had a deal.


----------



## SkyBlueWaters

I have to see the record if there is anything in any contract to say that ondeadlin. The ROFR  may be contained elsewhere other than the lease.

The judge did not hesitate to throw out the argument that the lease was implicitly extended even if the  Statute of Frauds, I believe, could have been applied based on the evidence presented. 

In this instance, he let the argument stay. Where is the Motion to Dismiss? I would have been all over it if it absolutely had no merit to it.


----------



## hipslo

ondeadlin said:


> Even if they were already negotiating with Vail prior to the lease running out, they didn't have any legal obligation to make that known to PCMR until they had a deal.



I agree, unless they had a deal before they announced that they "had a deal".   Which seems unlikely.


----------



## ondeadlin

SkyBlueWaters said:


> In this instance, he let the argument stay. Where is the Motion to Dismiss? I would have been all over it if it absolutely had no merit to it.



Everything is a process.  There will be a motion to dismiss - there always is, lol - but one cannot bring a motion to dismiss until the claim is actually added to the suit.  That's what this action was, adding the claim.

Most commercial lawsuits contain multiple claims and defenses, but they typically come down to one or two claims.

They also typically see only one or two motions to dismiss filed, because courts prefer to deal with everything in one fell swoop when possible.


----------



## SkyBlueWaters

Article must have been wrong then because why is the trial scheduled already for next year? Don't you need the Causes of Action all lined up first before scheduling trial?


----------



## ondeadlin

SkyBlueWaters said:


> Article must have been wrong then because why is the trial scheduled already for next year? Don't you need the Causes of Action all lined up first before scheduling trial?



I know it's confusing, but a plaintiff can amend a complaint to add causes of action at any time - in theory even on the last day of trial.

The Court typically issues a scheduling order with a trial date soon after the case is filed.  That date may change, given developments in the case, or it may not.


----------



## SkyBlueWaters

On a different note, could I inquire why you disposed your Marriott unit? If you don't mind my asking.


----------



## twinmommy19

Just curious - has it been determined yet how PCMR will operate for 2013-2014?  I haven't been able to find any news on this.

In the long term, I don't think TS owners have anything to worry about.  Somebody is going to run the resort and that's all that matters.  As for the Costco deals vs the Vail Epic pass the difference is going to be pretty nominal for almost all skiers.  Yes, I suppose if you are the kind of family that makes it a point to eat breakfast AND lunch in your room every single day AND definitely only wants to ski for 5 days out of your week then yes, it might cost a little bit more - still not a dollar value that will break the bank though.  And by the way - last time we were in PC, Costco ran out of those tickets - we were able to buy a few days on Liftopia for discount but not all and it wasn't so cheap.  Those deals are not guaranteed anyway.

The EPIC pass gives you 15% or 20% off food on the mountain at certain times of day (very workable into a schedule).  The pass allows you to possibly ski for an hour or so on a 6th day (or at least let your kids ski) if they want too.  I recall the pass having other perks as well.  When we went to Colorado we thought it was a great deal.  Of course - the biggest perk down the road would likely be the unlimited access to both PCMR AND Canyons.  The Costco deal only gets you access to one mountain and you have to commit and plan out exactly what you want to do prior to purchase.

Now if Vail resorts would just buy something - ANYTHING, on the east coast...


----------



## SkyBlueWaters

Yes, we are the type who eat all meals in our condo, which is why we bought the property. I'm a gourmet cook. No reason to eat out for us. Even my French gourmand friends who worked at the top French restaurant here love my cooking. So....

They're still fighting and operating. No eviction yet.


----------



## ondeadlin

SkyBlueWaters said:


> On a different note, could I inquire why you disposed your Marriott unit? If you don't mind my asking.



It was my first purchase and, after learning more about timesharing, I realized the Hyatt system is a better fit for me.

I try to ski 3-4 times a year in Colorado/Utah/Tahoe (mostly Colorado) and Hyatt has great availability and allows me to break the week up into a couple of long weekends when I want to, or - over a 2-year span - to break the week into a pair of II trades into 2 bedroom units (most recently Grand Lodge at Peak 7 and Cliff Club at Snowbird), and still have enough points left over for long ski weekend in a 2 bedroom unit in Breck or Beaver Creek, and a full ski week in a studio.

I use the Fox Run week for shoulder-season or last-minute trades, like a long December ski weekend.

Just bought the Grand Timber Lodge week.  It's EOY and I will probably mostly rent it.  The price was just too good to pass up.


----------



## alchook

It seems to be heating up.

http://www.parkrecord.com/ci_25369511/talisker-confident-prepares-act-upon-eviction-notice-against

I guess Vail is serious about evicting PCMR and taking over the resort. They still would not have the base facilities, of course.

I'm not sure where that would leave us Mountainside owners. Obviously this would impact the value of the resort. Can Marriott downgrade it?

Next month will be interesting.


----------



## SkyBlueWaters

The scenario of skiers ending up at our base and trying to find a way back up, is there going to be a gondola to take them back home?


----------



## ondeadlin

Again, I see very little chance that this won't eventually be settled.

But if it's not, Vail Resorts is more than capable of fixing the base area issues.  They'd probably do something temporary initially, and then proceed with longer-term plans.


----------



## alchook

ondeadlin said:


> Again, I see very little chance that this won't eventually be settled.
> 
> But if it's not, Vail Resorts is more than capable of fixing the base area issues.  They'd probably do something temporary initially, and then proceed with longer-term plans.



I guess Vail is willing to settle:

http://www.parkrecord.com/ci_25419000/vail-resorts-makes-buyout-offer-pcmr


----------



## ondeadlin

That's a hardball offer that signals Vail is very, very confident about its legal position.


----------



## Cobra1950

Well of course the other Marriott owners concern (we have two weeks) is if Vail purchases PCMR and decides the Town Lift is not needed and Summittwatch loses its ski lift.  Not likely but this is a crazy situation already
    Values at Summittwatch are significantly below Mountainside historically and loss of the lift would really hurt further.  Hopefully this will get settled soon, it has dragged out too long as it is.
     We were at Summittwatch several weeks ago for a week, nice as always and they had done a great job cleaning up the parking garage with new striping and organization since half the spots now go to others-it was needed.


----------



## alchook

ondeadlin said:


> That's a hardball offer that signals Vail is very, very confident about its legal position.



Once you get all the information it sounds pretty straight forward. PC let its lease expire. They chose not to re-negotiate, so Talisker found a new tenant. PC no longer seems to be disputing this, hinging its defense on a ROFR, which would appear to be unlikely to hold up if the lease had expired.


----------



## alchook

Cobra1950 said:


> Well of course the other Marriott owners concern (we have two weeks) is if Vail purchases PCMR and decides the Town Lift is not needed and Summittwatch loses its ski lift.  Not likely but this is a crazy situation already



My guess is that the Town Lift will be removed and replaced with a high-speed quad.


----------



## Fasttr

alchook said:


> My guess is that the Town Lift will be removed and replaced with a high-speed quad.



Or at least a really nice rope tow with brand new rope!!!


----------



## jeepie

Ha!
I would think the highest priority would be an interconnecting lift between resorts.


----------



## ondeadlin

alchook said:


> Once you get all the information it sounds pretty straight forward. PC let its lease expire. They chose not to re-negotiate, so Talisker found a new tenant. PC no longer seems to be disputing this, hinging its defense on a ROFR, which would appear to be unlikely to hold up if the lease had expired.



That is my read as well.


----------



## ondeadlin

Interesting Denver Post article on Vail's confidence in winning the lawsuit and taking over PCMR:



> The high price that Vail paid for Canyons hints at its confidence in securing the Park City terrain.
> 
> "That deal would not have gotten done if Vail was not confident they could prevail in this litigation," said JMP Securities analyst Whitney Stevenson, who tracks Vail Resorts. "It was outrageously expensive. They would not have paid that if the deal for Park City was not in there."


----------



## Cobra1950

Ondeadlin
    You are probably right. We have been skiing Park City area for years and have learned to stay away from Canyons, hard to ski around all the boarders laying all over the trails.  
     Plenty of boarders at Park City but just is not a big deal there for what ever reason. 
    With Canyons low elevation, snow there always more problematic, so they will have more issue quicker as things warm up, if they do.


----------



## ondeadlin

I think climate change is going to be an issue for all the Park City ski areas over the next 20-30 years.  I'm a big fan of April skiing, but the Park City areas turn to slush very, very quickly now - and it's only going to get worse.  The lack of elevation simply means it's always going to warm up very quickly.

The elevation and additional snow pack of the Cottonwoods will hold up much better.

A place like Big Sky might actually have considerably upside because right now it's regarded as a very cold place to ski - but that's likely to change over the next few decades.


----------



## alchook

Cobra1950 said:


> Ondeadlin
> You are probably right. We have been skiing Park City area for years and have learned to stay away from Canyons, hard to ski around all the boarders laying all over the trails.
> Plenty of boarders at Park City but just is not a big deal there for what ever reason.
> With Canyons low elevation, snow there always more problematic, so they will have more issue quicker as things warm up, if they do.



Park City is far more crowded than Canyons. Less terrain, two to three times as many people on the mountain, long lift lines, crowded facilities.

The one advantage it has is a lot more beginner's terrain, if you're into that.


----------



## hipslo

alchook said:


> Park City is far more crowded than Canyons. Less terrain, two to three times as many people on the mountain, long lift lines, crowded facilities.
> 
> The one advantage it has is a lot more beginner's terrain, if you're into that.



try jupiter, thaynes, motherlode and mcckonkeys, best terrain on the mountain and usually no lift lines at all.  most people tend to stay lower on the mountain (payday, silverlode, king con).  though the terrain off of crescent is good too, lower on the mountain, and never seems to get crowded there. 

as far as facilities, mid mountain lodge (near base of mcconkeys and pioneer) is generally not too crowded for lunch, or ski down to main street for lunch at high west.  or check out the yurt (used to be called five way cafe) near the top of crescent lift.

my favorite aspect of park city is that you can ski down to the base directly from the top of every lift except one (jupiter). not so at canyons, too much time spent traversing and riding lifts to move around the mountain.


----------



## alchook

hipslo said:


> try jupiter, thaynes, motherlode and mcckonkeys, best terrain on the mountain and usually no lift lines at all.  most people tend to stay lower on the mountain (payday, silverlode, king con).  though the terrain off of crescent is good too, lower on the mountain, and never seems to get crowded there.
> 
> as far as facilities, mid mountain lodge (near base of mcconkeys and pioneer) is generally not too crowded for lunch, or ski down to main street for lunch at high west.  or check out the yurt (used to be called five way cafe) near the top of crescent lift.
> 
> my favorite aspect of park city is that you can ski down to the base directly from the top of every lift except one (jupiter). not so at canyons, too much time spent traversing and riding lifts to move around the mountain.



No doubt Canyons has its issues, as does pretty much every ski resort. Overcrowding is definitely not one of those, though. Saying you don't like the crowded slopes at Canyons is sort of like saying the one thing you hate about Wyoming is the traffic.


----------



## puckmanfl

good evening

Have to chime in here...

I am just a huge Park City Mountain fan!!!  The Homerun "bowling alley" at the top of Bonanza lift is truly a congested thouroughfare, but the rest of the resort is just wide open.  Thaynes, King Con McConkey etc are just full of wide open runs with zero lift lines...  Silverlode can get mildly congested with 5 minute lines.  A true all purpose ski resort with trails for every level, a great ski school.  Tons of cool eateries on the mountain ( I like Mid mountain)...


----------



## SkyBlueWaters

http://www.parkrecord.com/City/ci_25493737/Powdr-Corp-CEO:-Vail-in-a

Watch the value of your TS to go up. The place is about to go premium.


----------



## alchook

I guess now they're planning to take the lifts with them.

http://www.parkrecord.com/ci_25524216/pcmr-intends-dismantle-remove-most-lifts-if-it


----------



## ondeadlin

The more Cummings talks, the more obvious it becomes that PCMR is terrified it is losing this lawsuit and that Vail won't negotiate some sort of middle ground settlement.


----------



## Cobra1950

Well in any event looks like heck of a mess shaping up.  For us Summittwatch owners the thought of the Town Lift being unbolted and taken away (really, it is an old slow lift by today's standards and is one step above scrap anyway) takes a lot of appeal out of Summittwatch even with all the renovations being done there as it really is convenient for all in the Old Town area.
     Does not seem like the lawyers are finding any clear precedent to reference so a judge will decide, then appears may take years.  Only ones that will win are the lawyers as usual  Anyone interested in skiing will be loser with even higher prices.


----------



## ondeadlin

Actually, as a lawyer who litigates commercial disputes, I can tell you that it appears the case law is pretty clearly on Vail's side and there's very little chance the lifts will ever be removed.  If the judge were to side with Vail and that decision were to be upheld on appeal - which I think is fairly likely - PCMR would then negotiate a deal under which it went away and left the equipment.  Why?  Because it would cost more to remove the lifts than the equipment would be worth.  There would be no value in it except spite.  Business sense would prevail at that point.  I literally see zero chance the lifts are ever removed.


----------



## SkyBlueWaters

There's more to it than meets the eye. Personally, and I don't know why I'm rooting for PCMR.

http://www.parkrecord.com/News/ci_25529916/PCMR-focuses-on-Talisker-in-rightoffirstrefusal


----------



## ondeadlin

PCMR is making the best arguments they can make, but don't be fooled - they've got an uphill battle.


----------



## grupp

Someone can correct me if I am wrong, but it seems the core issue remains did PCMR allow the lease to expire. All this other stuff about removing the lifts and ROFR is PCMR grasping at straws since their case regarding the lease is so weak. 

Admittedly not a legal professional, but to me this ROFR argument really seems like a waste of time.  If the lease truly did expire it would seem any ROFR rights would expire with the lease.  If the lease did not expire than it become a non-issue since PCMR would still the tenant. 

In my opinion, as an owner at both Westgate PC and Mountainside, I would prefer to see Vail prevail as I believe it will be better for long term. From what I have seen, PCMR is a bunch of buffoons who have no business running a major ski resort. 

If they loss, I wonder if PCMR is going to list their used ski lifts on Ebay. 

Gary


----------



## WBP

*Vail Resorts CEO Katz regarding Park City Mountain Resort*

http://www.vaildaily.com/news/11030905-113/katz-climate-mountain-park


----------



## WBP

*Vail Resorts CEO Katz regarding Park City Mountain Resort*

http://www.vaildaily.com/news/11030905-113/katz-climate-mountain-park


----------



## alchook

Two interesting things here. First, Vail is obviously planning to take over PCMR should they prevail in the lawsuit. That's not particularly surprising, but it does clarify the issue.

More importantly, Katz appears to be promising that should Vail lose the suit, it won't be planning to drag out the legal battle indefinitely, which should be a relief.

And, I would hope, the route PCMR would take as well.


----------



## ondeadlin

Great, candid interview.  The man is clearly very confident in from of a mic.

It would be highly unusual for the loser at the trial court level not to appeal IMO.  There's just too much at stake. Heck, for PCMR, there's everything at stake, but even for Vail, I won't believe they won't appeal until they lose at the trial court level and say as much.


----------



## alchook

ondeadlin said:


> Great, candid interview.  The man is clearly very confident in from of a mic.
> 
> It would be highly unusual for the loser at the trial court level not to appeal IMO.  There's just too much at stake. Heck, for PCMR, there's everything at stake, but even for Vail, I won't believe they won't appeal until they lose at the trial court level and say as much.



If the court rules that PCMR was lawfully evicted from the property, can they continue to operate as a ski resort during the appeal? Wouldn't they need a stay or something?


----------



## EducatedConsumer

*Judge Rules today against Park City and in favor of Vail Resorts takeover*

http://www.vaildaily.com/news/11510565-113/park-talisker-resorts-vail


----------



## FractionalTraveler

Interesting.  Thanks for posting.

Vail resorts already run quite a few other mountains operations in the USA including Heavenly, Vail, Beavercreek, Breckenridge and Keystone , and Northstar where Marriott also has resorts. 

FT


----------



## EducatedConsumer

Boy, I wonder what the person who manipulated the date on that letter in 2011 is doing for a living now? 

It will be interesting to see the outcome of this case, and if, in fact, Vail Resorts potential management of both the Canyons and Park City Mountain Resort creates a monopoly in Park City. I wonder if the consumer will ultimately benefit or be adversely impacted by such an arrangement?


----------



## jeepie

*Backdated?*



EducatedConsumer said:


> Boy, I wonder what the person who manipulated...


Backdated...indeed, it appears. See Undisputed Facts #67, p. 23.

Yeah, and you can bet the lawyers and their E&O insurers are going to write some big checks before it's over...IMHO.


----------



## ondeadlin

Game over, man.  Game over.


----------



## hipslo

ondeadlin said:


> Game over, man.  Game over.



Actually, I think its more of a stalemate than it is game over.  Had PCMR prevailed, it would have been game over in favor of PCMR.  Under these rulings, if they are upheld, neither side can operate the resort without something the other side controls, as a practical matter.  So the questions become, under a negotiated settlement, who sells or leases what to whom, at what price, and who operates the resort, going forward. 

Due to ego and emotion, it seems unlikely that PWDR will be willing to walk away, but we'll have to wait to see how things play out.


----------



## alchook

hipslo said:


> Actually, I think its more of a stalemate than it is game over.  Had PCMR prevailed, it would have been game over in favor of PCMR.  Under these rulings, if they are upheld, neither side can operate the resort without something the other side controls, as a practical matter.  So the questions become, under a negotiated settlement, who sells or leases what to whom, at what price, and who operates the resort, going forward.
> 
> Due to ego and emotion, it seems unlikely that PWDR will be willing to walk away, but we'll have to wait to see how things play out.



Vail certainly will have no trouble accessing the PC terrain from Canyons. That requires one chair lift. The water rights may be more of an issue, but I don't know if that stops them from operating. At any rate, even if Vail can't run the resort it has a lot to gain by shutting down the competition.

The question I have is whether PCMR has some sort of fiduciary responsibility to other parties it's been in business with, such as Marriott. If the base area shuts down it seems Mountainside becomes almost worthless. Will Marriott sit back and suck up the loss caused by PCMR's gross negligence?


----------



## hipslo

alchook said:


> Vail certainly will have no trouble accessing the PC terrain from Canyons. That requires one chair lift. The water rights may be more of an issue, but I don't know if that stops them from operating. At any rate, even if Vail can't run the resort it has a lot to gain by shutting down the competition.
> 
> The question I have is whether PCMR has some sort of fiduciary responsibility to other parties it's been in business with, such as Marriott. If the base area shuts down it seems Mountainside becomes almost worthless. Will Marriott sit back and suck up the loss caused by PCMR's gross negligence?



Based on where that chairlift would be, by the time skiers were able to get to it from the Canyons base, ride the lift, and then plan to return to the Canyons base at the end of their ski day (which they'd presumably need to do, because their guests wouldnt have access to the lower portion of PCMR that leads to the PCMR base), they'd have time for maybe one or two runs in one part of PCMR.  Not an ideal guest experience. 

Any solution other than a negotiated settlement under which the resort continues to operate more or less as it does today seems like a remote possibility, as a practical matter. The question is, what does that deal look like.


----------



## alchook

hipslo said:


> Based on where that chairlift would be, by the time skiers were able to get to it from the Canyons base, ride the lift, and then plan to return to the Canyons base at the end of their ski day (which they'd presumably need to do, because their guests wouldnt have access to the lower portion of PCMR that leads to the PCMR base), they'd have time for maybe one or two runs in one part of PCMR.  Not an ideal guest experience.
> 
> Any solution other than a negotiated settlement under which the resort continues to operate more or less as it does today seems like a remote possibility, as a practical matter. The question is, what does that deal look like.



Getting to the PCMR terrain would take maybe 90 minutes from the current base. But they have lots of other options. The Iron Mountain expansion is on land that had at one time been proposed as a separate ski resort. And with the added terrain you'll have probably the largest ski resort in North America. Most big resorts have multiple entrances.

Vail certainly has experience managing big resorts. And it seems pretty obvious that they have no intention of leasing the territory back to PCMR.


----------



## WBP

hipslo said:


> Based on where that chairlift would be, by the time skiers were able to get to it from the Canyons base, ride the lift, and then plan to return to the Canyons base at the end of their ski day (which they'd presumably need to do, because their guests wouldnt have access to the lower portion of PCMR that leads to the PCMR base), they'd have time for maybe one or two runs in one part of PCMR.  Not an ideal guest experience.
> 
> Any solution other than a negotiated settlement under which the resort continues to operate more or less as it does today seems like a remote possibility, as a practical matter. The question is, what does that deal look like.



That sounds like the "thrill and adventure" of polling your way from one side of Killington to another.


----------



## alchook

As I read the judge’s decision it struck me that PCMR really has nothing to argue. I had figured there must be more to this than meets the eye, but there isn’t. As the judge said (in 82 pages) the lease expired.  As such, PCMR is no different from any other tenant who failed to renew a lease and then rented on a month-to-month basis.

With that in mind, it seems pretty doubtful that PCMR will be operating this year.  Sure, they can appeal and throw good money after bad, but is there any reason for the judge to stay the eviction? 

And unless PCMR relents and turns over the base area to Vail, which doesn’t appear to be likely, the units at Summit Watch and Mountainside instantly go from being some of Marriott’s best properties to ones that owners literally will not be able to give away.

Oh well, I guess that demonstrates the value of Destination Club points. I’m pretty sure they can’t take those away.


----------



## ondeadlin

No, it's game over.  Not today.  Not tomorrow. But soon, and here's why:

The risk now shifts to Powdr Corp for a variety of reasons. If they opt to continue this fight and lose, there is a significant chance they will owe Talisker/Vail a lot more money in damages than they owe now (and they will owe now). Yes, they still control the base area, but I'm not sure how much consolation that will be if they end up owing tens of millions in damages (if not more).

Their legal arguments were essentially dismissed by the Court (and just about everyone else with a basic knowledge of contract and lease law in Utah).  Their chance of turning this around on appeal is small.  Not impossible, but small.

If the Court allows Powdr Corp to continue to operate the resort - which is not a given, but is likely - Powdr Corp will have to post a very significant and very expensive bond to cover the (now-expected) damages.  The Court may also require Powdr Corp to start paying a higher rental rate.  

And if, for any reason, the Court allows Vail to evict … then it's really game over immediately.  But I don't think that will happen because, for now, the more conservative decision is to allow the current operator to continue, as long as it shows it can pay significant damages.

The obvious solution is a negotiated settlement, but Talisker/Vail controls the leverage and has a lot less incentive to negotiate. The court should (and may very well) order non-binding mediation. Sometimes a third party's perspective can give the losing party a way to save face and exit gracefully.


----------



## hipslo

alchook said:


> As I read the judge’s decision it struck me that PCMR really has nothing to argue. I had figured there must be more to this than meets the eye, but there isn’t. As the judge said (in 82 pages) the lease expired.  As such, PCMR is no different from any other tenant who failed to renew a lease and then rented on a month-to-month basis.
> 
> With that in mind, it seems pretty doubtful that PCMR will be operating this year.  Sure, they can appeal and throw good money after bad, but is there any reason for the judge to stay the eviction?
> 
> And unless PCMR relents and turns over the base area to Vail, which doesn’t appear to be likely, the units at Summit Watch and Mountainside instantly go from being some of Marriott’s best properties to ones that owners literally will not be able to give away.
> 
> Oh well, I guess that demonstrates the value of Destination Club points. I’m pretty sure they can’t take those away.



If you're that worried about it, I'd be happy to buy your platinum mountainside week (and anyone else's who feels the same way) for 50% of the lowest current redweek listing price.


----------



## alchook

ondeadlin said:


> And if, for any reason, the Court allows Vail to evict … then it's really game over immediately.  But I don't think that will happen because, for now, the more conservative decision is to allow the current operator to continue, as long as it shows it can pay significant damages.



I guess that was my take until I read the decision. The judge pointed out--rather astutely, I think--that if this were some ordinary Joe renting an apartment who failed to exercise an option to renew no one would even think to question the landlord's right to find a different tenant. A sophisticated corporation such as PCMR, with access to expert legal advice should, if anything, be held to a higher standard. 

To me that sounds as if the more conservative option is to uphold Talisker's right to lease the land to Vail.

I do wonder, though, if PCMR will be able to carry out its threat to turn the base into a big skate park. While my timeshare will be pretty much worthless, Marriott is still on the hook for 5350 DC points, and it will likely get nothing for them. Add to that all the other businesses and condo owners who will see their investments tank. I can't imagine they'll let PCMR off without a fight. If PCMR sees itself on the hook for hundreds of millions in damages maybe it will decide that selling the base to Vail isn't such a bad idea after all.


----------



## hipslo

ondeadlin said:


> No, it's game over.  Not today.  Not tomorrow. But soon, and here's why:
> 
> The risk now shifts to Powdr Corp for a variety of reasons. If they opt to continue this fight and lose, there is a significant chance they will owe Talisker/Vail a lot more money in damages than they owe now (and they will owe now). Yes, they still control the base area, but I'm not sure how much consolation that will be if they end up owing tens of millions in damages (if not more).
> 
> Their legal arguments were essentially dismissed by the Court (and just about everyone else with a basic knowledge of contract and lease law in Utah).  Their chance of turning this around on appeal is small.  Not impossible, but small.
> 
> If the Court allows Powdr Corp to continue to operate the resort - which is not a given, but is likely - Powdr Corp will have to post a very significant and very expensive bond to cover the (now-expected) damages.  The Court may also require Powdr Corp to start paying a higher rental rate.
> 
> And if, for any reason, the Court allows Vail to evict … then it's really game over immediately.  But I don't think that will happen because, for now, the more conservative decision is to allow the current operator to continue, as long as it shows it can pay significant damages.
> 
> The obvious solution is a negotiated settlement, but Talisker/Vail controls the leverage and has a lot less incentive to negotiate. The court should (and may very well) order non-binding mediation. Sometimes a third party's perspective can give the losing party a way to save face and exit gracefully.



Although I am not certain I have the facts right, I don't think that PWDR  Corp is the lessee.  I think the lessee is a subsidiary of PWDR Corp.  I don't think that the lessee is the same entity that owns the base property, either.  It certainly isnt the entity that owns/ operates other PWDR resorts.

  So, best case for vail/ talisker, they end up with a judgment against an entity that does nothing more than lease the Talisker land (or used to) and operates the resort (or used to). If Vail/ Talisker prevents that entity from operating the resort, they'd essentially have a judgment against an entity that could file for BR and at least take the position that the assets held by other entities in the PWDR universe couldn't be reached, all the while blocking vail's access to the terrain, without any real further financial exposure.  

If that is in fact correct, and there is no "deep pocket" guarantor of the lease, there really doesn't seem to be much financial risk to POWDR/ Cumming of appealing and continuing the litigation (other than potentially having to return profits earned from those operations, which they of course wouldn't earn to begin with if they didn't operate the resort, so there's really not much to lose in pursuing that course of action).   Although they'd need to be concerned about a "piercing the veil" action, those can be uphill cases to make and are far from clear cut.  

I still see more of a stalemate than a "game over" situation.


----------



## ondeadlin

Again, however the corporate structure is laid out, the PCMR entity will have to put up a significant bond at this point - and they're not going to get that bond unless they can demonstrate an ability to pay the judgment.  Let's say, for example, that the Cummings family owns a 1/3 of the PCMR entity that's technically on the lease - they could, in theory, be forced to make certain guarantees by the bonding company in order to get the bond.  We'd never know about that, of course, because it would be behind the scenes.

Quite frankly, is the Court thought there was a chance that Vail/Talisker would get stiffed like that, it would be more likely to simply evict the PCMR entity.


----------



## hipslo

ondeadlin said:


> Again, however the corporate structure is laid out, the PCMR entity will have to put up a significant bond at this point - and they're not going to get that bond unless they can demonstrate an ability to pay the judgment.  Let's say, for example, that the Cummings family owns a 1/3 of the PCMR entity that's technically on the lease - they could, in theory, be forced to make certain guarantees by the bonding company in order to get the bond.  We'd never know about that, of course, because it would be behind the scenes.
> 
> Quite frankly, is the Court thought there was a chance that Vail/Talisker would get stiffed like that, it would be more likely to simply evict the PCMR entity.



good point, however, if pwdr didnt appeal at this time they wouldn't have to put up a bond, correct?  there remains one claim that hasn't been dismissed, which presumably still has to play out, as well as the eviction action. in any event, an eviction would result in a stalemate. neither side would have the ability to operate the resort.


----------



## Bill4728

IS THIS RIGHT??  

In simple layman's terms

PWDR owns the lodges at the base of the mountain including the area where Marriott Mountainside is located. And Talisker owns the mountain were the skiing is. PWDR used to run / lease the ski area and own the facilities at the  base of the mountain but now Vail will operate the ski area but without the lodges and other facilities at the base of the mountain .

If the two companies do not come to a deal, skiers will have to access the ski area via other means and the base of the mountain will access nothing. 

RIGHT??


----------



## hipslo

Bill4728 said:


> IS THIS RIGHT??
> 
> In simple layman's terms
> 
> PWDR owns the lodges at the base of the mountain including the area where Marriott Mountainside is located. And Talisker owns the mountain were the skiing is. PWDR used to run / lease the ski area and own the facilities at the  base of the mountain but now Vail will operate the ski area but without the lodges and other facilities at the base of the mountain .
> 
> If the two companies do not come to a deal, skiers will have to access the ski area via other means and the base of the mountain will access nothing.
> 
> RIGHT??



Not exactly.  PWDR also owns all of the parking, and some of the ski terrain on the lower portion of the mountain, as well as all of the water rights, which are critical to snowmaking operations. Without snowmaking, the ski season would start later and end earlier. There is also a question as to whether there is a practical alternative to accessing the terrain other than from the base.  While in theory skiers could access the terrain from a far corner of canyons that is not at all convenient to the canyons base if a new chairlift is built (which I believe would need to cross private land that is not currently controlled by either side), this would not be a practical or viable long term solution, at least in my view.  Perhaps there is some other long term solution for access that does not require PWDR to be on board, but to date, such a solution has not emerged, at least not publicly.

So, neither side has all of the required pieces of the puzzle to operate the resort without the other's cooperation.  And neither side seems inclined to allow the other side to operate the resort.


----------



## alchook

hipslo said:


> If that is in fact correct, and there is no "deep pocket" guarantor of the lease, there really doesn't seem to be much financial risk to POWDR/ Cumming of appealing and continuing the litigation (other than potentially having to return profits earned from those operations, which they of course wouldn't earn to begin with if they didn't operate the resort, so there's really not much to lose in pursuing that course of action).   Although they'd need to be concerned about a "piercing the veil" action, those can be uphill cases to make and are far from clear cut.
> 
> I still see more of a stalemate than a "game over" situation.



There might be no financial risk to POWDR, but the base area is still an awfully valuable piece of real estate to let slide into bankruptcy out of spite. If the base is buried in an avalanche of litigation the company goes into bankruptcy and the assets are sold.

I wonder who would buy them.


----------



## hipslo

alchook said:


> There might be no financial risk to POWDR, but the base area is still an awfully valuable piece of real estate to let slide into bankruptcy out of spite. If the base is buried in an avalanche of litigation the company goes into bankruptcy and the assets are sold.
> 
> I wonder who would buy them.



I believe the base area is owned by an entity that is not a party to the litigation or the lease, so am not sure why the property would be at risk.  In any event, if there were a bankruptcy, I don't see why the billionaire owner of PWDR couldnt buy the property, if he were so inclined.


----------



## alchook

hipslo said:


> I believe the base area is owned by an entity that is not a party to the litigation or the lease, so am not sure why the property would be at risk.  In any event, if there were a bankruptcy, I don't see why the billionaire owner of PWDR couldnt buy the property, if he were so inclined.



If the base area ceases to be a portal to the upper mountain every business that's currently operating out of the base area becomes significantly less valuable. Including Marriott. It's hard to imagine them not suing.


----------



## Cobra1950

As a two week, long term owner at Summittwatch, I think it is time for PCMR to man up and settle this mess.  They caused the problem and now is the time to negotiate the best deal terms on selling their assets and walking away. 
     If they keep wasting money on lawyers that have no viable tactics but delay, they will leave with nothing and will hurt local Park City businesses that supported them for years as well as people like us who bought Marriott units on faith (we paid $39K back in the day for Christmas week, now they are going for $25K and dropping).


----------



## ondeadlin

hipslo said:


> good point, however, if pwdr didnt appeal at this time they wouldn't have to put up a bond, correct?  there remains one claim that hasn't been dismissed, which presumably still has to play out, as well as the eviction action. in any event, an eviction would result in a stalemate. neither side would have the ability to operate the resort.



You are correct.  They do not have to make the decision to appeal or not at this moment.  But it won't take long to decide that single claim IMO, and then they'll be on a very, very short window.

I think Vail would find a way to operate.  But even a stalemate favors the party with the deepest pockets.  Here, that would be Vail.  If Vail wins, but can't operate PCMR, it's not materially impacted.  Powdr, on the other hand, is greatly materially operated, and will be seen as the bad guy by the town.


----------



## hipslo

ondeadlin said:


> You are correct.  They do not have to make the decision to appeal or not at this moment.  But it won't take long to decide that single claim IMO, and then they'll be on a very, very short window.
> 
> I think Vail would find a way to operate.  But even a stalemate favors the party with the deepest pockets.  Here, that would be Vail.  If Vail wins, but can't operate PCMR, it's not materially impacted.  Powdr, on the other hand, is greatly materially operated, and will be seen as the bad guy by the town.



I don't know, Vail is reportedly paying talisker 25m per year to operate canyons, which I have read is an exhorbitant amount if it doesnt also get to operate pcmr.  And, given that the family behind pwdr are billionaires (or close) in their own right, they could presumably cause pwdr to shut down pcmr and come out relatively unscathed.  Given all that, I'm not so sure who really has the "deeper pockets" in this case. 

I also read that the family behind pwdr just bought a controlling interest in snowbird a couple of weeks ago.  I wonder how that might play into things, if at all.


----------



## ondeadlin

Vail's revenue was roughly $1 billion last year, with about $225 million in profit after expenses.  They generated that profit while paying Talisker that "exhorbitant amount" without operating PCMR.  

It's not an exorbitant amount to Vail, because Vail plays in a different financial league than Powdr.

Powdr is privately held, so its revenue is not disclosed, but no financial analyst would compare it to Vail.  They'd be lucky to have 1/3rd the revenue and 1/3rd the profit.  It's likely significantly less.

There's no serious question of whose pockets are deeper here.  Vail could pay Talisker the entire lease amount, not get a single dollar in return from either the Canyons or PCMR and shrug it off.  The only impact would be a small reduction in overall profit.  Losing the revenue from PCMR - its premier property - would have a much different, and quite frankly devastating, impact on Powdr.


----------



## alchook

ondeadlin said:


> There's no serious question of whose pockets are deeper here.



On top of that, Vail wins even if it doesn't run PC for the next couple of years, assuming POWDR can't run it either.

Frankly, the only time I can remember long lift lines at Canyons was a day when the Bonanza lift shut down at PCMR.


----------



## gblotter

hipslo said:


> PWDR also owns all of the parking, and some of the ski terrain on the lower portion of the mountain, as well as all of the water rights, which are critical to snowmaking operations.


"PWDR also owns all of the parking, and some of the ski terrain on the lower portion of the mountain"

Regarding the summer facilities on the mountain (Alpine Slides, Alpine Coaster, Zip Lines) ... do those remain under control of PWDR?


----------



## hipslo

ondeadlin said:


> Vail's revenue was roughly $1 billion last year, with about $225 million in profit after expenses.  They generated that profit while paying Talisker that "exhorbitant amount" without operating PCMR.
> 
> It's not an exorbitant amount to Vail, because Vail plays in a different financial league than Powdr.
> 
> Powdr is privately held, so its revenue is not disclosed, but no financial analyst would compare it to Vail.  They'd be lucky to have 1/3rd the revenue and 1/3rd the profit.  It's likely significantly less.
> 
> There's no serious question of whose pockets are deeper here.  Vail could pay Talisker the entire lease amount, not get a single dollar in return from either the Canyons or PCMR and shrug it off.  The only impact would be a small reduction in overall profit.  Losing the revenue from PCMR - its premier property - would have a much different, and quite frankly devastating, impact on Powdr.



You are comparing vail to pwdr, which is not the appropriate comparison.  The deep pocket isnt pwdr, its the family that owns pwdr, whose wealth does not derive from pwdr, who are not answerable to shareholders in the way that vail is, and whose patriarch (who just purchased snowbird) has been described as a mini warren buffet. The vail shareholders likely wont stand for a 25m annual rental payment, with little to show for it, indefinitely.  

 Vail's entire market cap is around 2b.  The cummings family's net worth is reportedly around 1b, give or take.  At those levels, I wouldnt give the "deep pocket" advantage to either side here.  Once again, stalemate.


----------



## ondeadlin

We will agree to disagree, with the final statement that any serious financial analysis would not take family wealth into account the way you have here.


----------



## hipslo

ondeadlin said:


> We will agree to disagree, with the final statement that any serious financial analysis would not take family wealth into account the way you have here.



So, if bill gates happened to be the owner of pwdr, that wouldnt be relevant (at least to anyone conducting a serious financial analysis), vail would have the deeper pockets, and as a result vail would have an advantage in the litigation.  i guess we will agree to disagree.


----------



## alchook

hipslo said:


> So, if bill gates happened to be the owner of pwdr, that wouldnt be relevant (at least to anyone conducting a serious financial analysis), vail would have the deeper pockets, and as a result vail would have an advantage in the litigation.  i guess we will agree to disagree.



Cummings has deep pockets.

Unfortunately, none of them has a valid lease.


----------



## hipslo

alchook said:


> Cummings has deep pockets.
> 
> Unfortunately, none of them has a valid lease.



Right.  Each side controls something the other side needs in order to operate the resort (as a practical matter, despite posturing to the contrary by vail). Neither side's pockets are substantially deeper than the other's, given the scale of the dispute in the overall scheme of things to both sides.  Which is why I view the situation as a potential stalemate, with the ultimate outcome depending on which side wants ultimate control of the resort more and is prepared to be more stubborn than the other.  Which of course is difficult to predict.


----------



## SMHarman

And getting to a point the judicial system will no longer officiate. 
One all the cases here are closed it appears likely that both sides will have something the other needs and no judge can force someone to sign a contract to share. They will need to stop posturing and come to mutually agreeable terms. 

At this point professional mediation is what they need. 

Of course then Vail will ignore the agreed upon terms and then they will be back in court. 

This is more a trilogy than a one time blockbuster. 

Sent from my LT26i using Tapatalk


----------



## ondeadlin

There is no scenario here that doesn't end up with Vail controlling and operating the current leased Talisker acreage IMO.

Scenario 1:  Vail prevails in Court at some future point, perhaps after lengthy appeals, Powdr recognizes that the game is over, and leases or sells the base area and water rights to Vail at a price they mutually agree on, in part to avoid a significant damages award.  The attorneys for both sides and Vail win big.  Powdr loses big.

Scenario 2:  They settle prior to final court action and Powdr leases or sells the base area and water rights to Vail at a price they mutually agree on.  Vail wins big, Powdr gets a lot more cash than it would if it kept litigating, the attorneys don't make as much money, but they've already made a lot, so we won't cry any tears for them.

Scenario 3:  Vail prevails in Court, Powdr refuses to do business with them, has to pay significant damages, and Vail arranges alternate access to the Talisker acreage.  Not as profitable for either side, not as easy to arrange access - it would take years to arrange/build access comparable to what exists now -- but much, much more damaging to Powdr than Vail in the long run.  The attorneys win big, Vail wins a symbolic victory that costs it a lot of money, Powdr is crushed.

Those are the scenarios that remain IMO.  Just a matter of how long it takes one of them to play out.


----------



## hipslo

ondeadlin said:


> There is no scenario here that doesn't end up with Vail controlling and operating the current leased Talisker acreage IMO.
> 
> Scenario 1:  Vail prevails in Court at some future point, perhaps after lengthy appeals, Powdr recognizes that the game is over, and leases or sells the base area and water rights to Vail at a price they mutually agree on, in part to avoid a significant damages award.  The attorneys for both sides and Vail win big.  Powdr loses big.
> 
> Scenario 2:  They settle prior to final court action and Powdr leases or sells the base area and water rights to Vail at a price they mutually agree on.  Vail wins big, Powdr gets a lot more cash than it would if it kept litigating, the attorneys don't make as much money, but they've already made a lot, so we won't cry any tears for them.
> 
> Scenario 3:  Vail prevails in Court, Powdr refuses to do business with them, has to pay significant damages, and Vail arranges alternate access to the Talisker acreage.  Not as profitable for either side, not as easy to arrange access - it would take years to arrange/build access comparable to what exists now -- but much, much more damaging to Powdr than Vail in the long run.  The attorneys win big, Vail wins a symbolic victory that costs it a lot of money, Powdr is crushed.
> 
> Those are the scenarios that remain IMO.  Just a matter of how long it takes one of them to play out.



I think some form of joint venture is the most likely scenario, with both sides sharing in the profits of pcmr, going forward.  Vail contributes its rights to the disputed land, pwdr contributes water rights, parking, lower terrain and base access.  Pcmr and canyons are linked.  Unclear which side actually ends up operating the pcmr portion of the resort on a day to day basis. If the economic terms of the joint venture make sense for each side, not sure either party would care all that much. Win-win.


----------



## ondeadlin

Apparently PCMR is putting fine print in their season pass agreements since April promising to refund either the full amount or a pro-rated amount if they don't operate for the 2014-15 season.  The language is significantly different from what they have said in previous years about the potential impact of the case on operations.

Curiouser and curiouser, as they say ...

http://www.parkrecord.com/park_city...er-season-passes-sold-caveat-third?source=rss


----------



## hipslo

ondeadlin said:


> Apparently PCMR is putting fine print in their season pass agreements since April promising to refund either the full amount or a pro-rated amount if they don't operate for the 2014-15 season.  The language is significantly different from what they have said in previous years about the potential impact of the case on operations.
> 
> Curiouser and curiouser, as they say ...
> 
> http://www.parkrecord.com/park_city...er-season-passes-sold-caveat-third?source=rss



Third year in a row that the disclaimer has been included and, according to the article, the wording this year is "slightly different".


----------



## ondeadlin

Pretty significant change, given that they've never talked about offering refunds before.


----------



## alchook

Before shelling out for a season pass I think I'd like to know who's guaranteeing the refund. Is it Cummings personally? POWDR corporation? Greater Park City Company? Greater Properties Inc?


----------



## hipslo

ondeadlin said:


> Pretty significant change, given that they've never talked about offering refunds before.



that is incorrect, the same refund language has appeared each of the last two seasons, as well


----------



## ondeadlin

alchook said:


> Before shelling out for a season pass I think I'd like to know who's guaranteeing the refund. Is it Cummings personally? POWDR corporation? Greater Park City Company? Greater Properties Inc?



Realistically, I think Vail would honor the passes - they would not want to create any bad will with their core guests.


----------



## davidvel

alchook said:


> I do wonder, though, if PCMR will be able to carry out its threat to turn the base into a big skate park. While my timeshare will be pretty much worthless, Marriott is still on the hook for 5350 DC points, and it will likely get nothing for them.


I thought Marriott could make changes to the DC points structure as it saw fit, and the points charts are not fixed in stone. If so, the resort could be given 1350 pts for a platinum week. I didn't follow the DC threads too closely, so maybe the "experts" could chime in.


----------



## Cobra1950

davidvel
    Good Point!  My understanding is that the Points value for resorts is sacred.  If not I would be the first to sign up for a class action


----------



## SMHarman

Cobra1950 said:


> davidvel
> Good Point!  My understanding is that the Points value for resorts is sacred.  If not I would be the first to sign up for a class action



Total points is sacred so if for math simplicity you allocated 1000 points a day so 365000 to a unit you can make Saturday 2000 and Tues Wed 500 to compensate but not reduce overall. 

Sent from my LT26i using Tapatalk


----------



## puckmanfl

good morning...

A major point here.... Point values are sacred for the purposes of the Trust. IOW, each resort in the trust has an assigned point value.  This is the points need to book the unit.  Just like DISNEY, if points needed for one go up, another must go down.  Unclear, if this is resort specific or throughout the TRUST...

Here is the rub....

The points given for a Legacy week are just an exchange currency..not legally tied to a deeded Trust.  MVCD can at their discretion lower to points assigned to a Legacy week without any compensatory increase elsewhere.  This is where the "skim" comes in...  If Mountainside is no longer next to a ski lift..MVCD may give less than 5300 DC points...  You would have no recourse...

Take home point!!!  Points given for Legacy weeks are just currency in an exchange system.  II can do the same thing by changing your trading power of any unit!!!


----------



## alchook

puckmanfl said:


> The points given for a Legacy week are just an exchange currency..not legally tied to a deeded Trust.  MVCD can at their discretion lower to points assigned to a Legacy week without any compensatory increase elsewhere.  This is where the "skim" comes in...  If Mountainside is no longer next to a ski lift..MVCD may give less than 5300 DC points...  You would have no recourse...
> 
> Take home point!!!  Points given for Legacy weeks are just currency in an exchange system.  II can do the same thing by changing your trading power of any unit!!!



Thanks for the clarification.

This is where I see Cummings' "nuclear option" falling apart. Right now he appears to be operating under a billionaire's assumption that the universe revolves around him. But if he decides to close the base he'll be looking at a mountain of litigation.

On the one he has to deal with Marriott, representing two publicly traded corporations that are legally obligated to look after their shareholder's financial interests. On the other he has a collection of small business owners who will generate no end of public sympathy.

Plus he gets to read every day about his boneheaded failure to renew his lease, which the trial judge has already described as negligence. And he's going to do all this while starting a new venture at Snowbird. That's going to inspire a lot of trust in the people doing business with him.

Then you have Vail, which has little to lose by letting the base sit idle for the time being. They've shut out their biggest competition in Utah. They'll be picking up lots of destination skiers who will be needing resort accommodations as well as a mountain. 

Cummings tells us on the one hand that they were in negotiations with Talisker to combine the two resorts, and on the other hand that Vail has no way to access the mountain except through his base area. Those two concepts seem a bit contradictory, unless he thinks that putting in a chairlift and buying some water are obstacles totally beyond Vail's capabilities.


----------



## ondeadlin

alchook said:


> Then you have Vail, which has little to lose by letting the base sit idle for the time being. They've shut out their biggest competition in Utah. They'll be picking up lots of destination skiers who will be needing resort accommodations as well as a mountain.



Well, they do have a lot of goodwill to lose with the community, but your overall point underscores why Vail has the hammer here.

If there was a scenario where Cummings digs in his heels, and PCMR doesn't operate, the only real winner is … Vail.  Why?  Because all those skiers will have to go somewhere, and a great proportion of them will go to the Canyons.  Especially those who have kids who snowboard, because they can't go to DV.

I don't think it ever comes to that, though.  At some point, Cummings/Powdr/PCMR will cut a deal.

As an aside, the ins and outs of Marriott's points system makes my head spin ...


----------



## alchook

ondeadlin said:


> I don't think it ever comes to that, though.  At some point, Cummings/Powdr/PCMR will cut a deal.



You would think so. The only problem is that every time Cumming opens his mouth all you hear is more crazy talk. His latest statement? "We think the law in the state is inadequate for this situation."

Huh? He's planning to go to court conceding that under state law he has no case, but that doesn't matter because the law shouldn't apply to him. 

I see that going over real well.

Sounds as if that organization could use some grown-ups.


----------



## ondeadlin

Judges love it when litigants say stuff like that in the media.


----------



## hipslo

alchook said:


> But if he decides to close the base he'll be looking at a mountain of litigation.



While the speculation here over anything other than a negotiated settlement is beginning to border on the absurd, I nevertheless must ask - How so?  

In the absence of some sort of legally binding covenant contained in an agreement with the potential plaintiffs you are envisioning to continue running the resort, what legal duty could pwdr possibly have to sell/ lease its property to a third party against its will?  Why wouldnt Talisker/Vail have that very same duty, to renew the lease of the disputed terrain, if it in fact that sort of duty exists (which it doesnt)?

I suppose its possible that leases to the tenants in the base facility might contain a provision that allows them to terminate their lease if the resort is no longer operational (though even that sort of a provision would be quite unlikely in this context, given that the resort had operated continuously for decades, and as a result no tenant would likely have requested such a provision), but a covenant to continue operating the resort, and an actionable claim if the resort is no longer operational?  No way.

The only sort of attorney that any plaintiff would be able to entice to take that sort of case on a contingency basis (against a defendant that would likely have very limited assets) wouldnt be anyone that pwdr would be too worried about.


----------



## hipslo

ondeadlin said:


> Judges love it when litigants say stuff like that in the media.



The outcome here is no longer dependent on the outcome of the court case.  Pwdr  lost, has been found to no longer have a valid lease, and that is unlikely to change on appeal.  Pwdr and its counsel are fully cognizant of that, regardless  of their public posturing. What judges do or don't like to hear is really not relevant to the ultimate resolution here.  Continued litigation is about nothing more than buying time for some sort of negotiated settlement.


----------



## ondeadlin

hipslo said:


> The outcome here is no longer dependent on the outcome of the court case.  Pwdr  lost, has been found to no longer have a valid lease, and that is unlikely to change on appeal.  Pwdr and its counsel are fully cognizant of that, regardless  of their public posturing. What judges do or don't like to hear is really not relevant to the ultimate resolution here.  Continued litigation is about nothing more than buying time for some sort of negotiated settlement.



A couple of points:

1. The Court of Appeals won't like that statement any more than the trial court judge.

2. The trial court judge still hasn't ruled on the eviction, which at this point might be the most important piece of the puzzle.

3. There is one count remaining that was not decided on summary judgment by the trial court.  PCMR won't win on that one either, but it's important because the appeals process won't start until that count is decided.* So the trial court judge essentially controls the timeline.  He can speed the process up or he can slow it way, way down.  This is one of the biggest things that folks outside the court system fail to understand - the court's power to simply slow things down as a form of pressure.  I have a motion pending in federal court in New Orleans right now.  It's been pending since early March.  Fully briefed by both sides.  I have another in Texas that's been fully briefed since December. Now, in these cases, for various reasons, the delay does not hurt my client.  But in other circumstances, it really could hurt a client - and in either case, there's nothing I can do about it.  Same thing here.  The Court will move at its own speed - and annoying it with stupid public statements certainly won't help your case.

*PCMR could attempt an interlocutory appeal, but such motions are rarely granted in circumstances such as these.  That there has been no public discussion of such a motion indicates PCMR and its counsel realize this.


----------



## hipslo

ondeadlin said:


> A couple of points:
> 
> 1. The Court of Appeals won't like that statement any more than the trial court judge.
> 
> 2. The trial court judge still hasn't ruled on the eviction, which at this point might be the most important piece of the puzzle.
> 
> 3. There is one count remaining that was not decided on summary judgment by the trial court.  PCMR won't win on that one either, but it's important because the appeals process won't start until that count is decided.* So the trial court judge essentially controls the timeline.  He can speed the process up or he can slow it way, way down.  This is one of the biggest things that folks outside the court system fail to understand - the court's power to simply slow things down as a form of pressure.  I have a motion pending in federal court in New Orleans right now.  It's been pending since early March.  Fully briefed by both sides.  I have another in Texas that's been fully briefed since December. Now, in these cases, for various reasons, the delay does not hurt my client.  But in other circumstances, it really could hurt a client - and in either case, there's nothing I can do about it.  Same thing here.  The Court will move at its own speed - and annoying it with stupid public statements certainly won't help your case.
> 
> *PCMR could attempt an interlocutory appeal, but such motions are rarely granted in circumstances such as these.  That there has been no public discussion of such a motion indicates PCMR and its counsel realize this.



Given where this case is likely headed in the courts, including on any appeal, delay can only help pwdr. It therefore seems like you are suggesting that the trial court and any appeals court would pull out all the stops to rule quickly because they dont like what the pwdr side has been saying in the media. Interesting, novel theory.


----------



## ondeadlin

hipslo said:


> Given where this case is likely headed in the courts, including on any appeal, delay can only help pwdr. It therefore seems like you are suggesting that the trial court and any appeals court would pull out all the stops to rule quickly because they dont like what the pwdr side has been saying in the media. Interesting, novel theory.



Delay hurts PCMR/Cummings/Pwdr in a variety of ways.  First, and most obviously, damages.  The longer it drags out, the more money they're going to owe Talisker/Vail, with interest.  They're going to have to pay Talisker/Vail market value for what they should have been paying for the years they ran the terrain without a valid lease.  Given Vail's deal with Talisker, that's going to be a very significant increase on what they've been paying.  Second, legal fees.  Every month things drag out, even if it appears nothing's going on in court, they're paying lawyers a lot of money.  And lastly, there's just a general negative drag on their rep and customer base the longer this goes on, which increases pressure on all involved on the PCMR/Cummings/Pwdr side.


----------



## hipslo

ondeadlin said:


> Delay hurts PCMR/Cummings/Pwdr in a variety of ways.  First, and most obviously, damages.  The longer it drags out, the more money they're going to owe Talisker/Vail, with interest.  They're going to have to pay Talisker/Vail market value for what they should have been paying for the years they ran the terrain without a valid lease.  Given Vail's deal with Talisker, that's going to be a very significant increase on what they've been paying.  Second, legal fees.  Every month things drag out, even if it appears nothing's going on in court, they're paying lawyers a lot of money.  And lastly, there's just a general negative drag on their rep and customer base the longer this goes on, which increases pressure on all involved on the PCMR/Cummings/Pwdr side.



So, assuming the legal case is ultimately resolved in favor of vail/ talisker, you think pwdr would be better off in that position now, rather than later. Also an interesting theory.

In terms of damages, I wonder how profitable it would be for vail to operate the talisker land without access to a base facility or the lifts at the lower mountain. That would be the measure of damages owed to vail. There shouldn't be any damages to talisker, given that vail is already (perhaps foolishly) paying talisker an exorbitant, well above marked rent, for the disputed property.

Even if pwdr were somehow liable for rent to talisker (which seems unlikely, given that talisker is already receiving rent from vail for the property, and therefore doesn't have damages), the fair rental value would again have to be determined with the property having no access to the base or the lower lifts, or water rights, etc.

It is vail that is stuck paying talisker 25m per year while this drags out, with only a damages claim against pwdr for loss of profits on the disputed land (with no base access or infrastructure). Though your view is that 25m isn't much to vail and it will have no problem shelling that out indefinitely, with nothing to show for it other than a damages claim with a lot of uncertainty as to the measure of those damages. 

Not sure how many times I can say this, but..... stalemate.


----------



## ondeadlin

hipslo said:


> In terms of damages, I wonder how profitable it would be for vail to operate the talisker land without access to a base facility or the lifts at the lower mountain. That would be the measure of damages owed to vail. There shouldn't be any damages to talisker, given that vail is already (perhaps foolishly) paying talisker an exorbitant, well above marked rent, for the disputed property.



Fortunately for Vail/Talisker and unfortunately for Cummings/PCMR/Pwdr, the damages would be fair market value.  Given that the parties would have drastically different opinions of that value (as demonstrated by your post above, which would represent the Cummings/PCMR/Pwdr perspective), the Court would likely order them to pay for a third-party evaluation.

And just about anyone would tell you that that evaluation, even if it does not equal what Vail is paying, is going to be exponentially higher than what PCMR was paying.



hipslo said:


> Even if pwdr were somehow liable for rent to talisker (which seems unlikely, given that talisker is already receiving rent from vail for the property, and therefore doesn't have damages).



If you wanted to assume this position, there are still easily ascertained damages: The damages would be to Vail, because Talisker will tell the Court that Vail has the legal right charge people to ski there.  So, yes, Talisker is not damaged, Vail is, and again, those damages would be considerable.




hipslo said:


> Not sure how many times I can say this, but..... stalemate.



And no matter how many times you repeat it, you're ultimately wrong.  At some point, when Vail is running PCMR, I look forward to you admitting that.


----------



## Cobra1950

I was told during several points presentations that the DC Points assigned to a given unit(total for week) were _*SACRED*_ and would *NEVER* change, otherwise I would not have bought into the points program.  I realize that I will get many comments back about "all timeshare salesman lie" etc., however that is Marriott's legal responsibility to deal with and they would have to pay the price if that was the case.
     If the Points value changes I certainly would support a class action lawsuit and I believe Marriot would not do this for fear of the bad publicity for "crawfishing" on sites like TUG that would sink their DC Points program, and their timeshare business, forever.
      In any event, at this point it would seem that PCMR is just trying to be as big a pain to Vail as they can be so they and their lawyers maximize their payout and commissions, common sense as noted by others on this blog has already prevailed in court rulings.


----------



## ondeadlin

I'd be very, very surprised if there were any changes to the Marriott points system as a result of these dispute.  In the end, the ski resort will continue to run without interruption IMO - it's only a question of who runs it.


----------



## hipslo

ondeadlin said:


> Fortunately for Vail/Talisker and unfortunately for Cummings/PCMR/Pwdr, the damages would be fair market value.  Given that the parties would have drastically different opinions of that value (as demonstrated by your post above, which would represent the Cummings/PCMR/Pwdr perspective), the Court would likely order them to pay for a third-party evaluation.
> 
> And just about anyone would tell you that that evaluation, even if it does not equal what Vail is paying, is going to be exponentially higher than what PCMR was paying.
> 
> 
> 
> If you wanted to assume this position, there are still easily ascertained damages: The damages would be to Vail, because Talisker will tell the Court that Vail has the legal right charge people to ski there.  So, yes, Talisker is not damaged, Vail is, and again, those damages would be considerable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And no matter how many times you repeat it, you're ultimately wrong.  At some point, when Vail is running PCMR, I look forward to you admitting that.



Of course vail would have damages. The question is the measure of those damages. Given that the disputed property has no base access or water rights and no access to the 4 or five lifts that rise out of the base, the magnitude of those damages are uncertain, but would certainly be substantially less than what an operator could earn with access to those facilities.

You don't seem to understand what a "stalemate" is. The outcome could ultimately go either way, by definition. One of those outcomes would be that vail operates the resort. Another is that pwdr operates the resort. There are other possibilities as well, including some sort of joint venture.

You seem to look at the current state of affairs in a black and white, vail holds all the cards sort of way. That strikes me as rather naive. While I could understand how a fourth year litigator might see things in such a simplistic way, focusing overly on the outcome of the court case, I am surprised that a seasoned business attorney such as yourself holds that viewpoint.


----------



## ondeadlin

I do look at the situation as fairly black-and-white.  That's accurate.  So does the judge, quite frankly.  And, yes, our disagreement boils down to whether one believes Vail holds all the cards (or at least enough of the cards to dictate the outcome - for example, any "joint venture" would only happen if Vail allowed it to IMO). There are multiple reasons that I've taken that position, some specific to this case, some not.  We have rehashed many of them here.  

If I'm wrong, I will humbly admit as much.


----------



## jeepie

*IMHO...*



ondeadlin said:


> I'd be very, very surprised if there were any changes to the Marriott points system as a result of these dispute.



Agreed. Vail is playing the long game. They have, in effect, a 350 year deal for Canyons. After the dust settles, Vail will operate Park City, and will offer access to both areas with one ticket, enhancing value for Park City skiers. They may have to work around lift access and water temporarily, but as PCMR comes to their senses, Vail will likely offer a face-saving settlement.

MVCI won't adjust the points values. If anything, ultimately the two resorts will be more, not less attractive. PM me if you want to sell me your week at a discount. Cheers.

"Often wrong, but never in doubt!"


----------



## hipslo

ondeadlin said:


> I do look at the situation as fairly black-and-white.  That's accurate.  So does the judge, quite frankly.  And, yes, our disagreement boils down to whether one believes Vail holds all the cards (or at least enough of the cards to dictate the outcome - for example, any "joint venture" would only happen if Vail allowed it to IMO). There are multiple reasons that I've taken that position, some specific to this case, some not.  We have rehashed many of them here.
> 
> If I'm wrong, I will humbly admit as much.



Two last observations, and i will then move on (at least until further developments arise).

1.  Yes, the judge views the situation as black and white.  But, what is "the situation"?  It is whether or not the lease has expired.  Lets assume that the lease has expired.  That starts the negotiations, it doesn't end them.  Pwdr controls part of what is needed to run the resort.  Had pwdr prevailed in the litigation, it would have controlled everything needed to run the resort.  It didnt, and it is unlikely to on appeal.  Now, each side controls something needed by the other to run the resort. (I know folks here have said that vail doesnt need the base or the water rights, but, as a practical (not technical, practical) matter, they do).  

2.  Of course a joint venture requires vail to be on board.  Given the outcome of the litigation, ANY resolution requires both parties to be on board. Ergo, stalemate.


----------



## Fasttr

Nothing like a good pissing contest between attorneys to get the tug board hopping!!!


----------



## SueDonJ

Fasttr said:


> Nothing like a good pissing contest between attorneys to get the tug board hopping!!!



It's fascinating.  I love this kind of stuff.


----------



## jont

Fasttr said:


> Nothing like a good pissing contest between attorneys to get the tug board hopping!!!



whenever attorneys start a pissing contest I make sure i'm always standing up wind.


----------



## ondeadlin

Fasttr said:


> Nothing like a good pissing contest between attorneys to get the tug board hopping!!!



That's essentially what we do for a living.  It's usually much less interesting.


----------



## Fasttr

ondeadlin said:


> That's essentially what we do for a living.  It's usually much less interesting.



I keep waiting for the knock down drag out thread on who's paralegal is hotter....with pics of course.  

Go Dreadnaughts!!!


----------



## ondeadlin

Whatever legal disagreements we may have, I think we're both smart enough not to go down that road.  :ignore:

But I loved the Dreads shout out!


----------



## grupp

*Only 33 weeks to remove lifts*

PCMR has outlined their plans to remove the lifts if the are evicted from the property. It will only take 33 weeks and 3.5 million if they work around the clock. There is some additional time and expense to alter some of the other lifts as well. 

http://www.parkrecord.com/park_city-news/ci_25959944/pcmr-details-round-clock-plans-dismantle-lifts-infrastructure

Gary


----------



## WBP

grupp said:


> PCMR has outlined their plans to remove the lifts if the are evicted from the property. It will only take 33 weeks and 3.5 million if they work around the clock. There is some additional time and expense to alter some of the other lifts as well.
> 
> http://www.parkrecord.com/park_city-news/ci_25959944/pcmr-details-round-clock-plans-dismantle-lifts-infrastructure
> 
> Gary



Hysterical!

This is looking/sounding like an episode of the Jerry Springer Show.


----------



## puckmanfl

good evening...

When does this stop becoming a comical interlude and start to become a real concern for those with ski reservations Winter 2015 in Park city...

My plan is to wait until 61 days out for my 2/22/15 summit reservations...  Things should be clearer at start of ski season...

this is so bizzarre...


----------



## alchook

puckmanfl said:


> good evening...
> 
> When does this stop becoming a comical interlude and start to become a real concern for those with ski reservations Winter 2015 in Park city...
> 
> My plan is to wait until 61 days out for my 2/22/15 summit reservations...  Things should be clearer at start of ski season...
> 
> this is so bizzarre...



Things should be a lot clearer after tomorrow when the judge rules on the eviction motion.

Myself, I converted to DC points for the next two seasons. I'm assuming that once they've given me the points they can't take them back.


----------



## ondeadlin

The announcement of the plan to remove the lifts and other fixtures is a comically transparent attempt to influence the court right before it's ruling.  Any large scale crisis management firm would tell you it's incredibly small time and ill-considered.  

Moreover, there's a big underlying legal argument involving whether equipment is a fixture (permanently affixed to the property) or equipment (removable from the property).  PCMR will argue everything involved is equipment, while Vail will argue much of the lift equipment involves fixtures.  In demonstrating that it would take months to remove the equipment, PCMR may actually be strengthening the argument that much of this equipment involves fixtures.

A simple explanation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixture_(property_law)



> The law regarding fixtures can also cause many problems with property held under a lease. Fixtures put in place by the tenant belong to the landlord if the tenant is evicted from the property. This is the case even if the fixture could have legally been removed by the tenant while the lease was in good standing. For example, a chandelier hung by the tenant may become the property of the landlord. Although this example is trivial, there have been cases where heavy equipment incorporated into a plant has been deemed to have become fixtures even though it was sold as chattels.



Now, all that said, I again would be extremely surprised if the resort doesn't operate.  Either the court will allow PCMR to continue operating (probable IMO) or it will allow Vail to operate, and Vail will get an injunction against removing the lifts as the litigate the fixtures issue.


----------



## ondeadlin

Thought this piece was interesting, too:

http://www.parkrecord.com/park_city-news/ci_25959946/pcmr-warns-catastrophic-impact-an-eviction



> Talisker Land Holdings, LLC on Friday issued a prepared statement in response to the PCMR filing:
> 
> "The Court has ruled that PCMR's lease with Talisker expired on April 30, 2011. PCMR has now had use of Talisker's land for more than three years without paying rent, all the while making enormous profits. PCMR filed seven different claims with the Court relating to the lease and each one has now been dismissed. Yesterday's motions are nothing more than PCMR's latest unfounded attempt at delay. PCMR has publicly admitted that they hope to convince Utah courts to ignore 100 years of their own precedents and adopt the law of other states. With all due respect, that is an abuse of our legal system and Talisker has no intention of allowing PCMR's misguided efforts to continue. A solution cannot be reached, for next season or the long-term, until PCMR finally acknowledges that their lease has expired, ends their legal maneuvering and begins to talk about realistic solutions to this situation."


----------



## grupp

I think the judge will sign the eviction order on Thursay.

Up until the last few days I thought PCMR would probably operate the mountain this year. However, now feel that if it opens Vail will operate the mountain with some type of agreement with PCMR allowing use of the base to access the upper portion.

The thing that worries me is, although Cumminngs, says he wants to negotiate, he statements indicate otherwise. He has said he will not sell the base area and under no circumstances will he allow Vail to operate the Mountain with use of the base area. He will most likely need to give in on one of those positions for the Mountain to operate.

Gary


----------



## ondeadlin

What Cummings wants is a deal with Vail where PCMR continues to lease the property and operate the resort as it historically done, while paying Vail/Talisker a higher rent.

That might still happen if the Court does not evict PCMR today, the rent were high enough, and if PCMR would be included on the Epic Pass and dual tickets sold by the Canyons.


----------



## alchook

The problem is that Cumming doesn't sound like a rational person. He's just bought a new operation, located on what is one of the world's great ski mountains in need of a vast infrastructure investment. Why issue daily press releases bragging about your intentions to screw over every person who has ever done business with you? 

I don't think I'd be very enthusiastic about opening a restaurant at Snowbird right now.

Is this what happens when you inherit your money rather than earn it?


----------



## grupp

According the first reports here is what may have happened today. 

1. Judge signed, but stayed the eviction order.
2. Ordered mediation
3. Next hearing in August. 

Gary


----------



## ondeadlin

This is a very deliberate (and IMO wise) move by the judge.

He signed the eviction order, but stayed it and ordered the parties to fast-track mediation.  At the same time, he set a hearing for Aug. 27 and made it clear that the stay might - but only might - be lifted at that point if the parties did not reach an agreement in mediation.  So there is pressure on both sides.  PCMR was pushed closer to the reality that they will (eventually) be evicted from the land, while Vail/Talisker still don't know if the eviction will proceed or the stay will remain in place after Aug. 27.

Is that enough?  Depends on how hardball Vail is playing it IMO.  The long game is in their favor, but the long game is expensive in terms of money and PR.  If they want a resolution now, they will either have to pay Cummings more to go away or ask him to pay them a lot more to continue to operate the report.    Time will tell ...

http://www.parkrecord.com/park_city-news/ci_25995940/pcmr-v-talisker-judge-will-sign-eviction-order


----------



## SMHarman

Powdr was complaining in an article I read that Vail won't come to the table and he can't negotiate with himself. 
Power has created a removals plan 33m and 33months I think. 

Sent from my LT26i using Tapatalk


----------



## alchook

ondeadlin said:


> This is a very deliberate (and IMO wise) move by the judge.
> 
> He signed the eviction order, but stayed it and ordered the parties to fast-track mediation.  At the same time, he set a hearing for Aug. 27 and made it clear that the stay might - but only might - be lifted at that point if the parties did not reach an agreement in mediation.  So there is pressure on both sides.  PCMR was pushed closer to the reality that they will (eventually) be evicted from the land, while Vail/Talisker still don't know if the eviction will proceed or the stay will remain in place after Aug. 27.
> 
> 
> http://www.parkrecord.com/park_city-news/ci_25995940/pcmr-v-talisker-judge-will-sign-eviction-order



is there any significance to the fact that he signed an eviction order? Could he have instead postponed ruling on it one way or the other before ordering the parties into mediation?


----------



## ondeadlin

The main significance IMO is that he's holding the signed order over PCMR's head, but it's mostly a symbolic move.  He probably could stay it until the appeal is over if he wanted to (don't want to be too definitive because state law can vary on that point and I'm not familiar with Utah's rule or authority).

But could he have chosen to put a decision on the eviction on hold?  He probably could have.


----------



## alchook

I was wondering if he was trying to send a message to PCMR that yes, you are being evicted and no, it's not going to happen in two years. This lets them know that it's time to make a deal while they still can. 

I'm assuming the judge would be very happy if the parties returned in two months having worked matters out rather than forcing him to make the decision.

But I still don't see what pressure Vail is under right now. Worst case scenario, PCMR closes for the season. That leaves Vail right where it was last season, except it gets a lot more skier traffic and lodging revenue.


----------



## ondeadlin

Vail/Talisker tell the court that they are willing to let PCMR operate this season if Cummings & Co. post a hefty bond:



> Talisker Land Holdings, LLC will request the bond cover PCMR's rent over the course of at least four ski seasons, including the next ski season, attorney fees and interest, the firm's lead attorney, John Lund, said in an interview, adding the number would triple for the 2013-2014 ski season and future ski seasons.



Very smart move by Vail in a few different ways.  First, they're not holding ski season hostage.  Second, they're making the first significant conciliatory move.  Third, they're forcing PCMR to face reality about what losing this case is really going to cost.  And, fourth, it probably gets them some credibility with the mediator at a critical time in the mediation.

http://www.parkrecord.com/park_city-news/ci_26217855/pcmr-v-talisker-surprise-move-may-save-resorts


----------



## grupp

*Interesting updates*

Request for 9 day extension on mediation.

http://www.parkrecord.com/ci_26343418/pcmr-v-talisker-sides-request-nine-day-extension


Forbes article on value of land.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielf...in-lease-worth-no-more-than-1-million-a-year/


My favorite, seems like someone is getting desperate to find support.

http://keepparkcityopen.com


----------



## alchook

*All of us at PCMR want you to know one thing: We are committed to keeping the resort open for the 2014/15 winter season.*

Seems easy enough. All they have to do is sell the base to Vail.


----------



## hipslo

Judge just estimated fair rental value at $5m per year and set bond at $17m.  Given that PCMR earns at least twice the bond amount per year (and perhaps much more), I'd say this round goes to PCMR.  (Vail was asking for a bond of 124m, absurdly enough). 

Judge reached fair rental value by taking the 54m fair market value of the land reported by MTN in its securities filing and applying a cap rate to it.  Rejected Vail's argument that rent should be determined based on how much profit PCMR is able to earn by virtue of using the land. The Judge was correct, in my view, given that Vail does not own or control the assets required in order to generate the profits that PCMR generates (access, base, parking, sewer, water rights, intellectual property, branding, etc). 

Judge says if the parties havent settled by next year, bond amount will increase to $19m. 

Seems very likely we will have a 2014-2015 season, with the resort being run by PCMR. 

Delay now strongly favors PCMR, as it keeps its profits from operations, which are well in excess of the bond amount, and Vail stuck paying 25m per year to Talisker with nothing to show for it (other than a 15m per year loss, according to MTN's securities filings). 

Vail/ Talisker attorney requested that PCMR's cash also be garnished to secure any ultimate damages award, Judge rejected the request.

I am still betting on a joint venture as the ultimate resolution, with the only real question being how will the profits be split.


----------



## ondeadlin

hipslo said:


> Judge just estimated fair rental value at $5m per year and set bond at $17m.  Given that PCMR earns at least twice the bond amount per year (and perhaps much more), I'd say this round goes to PCMR.  (Vail was asking for a bond of 124m, absurdly enough).



Generally agree on both points.  The bond is very reasonable, certainly no problem for PCMR to cover.  Vail's ask wasn't absurd as much as it was legal posturing.  That's probably the upside of their damages estimate, but they had to ask for that amount because otherwise, down the road, they could be in a position where the court says, "well, wait, based on your own calculations the damages could be no more than ..."  

Overall, I think this is probably about where both sides figured bond would land.  There will definitely be a 2014-2015 season.



hipslo said:


> Delay now strongly favors PCMR, as it keeps its profits from operations, which are well in excess of the bond amount, and Vail stuck paying 25m per year to Talisker with nothing to show for it (other than a 15m per year loss, according to MTN's securities filings).



Easy analogy:  This is like a person who knows they're going to be foreclosed from their home winning an extension from the Court to get current on their mortgage.  It happens all the time, but everyone knows that in the end, the tenant isn't going to get current, the wait really isn't going to hurt the bank, and the tenant is going to end up having to vacate the premises.

Sure, this situation favors PCMR in the short term, but only because the alternatives were all bad:  (1) eviction; (2) a higher bond.



hipslo said:


> I am still betting on a joint venture as the ultimate resolution, with the only real question being how will the profits be split.



Maybe, but however it comes out:  (1) Vail's going to be bringing in more revenue, it's only a question of how much; (2) PCMR's going to be paying more rent, it's only a question of how much; and (3) there are going to be folks skiing PCMR on EPIC passes.  It's going to be obvious who the winner is in that situation.


----------



## hipslo

ondeadlin said:


> Maybe



Sounds like, for the first time, you might just be acknowledging the possibility that a joint venture could be the ultimate outcome.  Hard to see why that would occur if Vail holds all the cards.  On the other hand, in a situation where neither side can realistically proceed without the other (stalemate), the joint venture outcome begins to make more sense.

The "powers that be" in Park City have recently gone on record as saying they will do everything in their power to prevent the resort from operating other than as a single, integrated resort using the existing base.  (There is a detailed piece on this on the KPCW radio website).  Sounds like a pretty direct warning to Vail that all these "alternate access" scenarios that folks have been throwing around would be difficult, at best, to get through permitting. 

The reality is that each side owns something that is worth very little without the other, and neither side seems willing to walk away and sell or rent their assets to the other, but together, the two sets of assets are enormously valuable.  Its hard to envision a situation better suited to a joint venture.

Under a joint venture scenario, while litigators might focus on "winners" and "losers", rational business people will focus on their own bottom line, as compared with the other available alternatives.  If the parties are able to get to a win/ win under that sort of an analysis, a deal could be made. 

I am not prepared to make any predictions as to the ultimate split of any joint venture, other than to point out that the asset controlled by Vail is encumbered by a very burdensome obligation in favor of Talisker, which greatly depresses the value of what Vail would bring to any joint venture.  It is not inconceivable to me that a joint venture would also include an ownership stake for Talisker, which would then reduce the rent obligation in exchange for the ownership stake.

There are of course other potential outcomes as well, in which one side or the other sells or rents its assets to the other, though I think those are less likely than a joint venture.  Time will tell, though it seems unlikely that this will be finally resolved any time soon.


----------



## ondeadlin

hipslo said:


> Sounds like, for the first time, you might just be acknowledging the possibility that a joint venture could be the ultimate outcome.



It was more of a verbal shrug to avoid rehashing all the issues we've already gone over, but that obviously failed, lol.

And litigators are actually always the first people to urge clients to settle in my experience, because litigators know better than anyone else that it's very, very rare for there to be a clear winner and a clear loser at the end of litigation.  Because even winning costs a ton of money and emotional capital - and the bigger the stakes, the more it costs.  Litigation is hard.  I've never met anyone who has gone taken a serious dispute all the way through trial and enjoyed the process.  Those people may exist, but I haven't met them.


----------



## alchook

So POWDR will paying $17.5M for what recently cost it $155K? And $19M the following season?

I would think at those rates Vail would be happy to have this drag on forever.


----------



## ondeadlin

alchook said:


> So POWDR will paying $17.5M for what recently cost it $155K? And $19M the following season?
> 
> I would think at those rates Vail would be happy to have this drag on forever.



Actually, it's quite different from that.  POWDR will pay for a surety bond in that amount, which will actually cost much less than $17.5 million.  That bond stays in place until the case is resolved.  If Vail wins, the bond will go toward paying the damages if POWDR itself can't pay for some reason (unlikely).

Rates are typically between 1 and 15 percent of the total value annually, depending on factors such as credit history and collateral.  My guess is POWDR would pay on the very low end of that spectrum, because the bonds will be secured with valuable collateral (i.e. the base area or something similar).  So, in theory, at 3 percent such a bond is only costing POWDR about $500k annually - pocket change, really.

Next year, POWDR will have to keep this $17.5 million bond in place and also buy a $19 million bond (to cover rent for next season, and associated damages).  So then they're paying more for the bond, but not a lot more.

Vail doesn't get anything until the case is over.

At least that's how it's typically done.


----------



## alchook

Right, but once this ends isn't that what POWDR owes Vail? It seems that unless POWDR prevails on appeal, which appears unlikely, or if the judge's estimate of fair market value for the land is grossly off, when the case ends Vail is in for a nice pay day.


----------



## ondeadlin

alchook said:


> Right, but once this ends isn't that what POWDR owes Vail? It seems that unless POWDR prevails on appeal, which appears unlikely, or if the judge's estimate of fair market value for the land is grossly off, when the case ends Vail is in for a nice pay day.



Hard to say for sure at this point.  I'm not into each side's damages argument enough to say for certain.


----------



## hipslo

PCMR just announced that it will post the bond and will operate this season.


----------



## ondeadlin

There was almost no chance they would not post the bond IMO - it relatively inexpensive.  Media speculating about the "future" of this ski season were uninformed.

So now they'll have a trial and an appeal ... or maybe settle.  It's up to PCMR.  We could be looking at years of litigation if that's the route they want to go and if they want to keep upping the bond year after year.

The danger is, if they litigate it all the way to the end of exhausting all appeals, and they completely lose, they could be on the hook for so much money that they'd have to sell the base area to Vail too - and they come away with nothing.  The next big pressure point will be the trial.  It's super expensive to try a case, but not that expensive to appeal.  If they actually go to trial, I'd say there's a good chance this drags on until the Utah supreme court weighs in.


----------



## hipslo

ondeadlin said:


> The danger is, if they litigate it all the way to the end of exhausting all appeals, and they completely lose, they could be on the hook for so much money that they'd have to sell the base area to Vail too - and they come away with nothing.  The next big pressure point will be the trial.  It's super expensive to try a case, but not that expensive to appeal.  If they actually go to trial, I'd say there's a good chance this drags on until the Utah supreme court weighs in.



The entity that owns the base, and the PCMR operational assets, intellectual property, brand, etc. is not the same as the entity that is the tenant on the Talisker lease, and is not a party to the litigation.

Interestingly, Powdr's co- counsel on this deal are two litigators from Weil Gotshal.  Weil Gotshal is perhaps the pre-eminent bankruptcy firm in the world.  Make of that what you will.


----------



## ondeadlin

Well, that makes it more likely they'll go the distance IMO.  Not as much to lose.

But it's not dispositive.  If they lose at trial, at that point the judge will issue a judgment on full damages.  If Utah law is like most states, they will have to put up a bond securing the judgment before they appeal.  That will be a big bond, and something or someone will have to secure it.


----------



## hipslo

ondeadlin said:


> Well, that makes it more likely they'll go the distance IMO.  Not as much to lose.
> 
> But it's not dispositive.  If they lose at trial, at that point the judge will issue a judgment on full damages.  If Utah law is like most states, they will have to put up a bond securing the judgment before they appeal.  That will be a big bond, and something or someone will have to secure it.



I think that before Powdr would put up a bond of significant magnitude beyond the 17.m per season appeal bond, they'd likely vacate. 

If it gets to that point, Vail/Talisker likely doesnt collect much beyond the 17.5m bond, neither side has much to show for the assets that they own/ control, and Vail keeps paying Talisker 25m per year for the privilege of losing upwards of 10m per year. 

I know others have said that Vail would just connect the upper terrain to Canyons or construct alternate access at that point, but that seems like a highly unlikely end result to me, given the ready made, win/win scenario of a joint venture, versus years of delay and expense with an unknown ultimate outcome.

Time will tell.


----------



## alchook

hipslo said:


> I think that before Powdr would put up a bond of significant magnitude beyond the 17.m per season appeal bond, they'd likely vacate.
> 
> If it gets to that point, Vail/Talisker likely doesnt collect much beyond the 17.5m bond, neither side has much to show for the assets that they own/ control, and Vail keeps paying Talisker 25m per year for the privilege of losing upwards of 10m per year.
> 
> I know others have said that Vail would just connect the upper terrain to Canyons or construct alternate access at that point, but that seems like a highly unlikely end result to me, given the ready made, win/win scenario of a joint venture, versus years of delay and expense with an unknown ultimate outcome.
> 
> Time will tell.



I heard Vail just bought it all, lock, stock, and two smoking barrels.


----------



## hipslo

alchook said:


> I heard Vail just bought it all, lock, stock, and two smoking barrels.



$182.5m, all cash, in  full settlement of the litigation.  That is an incredible number.  Talk about an offer you can't refuse....


----------



## alchook

hipslo said:


> $182.5m, all cash, in  full settlement of the litigation.  That is an incredible number.  Talk about an offer you can't refuse....



I admit I didn't see that coming, though it's a big relief.

So it amounts to $200M, including the amount of the bond. Roughly double, I think, what Talisker paid for Canyons. Of course, PCMR does twice as much business.

And next year they plan to connect the resorts. That will be interesting. 

I'm just wondering if Vail couldn't have bought PCMR without the Canyons deal.

Still, it does seem to work. They'll have America's largest ski resort 45 minutes from an international airport.


----------



## hipslo

I am generally pleased with the outcome, as my Mountainside ski in/ ski out access to pcmr will now also include all of the canyons terrain by next season. 

 My only real concern is the additional crowding that will likely come about as a result of including pcmr on epic pass.  I wonder if they will retain the "fast tracks" feature currently in effect at pcmr.  

At the end of the day, this is a better outcome for Powdr (from a financial standpoint) than even a 50/50 joint venture would have been.  Assuming a value of 300m for PCMR as an integrated resort, a 50% stake would have been worth 150m.  Here, they get 182.5m cash.  Not only that, they get to keep the likely close to 100m of profits generated by PCMR over the least three seasons, rent free. 

I suspect that once the bond was set as low as it was, Vail's offer increased dramatically.


----------



## ondeadlin

hipslo said:


> $182.5m, all cash, in  full settlement of the litigation.  That is an incredible number.  Talk about an offer you can't refuse....



Particularly when you consider that they were on the hook for at least 3 years of triple damages under Utah law. If you use the $17 million per year figure as a rough start, that's $51 million they don't have to pay.  WSJ headline, though, is "Vail gets a steal," so obviously some folks like the price.

And, yeah, I'm pleased with the outcome.  More terrain for my Epic Pass.

This was always the inevitable outcome, was just a matter of price.  Hate to say I told you so, but ... well ... we both know I don't hate to say it.

;-)

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/vail-resorts-gets-steal-park-162017293.html


----------



## alchook

ondeadlin said:


> Particularly when you consider that they were on the hook for at least 3 years of triple damages under Utah law. If you use the $17 million per year figure as a rough start, that's $51 million they don't have to pay.  WSJ headline, though, is "Vail gets a steal," so obviously some folks like the price.
> 
> And, yeah, I'm pleased with the outcome.  More terrain for my Epic Pass.
> 
> This was always the inevitable outcome, was just a matter of price.  Hate to say I told you so, but ... well ... we both know I don't hate to say it.
> 
> ;-)
> 
> http://finance.yahoo.com/news/vail-resorts-gets-steal-park-162017293.html



Stock's up $8 a share.

Looks as if they already got their money back.


----------



## puckmanfl

good evening...

I am just an ol' fashioned ER doc..can somebody explain this to me in English..

Who will be running the resort for the 2014-2015 season??? 

Will there be a connection to canyons?  2014-2015 season?

Will PCMR be on the epic pass???

Who will be running this 2015-2016 and beyond???

Thanks...


----------



## hipslo

puckmanfl said:


> good evening...
> 
> I am just an ol' fashioned ER doc..can somebody explain this to me in English..
> 
> Who will be running the resort for the 2014-2015 season???
> 
> Will there be a connection to canyons?  2014-2015 season?
> 
> Will PCMR be on the epic pass???
> 
> Who will be running this 2015-2016 and beyond???
> 
> Thanks...



Vail running 2014-2015 season, and beyond.

Connection to Canyons planned for 2015-2016 season, though that would be subject to permitting issues.

PCMR will be on the epic pass, starting 2014-2015.  Existing PCMR passes honored for 2014-2015 season, also.


----------



## puckmanfl

good evening....

Thanks so much....

Have 4 units at Summitt 2/22-2/28  just want to make sure I have a place to ski!!!!

That EPIC pass is looking sweet as I often go to Vail or Heavenly....as well

Thanks again for clearing this up....


----------



## davidvel

alchook said:


> Stock's up $8 a share.
> 
> Looks as if they already got their money back.



Only if they own all the stock and sell it at this price.


----------



## alchook

davidvel said:


> Only if they own all the stock and sell it at this price.



I think "they" do own all the stock.

("They" being the stock holders, who own the company.)


----------



## SkyBlueWaters

I love my mountain. Period. Don't really care who runs it.


----------



## jeepie

puckmanfl said:


> That EPIC pass is looking sweet as I often go to Vail or Heavenly....as well


Puckman,
Absolutely check out the various EPIC passes. They are very cost-effective, and I find I ski more just having skiing already paid for...
You may want to call Vail and discuss the many options. Their website isn't totally current with Park City now included.
Happy skiing!


----------



## Mamianka

hipslo said:


> $182.5m, all cash, in  full settlement of the litigation.  That is an incredible number.  Talk about an offer you can't refuse....



DH and I often travel with my good friend/former co-teacher.  We live in NY state - she is half-time here, half-time in Park City.  After skiing for over SEVENTY years (!) she was injured in a ski lift accident last winter that has ended her skiing days - so she put her condo up for sale.  While back *here* for a few months, she got a call from her realtor, telling her that *everybody* was dropping their prices until this whole Talisker thing got settled.  She held her ground - and went back yesterday to PC for a visit.  Just emailed me now - she said there are smiling faces all over - and her place it still for sale at the (very reasonable) price she is asking.  Should bode well for the 2 Marriott TS properties there, among all the other great places.

Mamianka


----------



## puckmanfl

good evening....

just picked up 2 more studios for the ski trip....

now we have 1 2 bedroom at Mountainside

3 2 bedrooms at Sumitt

2 studios at Summitt...

all 2/22-2/27...  9 partners/spouses including myslef going....  biggest skitrip ever!!!  Picked up the FC airfare using Delta points today!!!

Go Vail!!!  

To infinty and beyond!!!


----------



## alchook

puckmanfl said:


> Go Vail!!!
> 
> To infinity and beyond!!!



May be time to remove the last three words form the title of this thread.


----------



## SueDonJ

alchook said:


> May be time to remove the last three words form the title of this thread.



Al, it's your thread, can be edited any way you choose and I'm happy to do it.  

One suggestion though - if/when management becomes an issue again, folks may be searching for this thread to get some historical perspective.  Are you sure you don't want to include the word "management" somewhere in the thread title to aid in that search?

Let me know what you'd like for a new thread title ...


----------



## alchook

I attended an HOA meeting with some representatives of Vail who gave a brief overview of their plans today. In the next couple of weeks they intend to release the master plan for the combination of the two mountains, which should take place next summer. They need to move quickly as the parts for the lifts have to be ordered now to make a go of it.

Once combined, the mountain will simply be called "Park City," dropping the "Mountain Resort." At 7300 acres it will be the largest ski resort in the US. But they don't want the largest ski resort in the US. They want the largest ski resort in North America, which will require them to expand to at least 8200 acres, and they don't see that as being very difficult. They plan to have Park City as Vail's flagship property.

Vail is apparently very underwhelmed by the PCMR base area. In fact, they said that Mountainside is perhaps one of the few acceptable properties there. So starting next summer they plan to start spending an "unprecedented" amount of money upgrading the both the base area and the skiing infrastructure on the mountain, which is badly in need of an overhaul.

SEC regulations being what they are, they couldn't go into specifics. They did say, though, that it is important to make this one seamless resort, not two mountains linked by a chairlift. And with the size of the resort it's crucial that skiers can maneuver the place quickly, so there need to be major lift upgrades. 

One thing they were quite clear on is that fixed grip lifts are not up to Vail standards, and everything needs to be high-speed detachables, which sounds pretty good to me. 

All in all I thought this sounded very positive for Mountainside, and maybe even better for Summit Watch if that Town Lift atrocity gets replaced.


----------



## Wally3433

al
Great news that you post.  I am going there for the first time in January.  Maybe we can return in future years if our crew has a good time so we can see the before and after.


----------



## ondeadlin

Things will only get better with Vail - they invest in their properties.


----------



## SkyBlueWaters

Glad I saw this thread. Was about to sell my week. Maybe I'll acquire more...


----------



## Ann in CA

*Just a general NYTimes article about possibilities*

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/18/t...?emc=edit_tl_20150117&nl=travel&nlid=14252203


----------



## davidvel

PCM opens Saturday. New gondola, Canyons absorbed. 

Looking back, what does everyone think now?


----------



## Colt Seavers

I'll let you know on Sunday.  Although I'm assuming the new part of the mountain will not be open for several more weeks.  I am mainly looking forward to see what they do with the main base area of Park City which could really use a facelift.


----------



## alchook

davidvel said:


> Looking back, what does everyone think now?



Now everyone thinks we need a lot of snow.


----------



## SkyBlueWaters

*Mountainside Owners -- feedback on experience with Vail Resorts taking over PCMR*

First of all, I hate that they chose Canyons logo over our cute PCMR skiing through the trees. We have so many memorabilia with the kids going to ski school there, so while they maintained the name, they got rid of the logo. It feels foreign already.

Second, the air fares. Oy vey! Have they rocketed to the roof! I am paying 100% more from last year even with discount airline Frontier flying directly from Chicago. Ouch!

As for the lift ticket prices, well, I guess with advanced purchase, I'm still okay, and we're doing okay with Ski Utah's passport programs for my middle schoolers.

I guess I'm happy about the gondola and the new lodges that were reportedly constructed for our enjoyment. We have yet to ski Spring Break this year, so we'll see.

Anyone been there recently?  Looks like the units have not been renovated since last year but not happy with the 6% increase in MF!  I think I'm going to have to get involved in the decision making of the board (if anyone will vote for me).


----------



## SkyBlueWaters

Hi Sue,

Since the acquisition is no longer an issue (fait accompli), I was just trying to start conversation regarding vacation experiences after the take over. Thought it might need its own thread. 

Thanks!


----------



## SueDonJ

SkyBlueWaters said:


> Hi Sue,
> 
> Since the acquisition is no longer an issue (fait accompli), I was just trying to start conversation regarding vacation experiences after the take over. Thought it might need its own thread.
> 
> Thanks!



I considered that but in looking at this thread before merging yours with it, TUGger davidvel had already asked basically the same thing you're asking: _"Looking back, what does everyone think now?"_  I've edited the thread title just in case people don't understand the reason for the ongoing discussion.


----------



## sea&ski

*Park City Skiing.  Anything New?*

We are headed there soon and I was just thinking that there hadn't been much activity on the board about the transition.  There was so much speculation about what would stay at PCMR and what wouldn't.  Has anyone with prior experience noticed a missing lift?  Or a closed restaurant?  Anybody tried skiing both PC and Canyons in one day?  I anticipate that it will be like the merger, so to speak, of Snowbird and Alta.  Yah, the gate is there to pass through, but who has the time to do both?


----------



## sea&ski

*How are things at Mountainside this winter?*

Tried posting this in the old thread about the take over of PCMR by Vail, but no response there, so trying a new thread...

We are soon to travel to Mountainside and I am wondering if anyone has any recommendations?  Are all the lifts at the old PCMR still standing?  The restaurants still serving food?  Better, worse, different food?  How about that new gondola that connects the resorts?  Is it like Alta/Snowbird?  As in, there it is, but who has the time to do both?  Or, if you are staying at Mountainside, is it a no-brainer to take the gondola over to Canyons instead of driving there?

I am very surprised at the lack of discussion about this much-discussed merger.



_*Moderator Note:*  Threads merged.  I'm sorry but duplicate posts/threads are not allowed per the TUG Posting Rules.  Merging the threads will bring the topic to the top of the forum where interested readers should easily find it._


----------



## pedro47

sea&ski said:


> Tried posting this in the old thread about the take over of PCMR by Vail, but no response there, so trying a new thread...
> 
> We are soon to travel to Mountainside and I am wondering if anyone has any recommendations?  Are all the lifts at the old PCMR still standing?  The restaurants still serving food?  Better, worse, different food?  How about that new gondola that connects the resorts?  Is it like Alta/Snowbird?  As in, there it is, but who has the time to do both?  Or, if you are staying at Mountainside, is it a no-brainer to take the gondola over to Canyons instead of driving there?
> 
> I am very surprised at the lack of discussion about this much-discussed merger.
> 
> 
> 
> _*Moderator Note:*  Threads merged.  I'm sorry but duplicate posts/threads are not allowed per the TUG Posting Rules.  Merging the threads will bring the topic to the top of the forum where interested readers should easily find it._


Please write a detail review and add any new information about what happening at the resort  after your vacation.


----------



## alchook

The restaurants at both PCMR and Canyons have been upgraded nicely. The lifts at PCMR are still intact but have likewise been upgraded. I definitely would take the gondola over to the Canyons side rather than drive.


----------



## Carlsbadguy

I am out Mountainside right now. Finishing up Sundance.  First visit since the renovations. I really do not like the renovations, more like a New York Metro style than mountain setting. Glass dining table, off white couch, dark brown wood furniture. Also the granite in the master bedroom vanity  is different than the granite in the kitchen and bathroom. The interior of the shower was redone in a nice tile, but they left some of the older tile on the bathroom walls outside the shower which looks odd. 

Parking garage is too small when at full occupancy. Had to park outside last night. 

The views from the Gondola are beautiful. You can ski both areas in one day, but I would probably spend most of the day on one side and make sure you take the gondola back in time as it closes earlier than some of the other lifts. Also from Park City to Canyons take the gondola all the way, unless a lot of recent snow, as the trail from the midway station has some rocks when snow coverage is not great.

Vail is making up for it's cheap season passes with high costs for other things such as on mountain food. $14.50 for a burger or $9.95 for a slice of pizza.

Any questions feel free to ask.


----------



## sea&ski

*Same and yet different...*

I agree that the soft furnishing updates here at MountainSide are not in keeping with what I would expect for a mountain home.  The carpeting in the hallways is quite jarring in greys and vibrant blues.  The walls are in general some hue of grey, many are dark.  The pictures in the halls are quite modern, geometric and match the coloration of the flooring and walls.  It is a strange, strange choice of decor 

My husband actually burst out laughing when he saw the bright orange pillows and accents in the room.

All that aside, the cost of food at Park City (on the mountain) is astronomical, nothing different from any other Epic Pass accessed area.  Is it good?  Hmm...  Nothing fantastic yet.

There are some interesting updates to the mountain itself including a new Mother Lode lift and a shriek inducing (by impressionable children), magic carpet entry to the King Con chairs, the lift itself now a high speed 6 man chair.  Not to mention the map for the mountain which is for "Park City" and includes the defunct Canyons, don't expect any details.  Not much activity at the Gondola today but I heard lots of people talking about it.


----------



## SkyBlueWaters

Sigh.
I saw the mood/inspiration board and was not happy with the proposed renovations. I guess I was right. 
We really need something warm and luxurious rather than cool and sophisticated in a mountainside setting.
Guess we have to wait another five years, and have one of us join the board before any design mistake is made again.

As for the food, I'm so glad, we're by the slope. I always make sure there's plenty of fruits, canned soup and lunch meat in the villa. We usually meet up at the room for lunch before our runs in the afternoon.


----------



## Chase

Just arrived.

Really scratching my head over the decor "upgrades".  It's sucked a lot of the mountain feeling out of the building, and at best ignores (and clashes with) the mining inspired architecture.  What's more...the furniture is UNCOMFORTABLE and made from some weird plastic like cloth. Overall feeling is that they went for cheap, ugly, and durable -- and that the designer thought they were way more hip than they really were in picking modern furnishings.  Way to blow it.  Fire the designer!

Also....they eliminated the common area seating on the second floor overlooking the main common area.  This used to have comfortable couches for reading and game playing .... And a great pair of chairs looking out of the window at the slope.  It was a great place to chill out and read a book.  Now?  They carved it all up for sales people's cubicles. Really really depressing and dumb. 

Can we go back to the old way?


----------



## Carlsbadguy

I was there in January and totally agree with your assessment of the new furniture. Found the decor more fitting for mid town Manhattan than a Mountain town.


----------



## SkyBlueWaters

I'm going to bring this up at the owners' meeting which I usually don't attend. Plus, they increased the MF. I would like to see at least an improvement in experience.


----------



## spottie

We just spent a wonderful Spring Break vacation at Mountainside, with 20" of snow during the week.  I really liked the new decor there. I guess taste in decor is a very personal thing and they can not make everybody happy
The updated locker room is very nice and much more functional then before.  We got to enjoy it the last day after we checked out.
We ventured into the Canyon side this time through the Gondola. It's not bad going over, but took us a long time to come back to the Park City side.  I also got a sticker shock at the price of food at the Canyon lodge (we normally go back to our room for lunch for the past 10+ years).  The $10+ bison chilli tasted awful!  I guess they were trying to pay off the new Gondola fast


----------



## SkyBlueWaters

spottie said:


> We just spent a wonderful Spring Break vacation at Mountainside, with 20" of snow during the week.  I really liked the new decor there. I guess taste in decor is a very personal thing and they can not make everybody happy
> The updated locker room is very nice and much more functional then before.  We got to enjoy it the last day after we checked out.
> We ventured into the Canyon side this time through the Gondola. It's not bad going over, but took us a long time to come back to the Park City side.  I also got a sticker shock at the price of food at the Canyon lodge (we normally go back to our room for lunch for the past 10+ years).  The $10+ bison chilli tasted awful!  I guess they were trying to pay off the new Gondola fast



$10 only?!! Check out their $27 burger elsewhere and $5 hot cocoa. I'm glad I stayed at the PC side. Skiing down to our room for lunch was way better.


----------

