Getting Back to your Inner Ski Bum

Patrick":1ofw3ltq said:
If all the Vermont ski areas would be and have the same feel as MRG then it wouldn't necessarily be as successful. However over the years, some ski areas blasted, widened, increase capacity, added or increase snowmaking, grooming in the last 30-40 years, making leaving MRG more unique. Not saying that every should have done what MRG is going, but there is place for very minimalist ski area where the focus is mainly skiing.
Just to keep perspective:
* MRG grooms about 90% of their green and blue terrain nightly - there are only about 5 blue square trail sections (not even complete trails) that aren't groomed. Of their black diamond terrain, only 2 or 3 trails get groomed (but not necessarily every night).
* MRG has snowmaking on 15% of its terrain - essentially the high traffic, low part of the mountain. True, the vast majority is strictly natural snow cover, but it's a misconception to say that MRG has no snowmaking.
* MRG has indeed widened and regraded some terrain in the past 40 years.
* Sugarbush next door uses the same grooming philosophy as MRG - all the green, the huge majority of the blue, and only a tiny fraction of black terrain get groomed nightly. Stowe operates the same way. When you look at percentage of advanced terrain that gets groomed regularly, you'll find that a majority of VT areas operate the same as MRG.

IOW, other than ownership model and snowmaking (and the fiscally irresponsible insistence of the shareholders to rebuild a museum relic of a lift at a significant up-charge over a modern double), MRG isn't as unique in as many respects as people think it is.
 
Marc_C":1l3ro38k said:
Patrick":1l3ro38k said:
If all the Vermont ski areas would be and have the same feel as MRG then it wouldn't necessarily be as successful. However over the years, some ski areas blasted, widened, increase capacity, added or increase snowmaking, grooming in the last 30-40 years, making leaving MRG more unique. Not saying that every should have done what MRG is going, but there is place for very minimalist ski area where the focus is mainly skiing.
Just to keep perspective:
* MRG grooms about 90% of their green and blue terrain nightly - there are only about 5 blue square trail sections (not even complete trails) that aren't groomed. Of their black diamond terrain, only 2 or 3 trails get groomed (but not necessarily every night).
* MRG has snowmaking on 15% of its terrain - essentially the high traffic, low part of the mountain. True, the vast majority is strictly natural snow cover, but it's a misconception to say that MRG has no snowmaking.
* MRG has indeed widened and regraded some terrain in the past 40 years.
* Sugarbush next door uses the same grooming philosophy as MRG - all the green, the huge majority of the blue, and only a tiny fraction of black terrain get groomed nightly. Stowe operates the same way. When you look at percentage of advanced terrain that gets groomed regularly, you'll find that a majority of VT areas operate the same as MRG.

IOW, other than ownership model and snowmaking (and the fiscally irresponsible insistence of the shareholders to rebuild a museum relic of a lift at a significant up-charge over a modern double), MRG isn't as unique in as many respects as people think it is.

=;

Marc. you're going exactly what you criticize Tony of going. You don't know what you are talking about living many thousands miles away...how many ski days have you taken in Vermont last season? The last 3 years? Last 5? How many of those days at MRG? Tony has more seasonal experience in the LCC than you. Notions or perceived notions of the time you lived in New Jersey won't fly.

PS. Never said that MRG didn't have snowmaking.
 
Marc_C":1g10uwd6 said:
IOW, other than ownership model and snowmaking (and the fiscally irresponsible insistence of the shareholders to rebuild a museum relic of a lift at a significant up-charge over a modern double), MRG isn't as unique in as many respects as people think it is.

I'd argue that MRG created their Co-op to protect their mountain from being corporatized. That's pretty unique in the ski industry these days.

Here's a nice little clip of the history of the Co-op and keeping true to their roots.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wnP65o3zTo
 
My comment about those 3 ski areas being successful is that they appear to have stable business models and are not in danger of going out of business. If you have low ticket sales like MRG, you need low marginal costs and mostly importantly no debt service. Bogus has substantial ticket sales and the income from their cut rate season pass program raised enough money eventually to pay for 2 high speed quads. No question from their coffee table book they have had tough times in low snow years in the past. I'm not sure whether their improved status over the past 13 years will make future drought years any easier to withstand. Bogus has concluded that they do not have enough potential snowmaking resources to make sense spending money there.

I agree firmly with Patrick about diversity of ski models. Everyone here knows I prefer areas with big mountain scale. But I also like variety and thus still put in some time at smaller places I consider interesting, and MRG certainly qualified.
 
soulskier":17ijd97w said:
Marc_C":17ijd97w said:
IOW, other than ownership model and snowmaking (and the fiscally irresponsible insistence of the shareholders to rebuild a museum relic of a lift at a significant up-charge over a modern double), MRG isn't as unique in as many respects as people think it is.

I'd argue that MRG created their Co-op to protect their mountain from being corporatized. That's pretty unique in the ski industry these days.

Here's a nice little clip of the history of the Co-op and keeping true to their roots.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wnP65o3zTo

I think Soulskier has rose-colored blinders on about what really happened.

MRG went co-op because the doors would have completely shut otherwise. Sugarbush had fallen on hard times. Les Otten had scooped up the resort for next to nothing in 1995, the same year Betsy Pratt was looking to unload Mad River Glen. Sugarbush was running at a loss and Otten was unable to turn it around despite plowing big dollars into lifts and snowmaking. That is why the American Skiing Company dumped it for next to nothing to Win Smith in 2001. There was no market for Mad River. The Co-op really was Betsy Pratt's only possible exit strategy.
 
Geoff":2cb1bm1r said:
I think Soulskier has rose-colored blinders on about what really happened.

MRG went co-op because the doors would have completely shut otherwise. Sugarbush had fallen on hard times. Les Otten had scooped up the resort for next to nothing in 1995, the same year Betsy Pratt was looking to unload Mad River Glen. Sugarbush was running at a loss and Otten was unable to turn it around despite plowing big dollars into lifts and snowmaking. That is why the American Skiing Company dumped it for next to nothing to Win Smith in 2001. There was no market for Mad River. The Co-op really was Betsy Pratt's only possible exit strategy.

That sounds similar to what Magic Mountain, in your fine state, is trying to accomplish, correct?
 
soulskier":3jlsgs6y said:
That sounds similar to what Magic Mountain, in your fine state, is trying to accomplish, correct?

That is however where the similarities end. Magic is much less mountain with much, much less snowfall. They need to be able to depend on snowmaking but lack any substantial water source to run a sufficient snowmaking system, even if they had the money to install one - which they don't. That's largely the reason why they've been through owner after owner after owner, with each one predictably losing their shirt.

And from what I understand the structure that's being proposed is quite different from the MRG co-op. The current owner will stay in charge -- he's just selling what amount to equity shares.
 
Admin":1iqpvglp said:
soulskier":1iqpvglp said:
That sounds similar to what Magic Mountain, in your fine state, is trying to accomplish, correct?

That is however where the similarities end. Magic is much less mountain with much, much less snowfall. They need to be able to depend on snowmaking but lack any substantial water source to run a sufficient snowmaking system, even if they had the money to install one - which they don't. That's largely the reason why they've been through owner after owner after owner, with each one predictably losing their shirt.

And from what I understand the structure that's being proposed is quite different from the MRG co-op. The current owner will stay in charge -- he's just selling what amount to equity shares.

Yep. And Magic isn't viable unless they get enough skier visits to cover the snowmaking costs. You can't run it as a living ski museum. You need full parking lots. I know the most recent operator has done some snowmaking pond work but I don't believe they've ever solved their basic problem of lack of water for snowmaking.

It's pretty clear to me that the current incarnation of Magic will die an ugly death. There's no way they're going to find people willing to throw the money away buying shares in a non-viable business.
 
Geoff":242ya6m7 said:
It's pretty clear to me that the current incarnation of Magic will die an ugly death. There's no way they're going to find people willing to throw the money away buying shares in a non-viable business.

My sources tell me they have sold almost three hundred shares ($3,000) to date.
 
soulskier":1zcm9e2l said:
Geoff":1zcm9e2l said:
It's pretty clear to me that the current incarnation of Magic will die an ugly death. There's no way they're going to find people willing to throw the money away buying shares in a non-viable business.

My sources tell me they have sold almost three hundred shares ($3,000) to date.
Phase 1: sell shares
Phase 2: ?
Phase 3: Profit!

Reminds me of the old South Park bit about the underwear gnomes...
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/151040/the-underpants-business
 
soulskier":1ofblxaj said:
Geoff":1ofblxaj said:
It's pretty clear to me that the current incarnation of Magic will die an ugly death. There's no way they're going to find people willing to throw the money away buying shares in a non-viable business.

My sources tell me they have sold almost three hundred shares ($3,000) to date.

Oh, you mean that over 26 months, they still haven't managed to sell the first 300 shares they were supposed to sell within 90 days of their offering back in June, 2009? ...and it was 240 shares sold as of April. I doubt they have sold many more. They are staggeringly off plan on the 1000 shares they were supposed to sell over 4 years.

You can sell all the $100 plaques you want to fund painting 40-year-old double chairs and it's not going to make a dent into the amount of cash needed up update Magic's snowmaking system. Without reliable water, replacing miles of failed pipe (rather than the emergency patching they do now), low-E guns, modern compressors & pumps, and all the rest that allows them to make snow quickly and economically, they don't stand much of a chance. They need full parking lots Christmas week to cover all their fixed costs and they struggle to have much open by that time of year.

I want Magic to make it but they are extremely undercapitalized. One bad weather year where their base gets washed out to dirt in a Christmas week thaw and it's on to the next set of owners.
 
Geoff":227z22dj said:
soulskier":227z22dj said:
Geoff":227z22dj said:
It's pretty clear to me that the current incarnation of Magic will die an ugly death. There's no way they're going to find people willing to throw the money away buying shares in a non-viable business.

My sources tell me they have sold almost three hundred shares ($3,000) to date.

Oh, you mean that over 26 months, they still haven't managed to sell the first 300 shares they were supposed to sell within 90 days of their offering back in June, 2009? ...and it was 240 shares sold as of April. I doubt they have sold many more. They are staggeringly off plan on the 1000 shares they were supposed to sell over 4 years.

You can sell all the $100 plaques you want to fund painting 40-year-old double chairs and it's not going to make a dent into the amount of cash needed up update Magic's snowmaking system. Without reliable water, replacing miles of failed pipe (rather than the emergency patching they do now), low-E guns, modern compressors & pumps, and all the rest that allows them to make snow quickly and economically, they don't stand much of a chance. They need full parking lots Christmas week to cover all their fixed costs and they struggle to have much open by that time of year.

I want Magic to make it but they are extremely undercapitalized. One bad weather year where their base gets washed out to dirt in a Christmas week thaw and it's on to the next set of owners.

We decided to have Save Magic write a post on their cause. Here ya go.

http://www.mrablog.com/magic-mountain-v ... ess-story/
 
jamesdeluxe":xexvug8y said:
Increasing amounts of East-Coast content on the MRA site? There goes Soul Skier's big-mountain street cred! :-D

I've already gone on record as stating that I visited the East Coast this past season. While there, I gained a new-found appreciation for their passion, soulfulness, vintage past and overall ski culture. I still like to ski big mountains too :-D
 
soulskier":2er2vrxn said:
We decided to have Save Magic write a post on their cause. Here ya go.

http://www.mrablog.com/magic-mountain-v ... ess-story/

In the interests of full disclosure, here ya go:

http://www.tremontsheldon.com/news/deta ... g-clients/

Slippery Slopes for Lawyer Who Owns Ski Resort - Lawsuits claim that attorney left state after misleading clients
A former Fairfield lawyer allegedly assured clients that he was dutifully handling their cases while he was operating a ski resort in southern Vermont.

But when those clients realized their cases were never filed or dismissed due to inaction, they retaliated by filing two malpractice lawsuits in Bridgeport Superior Court against James L. Sullivan, formerly a partner of Maher Williams.

Plaintiffs' lawyer Douglas P. Mahoney, of Tremont & Sheldon in Bridgeport, contends in his complaints that Sullivan led two of his clients to believe that their cases were "pending and proceeding through the court system in a typical fashion," when the opposite was true.

Sullivan moved to Manchester, VT, with his wife and two daughters in late 2006 when he became managing partner of an investment group that took over Magic Mountain in Londonderry, VT.

"Our clients were told he would be running the ski lodge and maintaining a practice in Connecticut," Mahoney said in an interview with the Law Tribune. "What Sullivan did was just blatantly lie to these people for years."

A December 2006 story in the Fairfield Minuteman newspaper about Sullivan taking over as president of Magic Mountain, quotes his sister-in-law, Katie O'Grady: "For [Sullivan], it's a dream come true, chucking a law career for his passion."
 
Geoff":1ru5gwiu said:
In the interests of full disclosure, here ya go:

http://www.tremontsheldon.com/news/deta ... g-clients/

Slippery Slopes for Lawyer Who Owns Ski Resort - Lawsuits claim that attorney left state after misleading clients
A former Fairfield lawyer allegedly assured clients that he was dutifully handling their cases while he was operating a ski resort in southern Vermont.

But when those clients realized their cases were never filed or dismissed due to inaction, they retaliated by filing two malpractice lawsuits in Bridgeport Superior Court against James L. Sullivan, formerly a partner of Maher Williams.

Plaintiffs' lawyer Douglas P. Mahoney, of Tremont & Sheldon in Bridgeport, contends in his complaints that Sullivan led two of his clients to believe that their cases were "pending and proceeding through the court system in a typical fashion," when the opposite was true.

Sullivan moved to Manchester, VT, with his wife and two daughters in late 2006 when he became managing partner of an investment group that took over Magic Mountain in Londonderry, VT.

"Our clients were told he would be running the ski lodge and maintaining a practice in Connecticut," Mahoney said in an interview with the Law Tribune. "What Sullivan did was just blatantly lie to these people for years."

A December 2006 story in the Fairfield Minuteman newspaper about Sullivan taking over as president of Magic Mountain, quotes his sister-in-law, Katie O'Grady: "For [Sullivan], it's a dream come true, chucking a law career for his passion."

Our post is about a community of skiers and riders that successfully came together to save their mountain playground.
 
soulskier":18q9yp0p said:
Our post is about a community of skiers and riders that successfully came together to save their mountain playground.

And mine is about an attorney who owns a shaky New England ski area who is being sued for malpractice. Is that somebody you want to give $3000 to?
 
I wish Harv had interviewed soulskier about what he did between making sandwiches at Squaw Valley after high school and his move to Argentina a few years back. There has to be an interesting story about he he got the motivation and resources to take on something as ambitious as MRA.
 
Tony Crocker":21je7zso said:
I wish Harv had interviewed soulskier about what he did between making sandwiches at Squaw Valley after high school and his move to Argentina a few years back. There has to an interesting story about he he got the motivation and resources to take on something as ambitious as MRA.

TC - you could post a comment. I bet JS would respond.

Thanks for reading.
 
Back
Top