Lehman foreclosing on Moonlight Basin, Area Interconnects

[salida]

The three Park City resorts ain't AltaBird but they have plenty of terrain to interest just about anybody. The microclimate at 9990, Jupiter, and Empire delivers a totally reasonable skiing surface. I still rate Deer Valley as my favorite place to be on a powder day. No elbow shots from the Powder Nazis like Admin. The trees are completely ignored.

^Not really. It might compare for 500 vert, but then what happens for the next 1500? 5% Grade?

 

[Bushwacker1951]

Back to the Moonlight foreclosure thing, Lehman went bellyup last year and it various parts were acquired by other companies. From what I have read Barcleys took over most of their NA operations. These companies have no interest in ski resorts, they are just looking for some payment and get these tainted assets off the books. IMHO, when the price is right Boyne will take it over.

Does Big Sky sit in the catbird seat with both YC and MLB having very cloudy futures and they being the only resort or do the other resorts bring people to Big Sky? Not sure if the YC has much to do with Big Sky's market. Haven't heard, will the YC operate this season?

 

[Patrick]

Not sure if the YC has much to do with Big Sky's market. Haven't heard, will the YC operate this season?

You should ask our YC specialist and occassional YC skier here at FTO. :wink:

Tony, will they operate? And where do they stand and what will happen to them in the future?

 

[Admin]

http://www.firsttracksonline.com/News/2 ... tone-Club/

 

[Tony Crocker]

Admin's article (which i just read since I was in the Far East when it came out) is the most current info on Yellowstone Club. I certainly would expect them to operate based upon that. Last year, when the bankruptcy was pending, would have been tougher I think.

As for interconnecting everything, it wouldn't suck to be able to ski to Deer Valley for lunch.

That's why Deer Valley will resist joining an interconnect. Geoff, I and numerous others would overrun their restaurants for lunch.

 

[Marc_C]

As for interconnecting everything, it wouldn't suck to be able to ski to Deer Valley for lunch.

That's why Deer Valley will resist joining an interconnect. Geoff, I and numerous others would overrun their restaurants for lunch.

Me too!
There's another sticking point regarding DV being part of a full 7 resort interconnect - they limit the number of day tickets they sell. That number is based on the number of restaurant seats they have. It's not a 1:1 relationship btw, since they know a certain percentage will eat at their condos, ski-in/out trophy homes, and at the high end restaurants like the Glit at Stein's.

But since DV is separated from PCMR by merely a 3/8" strip of polypropylene, they can easily decide to opt-out of any interconnection plans. They'd probably cite snowboards as well, but since Alta has shown that it can coexist connected to a resort that allows boards, that argument no longer carries much weight.

 

[Mike Bernstein]

As for interconnecting everything, it wouldn't suck to be able to ski to Deer Valley for lunch.

But since DV is separated from PCMR by merely a 3/8" strip of polypropylene, they can easily decide to opt-out of any interconnection plans. They'd probably cite snowboards as well, but since Alta has shown that it can coexist connected to a resort that allows boards, that argument no longer carries much weight.

Right, but Alta always marketed itself to a very different demographic. The typical DV customer is older, has more invested in the concept (in the form of their $5-10MM trophy home) and likely a little more passionate about this due to ignorance more than anything.

 

[Geoff]

As for interconnecting everything, it wouldn't suck to be able to ski to Deer Valley for lunch.

That's why Deer Valley will resist joining an interconnect. Geoff, I and numerous others would overrun their restaurants for lunch.

Me too!
There's another sticking point regarding DV being part of a full 7 resort interconnect - they limit the number of day tickets they sell. That number is based on the number of restaurant seats they have. It's not a 1:1 relationship btw, since they know a certain percentage will eat at their condos, ski-in/out trophy homes, and at the high end restaurants like the Glit at Stein's.

But since DV is separated from PCMR by merely a 3/8" strip of polypropylene, they can easily decide to opt-out of any interconnection plans. They'd probably cite snowboards as well, but since Alta has shown that it can coexist connected to a resort that allows boards, that argument no longer carries much weight.

Back when it was a fixed grip with great snow preservation, I've had a lunch of trail mix, power bars, and a couple of beers from my day pack while riding the Sultan lift at Deer Valley. On a good powder day, I really don't want to stop no matter how good the base lodge food is. I still think the place has the best medium-pitch tree skiing in the world... mostly because their clientele completely ignores it. I guess that now that you ride high speed lifts to get to things, I can spare a few minutes for the gourmet cafeteria line food. I always used to mostly ski Ontario Bowl and the Sultan lift on powder days since the Bogner people avoided the 'slow' lifts.

My mom used to have a Canyons senior citizen pass to mix it up. They'd ski The Canyons in the morning and drive over to Deer Valley for lunch. At noon, there's no problem getting a parking spot since so many people are leaving since the groomers are no longer perfect corduroy. I also remember buying a day ticket early one morning when it had just dumped 3 feet. The woman at the ticket window said "I have to tell you that we didn't groom anything last night." I grinned and said that was the nicest thing anybody had said to me all morning.

 

[Tony Crocker]

Alta always marketed itself to a very different demographic. The typical DV customer is older, has more invested in the concept (in the form of their $5-10MM trophy home) and likely a little more passionate about this due to ignorance more than anything.

Alta skiers not passionate? How many :snowball fight: can be provoked on FTO by even hinting that Alta is in some way inferior to another ski area? Deer Valley is more likely to lift its snowboard ban than Alta IMHO. Deer Valley customers have families and/or entourages. Some of those people snowboard and I would expect some pressure to change eventually. The Altaphiles will :sabre fight: to the death to preserve its snowboard ban. Actually, financial pressure is the most likely factor to provoke re-examining a snowboard ban, as at Taos. But in today's thread about impact of the economy I noticed that Deer Valley not Alta came up in that conversation.

 

[Mike Bernstein]

Alta always marketed itself to a very different demographic. The typical DV customer is older, has more invested in the concept (in the form of their $5-10MM trophy home) and likely a little more passionate about this due to ignorance more than anything.

Alta skiers not passionate? How many :snowball fight: can be provoked on FTO by even hinting that Alta is in some way inferior to another ski area? Deer Valley is more likely to lift its snowboard ban than Alta IMHO. Deer Valley customers have families and/or entourages. Some of those people snowboard and I would expect some pressure to change eventually. The Altaphiles will :sabre fight: to the death to preserve its snowboard ban. Actually, financial pressure is the most likely factor to provoke re-examining a snowboard ban, as at Taos. But in today's thread about impact of the economy I noticed that Deer Valley not Alta came up in that conversation.

Let's put it this way - if Alta changed their policy tomorrow, their skier day figures wouldn't change materially. I think the passion for Alta is more due to terrain, snowfall and vibe/history/mystique rather than being defined by the snowboarding ban. Maybe I'm wrong and it's largely about the ban, but I don't get that from afar. I think the skiers at DV, who are much more significant stakeholders due to the real-estate aspect, would have a more adverse reaction.

 

[Admin]

Let's put it this way - if Alta changed their policy tomorrow, their skier day figures wouldn't change materially. I think the passion for Alta is more due to terrain, snowfall and vibe/history/mystique rather than being defined by the snowboarding ban. Maybe I'm wrong and it's largely about the ban, but I don't get that from afar. I think the skiers at DV, who are much more significant stakeholders due to the real-estate aspect, would have a more adverse reaction.

Spot on.

 

[Tony Crocker]

I disagree. It's not easy to walk away from a real estate commitment; just ask Geoff regarding Powdr Corp/Killington. Like Geoff, they'll stick with it as the line of least resistance for a year or two, then start the machinery to pull up stakes if they really don't like it. And where pray tell, would a Deer Valley skier move if the reason for the dissatisfaction is snowboarders? MRG? :lol:

The Alta skiers have no more commitment than perhaps a free and clear decision each year to buy a season pass or not. And if their beloved traverses are cluttered with postholes they might be more open to the virtues of the larger expanse and longer fall lines next door. :stir:

Seriously, most of you will recall that I advocated lifting the Taos snowboard ban and predicted that its impact would be minimal. All I have read this past year is that the impact on Taos was indeed trivial. Which I believe it would be at Alta and Deer Valley as well.

 

[Mike Bernstein]

I disagree. It's not easy to walk away from a real estate commitment; just ask Geoff regarding Powdr Corp/Killington. Like Geoff, they'll stick with it as the line of least resistance for a year or two, then start the machinery to pull up stakes if they really don't like it. And where pray tell, would a Deer Valley skier move if the reason for the dissatisfaction is snowboarders? MRG? :lol:

The Alta skiers have no more commitment than perhaps a free and clear decision each year to buy a season pass or not. And if their beloved traverses are cluttered with postholes they might be more open to the virtues of the larger expanse and longer fall lines next door. :stir:

Seriously, most of you will recall that I advocated lifting the Taos snowboard ban and predicted that its impact would be minimal. All I have read this past year is that the impact on Taos was indeed trivial. Which I believe it would be at Alta and Deer Valley as well.

Tony -

We may have to agree to disagree, but I think it's that very real estate commitment that will lead to much more internal pressure against lifting the ban at DV. There are a lot of very rich, very powerful, and very influential individuals with homes lining DV. To a much greater extent than Alta skiers are willing to admit, these people are MUCH larger stakeholders in DV than core Alta skiers are to Alta. They have nowhere else to go. Alta will continue to draw hordes b/c it has the best snowfall in the Lower 48, legendary terrain (whether deserved or not) and an almost unparalleled brand amongst the skiing cognoscenti. In Alta, there would be small protests and internet movements that would be full of sound and fury, ultimately signifying nothing. At DV, there would be lawsuits and uncomfortable conversations for Edgar Stern.

 

[Tony Crocker]

The Deer Valley economic quote was not from an FTO reference but from SKIING magazine:

The seemingly unsinkable Deer Valley, Utah, perhaps the most upscale of conventional resorts, has its problems too, as the separate Deer Valley Lodging has approached insolvency, failing to pay some property owners their share of rental incomes.

Perhaps there would be a bit more of that rental income if snowboarding were allowed. I have a feeling a lot of the Deer Valley property owners are more concerned with the value of their investment than about whether they see any snowboarders.

lawsuits

I would be astounded if there were any language regarding the snowboard ban in real estate contracts.

these people are MUCH larger stakeholders in DV than core Alta skiers are to Alta.

True, but I think the pressure will cut both ways, for the financial reasons above.

 

[jamesdeluxe]

While Mike and Tony both have persuasive arguments, I have to side with Tony on this. DV will definitely be the next to throw in the towel in the ski/snowboard wrestling match for the very same reasons as Taos. And just like Taos, people will see that it was much ado about nothing.

 

[Admin]

And just like Taos, people will see that it was much ado about nothing.

Unlike the way it would be were Alta to try it.

 

[Mike Bernstein]

The Deer Valley economic quote was not from an FTO reference but from SKIING magazine:

The seemingly unsinkable Deer Valley, Utah, perhaps the most upscale of conventional resorts, has its problems too, as the separate Deer Valley Lodging has approached insolvency, failing to pay some property owners their share of rental incomes.

Perhaps there would be a bit more of that rental income if snowboarding were allowed. I have a feeling a lot of the Deer Valley property owners are more concerned with the value of their investment than about whether they see any snowboarders.

The problem isn't lack of rental income. The problem is lack of new real estate sales, which has dried up cash flow, thereby incentivizing DV Lodging to borrow money from its rental pool participants by refusing to pay them on time.

I would be astounded if there were any language regarding the snowboard ban in real estate contracts.

Since when has this stopped wealthy, pig-headed individuals from suing? That's not a slam at the rich - I hope to be one some day, but the fact remains that a tenuous legal justification is often no barrier. Just tying DV up in court with legal issues will bring its own set of headaches, even if the case is eventually dismissed. Who is to say that there isn't language prohibiting DV from taking any action that would reasonably result in the diminution of value in their property, and a homeowner/lawyer taking the position that eliminating the ban would have just such an effect. Nonsense, I know, but I've seen sillier lawsuits targeted at ski areas. Some have even won.

these people are MUCH larger stakeholders in DV than core Alta skiers are to Alta.

True, but I think the pressure will cut both ways, for the financial reasons above.

But is the path to financial salvation at DV paved via increased skier visits? Or it is about a resurrection of the RE market? I'd content it's MUCH more about the latter than the former. And how many more skier visits can they add anyway in light of the daily ticket cap, which surely isn't going away anytime soon?

As for Taos, I don't think they had any choice. If your snowboarder kid couldn't get on the mountain, you weren't going to haul your cookies out into the wilds NM. At DV, your kids need only take a shuttle 10 mins down the road to PCMR.

 

[Tony Crocker]

At DV, your kids need only take a shuttle 10 mins down the road to PCMR.

Depends on how old they are. And a big part of the luxury rental mindset is ski-in/ski out convenience. For the hard core types, majority staying in SLC, there's no difference in logistics skiing Snowbird vs. Alta. I'm not saying there's enough pressure to change Deer Valley soon, but I suspect there's more than at Alta. And it will increase if the vacation real estate slump is protracted IMHO.

If your snowboarder kid couldn't get on the mountain, you weren't going to haul your cookies out into the wilds NM.

100% right here, there was far more pressure on Taos with no nearby alternative. We made that call here on FTO a while back in one of our more lengthy threads. viewtopic.php?f=3&t=196