or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › EpicSki Community › Skiing News › Park City Mountain Resort bought by Vail - All of the messy history
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Park City Mountain Resort bought by Vail - All of the messy history - Page 13

Poll Results: Who will be operating Park City Ski Resort?

Poll expired: Sep 12, 2014  
  • 7% (3)
    POWDR for at least the next 10 years
  • 0% (0)
    POWDR for the next 5 years/MTN after that
  • 0% (0)
    POWDR for the next 3 years/MTN after that
  • 7% (3)
    POWDR for the next 2 years/MTN after that
  • 32% (13)
    POWDR for 2014/15 - /MTN after that
  • 20% (8)
    MTN starting in the 2014 season
  • 7% (3)
    Joint POWDR/MTN starting in 2014
  • 7% (3)
    Joint POWDR/MTN starting in 2015
  • 0% (0)
    Joint POWDR/MTN starting in 2016
  • 10% (4)
    Park City will not operate in 2014
  • 0% (0)
    Park City will not operate in 2015
  • 0% (0)
    Park City will not operate in 2016
  • 7% (3)
    Flawed Poll!
40 Total Votes  
post #361 of 1770

The Deer Valley gondola is a great idea, from the top of main- but I'll believe it when I see the backhoes tearing up the parking lot behind Wasatch Brew Pub. A gondola from Bonanza Flats - across from the cemetery- has been sketched out and would be brilliant too- reenergizing a big part of town that's mostly storage and industrial.  Many friends have complained for years about the crumbling infrastructure of PCMR's base- not me, I just like the mountain- but one wonders what new vision Vail would bring. When John Cumming says that having Vail dominate Park City skiing is bad, I'm not so sure. DV is next door, and the Cottonwoods are right around the corner. A little consolidation may be a good thing.... 

PS- especially with EPIC pricing...

post #362 of 1770

Now they are getting down to the argument that will decide the case.  60 days or more for the judge to rule?  Very possible.

 

http://www.parkrecord.com/park_city-news/ci_25488121/pcmr-v-talisker-is-white-pine-touring-case

post #363 of 1770

Pwder's arguments seem weak (it will hurt the town,  Talisker didn't tell Pwder to renew, we talked about always renewing the lease) especially since the are asking the judge to overrule a previous finding against Pwder.

 

The $100M in improvements is interesting. What will happen to the lifts etc.?  Pwder could say they are taking them down but that would cost Pwder a fortune and shutdown the ski area for at least a year but that doesn't cost Vail or Talisker any money.  

 

Vail has offered fair market value for the lifts and base area that Pwder owns.  

 

All comes down to Pwder going with a scorched earth policy that only hurts the working people and the town or saying they lost the lease and take the fair market offers.  The scorched earthy policy would make a hash out of Pwder's current claims of doing all this for the good of the town. 

 

I thought Vail was taking over the legal fight but it was Talisker's lawyer.

 

And Pwder hiring the guy who LOST the last high profile lease renewal case in UT doesn't sound like a smart legal move.

post #364 of 1770

Eagles,

 

I have to agree with you on the Pwder attorney. "The punishment does not fit the crime" sounds like someone just admitted to the crime. Every pwdr argument in the parkrecord story sounds like grasping at legal straws. Who knows? They could get lucky and be able to suck some air through one of those straws. The history of this case shows the judge prefers to have the parties settle vs making a ruling. The only 2 ways I see this case getting settled is Park City paying a lease price that makes Vail's deal for The Canyons look like a great investment (i.e. bleeds Park City - e.g. $5M) or Vail paying a premium to fair market value (e.g. 10-15%) for the rest of PC. Either way PWDR is going to have to eat crow and from a non legal perspective that just seems like appropriate karma. The way I see this from PWDR's perspective, even if they lose the legal case and appeals, Vail is still going to need to negotiate over the base area and lifts. They really won't have lost much negotiating leverage if they just bluff a shutdown option. So they have no incentive to settle. Unless there is some subtle legal aspect that has not been covered, the judge's eventual call on this case seems obvious. I predict a final ruling after the beginning of next season, appeals through the start of the 15-16 season, a lease agreement for the 16-17 season and Vail smiling all the way to the bank.

post #365 of 1770

Yes, PCMR is going down the drain on this if it's true their arguments are down to public policy, unjust enrichment and clairvoyance.  Then again newspaper articles are rarely comprehensive when it comes to court proceedings.

 

Assuming a Vail court victory, things will get no less interesting or uncertain given the stalemate of Powder owning the base and water. Vail wouldn't be able to operate the mountain without say helicoptering in skiers after Mother Nature has covered the slopes which this year wasn't really until February.

 

Us townsfolk won't take kindly to Vail's shenanigans causing the shutdown or interruption of PCMR and they need our support as they do that of ski towns they've yet to take over for when their days come.

 

So notwithstanding the lawsuit this thing is unlikely to end without a negotiated or at least mutually agreed to mediated solution which if not achieved by next ski season would result in another hostile tenancy.

post #366 of 1770
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lorenzzo View Post
 

Yes, PCMR is going down the drain on this if it's true their arguments are down to public policy, unjust enrichment and clairvoyance.  Then again newspaper articles are rarely comprehensive when it comes to court proceedings.

 

Assuming a Vail court victory, things will get no less interesting or uncertain given the stalemate of Powder owning the base and water. Vail wouldn't be able to operate the mountain without say helicoptering in skiers after Mother Nature has covered the slopes which this year wasn't really until February.

 

Us townsfolk won't take kindly to Vail's shenanigans causing the shutdown or interruption of PCMR and they need our support as they do that of ski towns they've yet to take over for when their days come.

 

So notwithstanding the lawsuit this thing is unlikely to end without a negotiated or at least mutually agreed to mediated solution which if not achieved by next ski season would result in another hostile tenancy.

 

The old saying, "Business is business" is true.  The judge will take his time and rule as fairly as he can.  If PCMR/Powdr wins, we already know the other side won't appeal and they will be in discussions to link the resorts and expand business for both entities since that is in the interest of good business.  If PCMR loses, and it is looking like that is a real possibility, Katz and Cumming will do what is best for each firm.  This means a fair price or a long term lease for the base, or even something creative like revenue sharing or purchasing some other Powdr property.  That is good business.   It is obvious from the past that what PCMR says is not necessarily what the company will do. If the judge rules within 90 days, there is at least five months to negotiate the end of this (assuming PCMR loses) before the 2014-15 season starts.  The judge could let the lawyers know in what direction he is leaning much earlier than this, giving both sides an opportunity to work something out and having PCMR save face. I'll bet that popcorn or a hot chocolate that the lifts are running next season, regardless of who wins.

post #367 of 1770

I recently had small, routine, civil matter before Judge Harris. I was greatly impressed by him. He seemed to have a hell of a lot of common sense. Should prove useful in this case... 

 

 

P.S. I was going to keep my opinion out of this for now... but just can't...

      When this thread started, I could not believe that it was a simple matter of forgetting to renew the lease. It's looking more and more like that was actually the case. It's what I hear unofficially too. Golly, what a gift.. to Talisker, if that's true, they would be derelict in their duty not to follow through as they have. It's like having a rent controlled apartment in New York City and getting drunk the night before your lease renewal and sleeping through it...

 In any case, business is business, so I hope, expect, they'll come to terms. I'm looking forward to skiing PCMR next season too- it's been really fine this year with what snow we've had- either on a PCMR pass or an Epic Pass. I did get the early bird pass renewal notice this week, and I saw that they're not, it seems, extending the Wasatch Benefits package next year. So, those 9 free lift tickets to Bird, Alta & DV are history. We still have (most) of ours to Bird, saving them. It was a great program.


Edited by Mr. Crab - 4/4/14 at 7:01pm
post #368 of 1770
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Crab View Post

I recently had small, routine, civil matter before Judge Harris. I was greatly impressed by him. He seemed to have a hell of a lot of common sense. Should prove useful in this case..

I suspect whoever wins will agree with you.. And the other side won't.
post #369 of 1770
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Crab View Post
 

I recently had small, routine, civil matter before Judge Harris. I was greatly impressed by him. He seemed to have a hell of a lot of common sense. Should prove useful in this case... 

 

 

P.S. I was going to keep my opinion out of this for now... but just can't...

      When this thread started, I could not believe that it was a simple matter of forgetting to renew the lease. It's looking more and more like that was actually the case. It's what I hear unofficially too. Golly, what a gift.. to Talisker, if that's true, they would be derelict in their duty not to follow through as they have. It's like having a rent controlled apartment in New York City and getting drunk the night before your lease renewal and sleeping through it...

 In any case, business is business, so I hope, expect, they'll come to terms. I'm looking forward to skiing PCMR next season too- it's been really fine this year with what snow we've had- either on a PCMR pass or an Epic Pass. I did get the early bird pass renewal notice this week, and I saw that they're not, it seems, extending the Wasatch Benefits package next year. So, those 9 free lift tickets to Bird, Alta & DV are history. We still have (most) of ours to Bird, saving them. It was a great program.+_


I agree with your thoughts, but also think there could be more to the background of this that will never hit the press.  There was a good reason why Powdr/PCMR never picked up that UPCM lease and let it go to Talisker for a song.  Why?  That cost of the lease is chump change for old man Cumming.  So why didn't he pick it up for his son?  I cannot prove this and heard no rumor, but I'll bet they thought Bistricer was a sucker.  I'll also bet something was said somewhere, or something got back to someone about something said that really made these guys mad as hell at each other.  I can't prove it, but this whole thing seems deeper than the press is letting on.  I saw something like this on a much smaller scale before in the town where I was raised.  Years later my father, who was the town attorney spanning four decades, told me the true story that almost went to the grave of the individuals involved.  I'll bet this dispute is personal.

 

And if I am wrong and it is not personal, "It's strictly business":

 

 

 

 


Edited by quant2325 - 4/4/14 at 7:42pm
post #370 of 1770

Two updates from the Park Record.  One is Cumming claiming Vail is "in a bit of a pickle" and the other reaffirms the Talisker/Vail deal.  It is appearing as if PCMR may lose, with the   Woodward Park City threat being given again.  Of course, all the former PCMR snow boarders would go to Canyons and the skiers would split between Deer Valley and Canyons, so I don't know how good of a threat that is in terms of hurting the cash flow of Vail Resorts.  .

 

http://www.parkrecord.com/park_city-news/ci_25497926/talisker-reaffirms-vail-deal

 

http://www.parkrecord.com/park_city-news/ci_25493737/powdr-corp-ceo-vail-bit-pickle-canyons-deal

 

Anyone know the former CFO?  They found the lease in his desk drawer gathering dust months after he departed and was replace by someone with less experience. In fact, they called him after the renewal date and asked him if he knew where the lease was.  He did.   I'll bet from time-to-time he has a big grin on his face when thinking about the lease dispute, and all those months nobody called him or looked into his former office.  


Edited by quant2325 - 4/5/14 at 8:12pm
post #371 of 1770

Cummings is blowing smoke.  And he keeps conflating his problem with the city's problem which is creepy.  He then claims he's a fair person, offering fair market value but then calling Vail evil for offering him fair market value when it is Vail's lease property not his.  The whole problem is Cumming's, the whole cause of the problem is Cummings.

 

Park City will not allow him to turn the town into a tawdry amusement park just so Cumming's can play spoiler. He'll get no permits.

 

They will work with Vail and Talisker and have lifts going to the ski area around Cumming's island if they (the town, Talisker, Vail/Canyons and even Deer Valley as DV needs skiers coming to town) can't force Cummings out completely.

post #372 of 1770
Quote:
Originally Posted by quant2325 View Post
Anyone know the former CFO?  They found the lease in his desk drawer gathering dust months after he departed and was replace by someone with less experience. In fact, they called him after the renewal date and asked him if he knew where the lease was.  He did.   I'll bet from time-to-time he has a big grin on his face when thinking about the lease dispute, and all those months nobody called him or looked into his former office.  

 

It's not uncommon when an employee or even a CEO is invited to leave a company, they are erased from existence.  Computer files are erased along with all emails and any trace of that person is very hard to find.  It's actually surprising to me they still had files in his desk.

post #373 of 1770
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirquerider View Post
 

 

It's not uncommon when an employee or even a CEO is invited to leave a company, they are erased from existence.  Computer files are erased along with all emails and any trace of that person is very hard to find.  It's actually surprising to me they still had files in his desk.

 

Actually all the records have to be kept for years.  Higher up they are the truer that is for all kinds of regulatory and tax reasons. It is pretty silly they never cleaned out his desk and organized the files. Not like he was the janitor or something.  Pwder and Cummings come across as a pretty lame bunch.  Cumming conflating his business problems with the city and the workers is annoying. If Cummings really cared so much he'd get out of the way. Vail is willing to hire all the working people, keep the shops open. The only thing that hurts the city is Cummings hanging on when due to his own negligence he lost the lease, the single most important asset his business had and he lost it.  Goodbye.

post #374 of 1770
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirquerider View Post
 

 

It's not uncommon when an employee or even a CEO is invited to leave a company, they are erased from existence.  Computer files are erased along with all emails and any trace of that person is very hard to find.  It's actually surprising to me they still had files in his desk.


No way, Cirque.  To the other employees management may never mention the departed executives name again and may take his photos off the wall, erase him from brochures, etc..  Regardless, records are always kept in case of a wrongful termination suit, a future IRS suit or audit (he was the CFO), discovering fraud at a later date (he was never accused of this, I am just giving an example), etc.   Three years of payroll records must always be kept per the ADEA (he had benefits) along with at least one year of personnel records when there is an involuntary termination.  In the case of a departed financial executive, companies will typically keep records for seven years or more.  At the very least, they will go through his computer files and records.  Someone will certainly clean out his desk.

 

It is obvious Jenni Smith did not move up the ranks working for corporate America.  I'm not saying employees shouldn't be promoted from within because my experience says more of this should be done.  I am not anti-female management at all, certainly not after seeing how my highly competent wife had glass ceiling issues before she retired.  IMO, Jenni Smith is not president or GM material, and this should have been recognized by Cumming.  Some of the people she hired are no better, with one, the CFO Jennifer Botter, already gone.  Interestingly, Botter was hired in 2008.  She and Smith had lots of time to look in that desk drawer and review the wording of the lease necessary for the survival of PCMR. 

 


Edited by quant2325 - 4/6/14 at 8:33am
post #375 of 1770

I think that in the real world all those records go into a compliance stash, never to be looked at unless the lawyers come in.  The people running the business like to think they are smarter than their predecessors, and so their work should be ignored.

 

I have had the rug pulled out from "over" me when a VP was fired and nobody picked up the opportunities he was developing.  

post #376 of 1770
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirquerider View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by quant2325 View Post
Anyone know the former CFO?  They found the lease in his desk drawer gathering dust months after he departed and was replace by someone with less experience. In fact, they called him after the renewal date and asked him if he knew where the lease was.  He did.   I'll bet from time-to-time he has a big grin on his face when thinking about the lease dispute, and all those months nobody called him or looked into his former office.  

 

It's not uncommon when an employee or even a CEO is invited to leave a company, they are erased from existence.  Computer files are erased along with all emails and any trace of that person is very hard to find.  It's actually surprising to me they still had files in his desk.

In these days of lean hiring it's not all that uncommon for desks to gather dust after a departure. These days who really cares what's printed on paper any more? I guess that old CFO did not get the primo office location?

post #377 of 1770

I understand the need for record retention, but the reality is that usually the former employee / manager / CEO is designated as someone that no one can talk to or talk about for liability reasons. HR and the lawyers have their reasons, but obviously it creates an environment where something important gets dropped.  Depends on the corporate culture, but being friendly with former CEOs seems rare to me.

post #378 of 1770
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheRusty View Post
 

In these days of lean hiring it's not all that uncommon for desks to gather dust after a departure. These days who really cares what's printed on paper any more? I guess that old CFO did not get the primo office location?


In a public company, the CFO rocks.  Why?  He has the large latitude in terms of how everything gets reported, aside from being responsible for financial planning and overseeing financial risk management.  If he changes a word or two in the footnotes and changes how the company recognizes revenue (or accounts for inventory, etc.), he can manage earnings all day long.  In a small private company (like PCMR) the CFO is still no glorified bookkeeper.  There are still issues ranging from crafting the best accounting systems for management, revenue recognition for purposes of management bonus,  using accounting methods favorable for meeting debt covenants and increased borrowing, financial risk management,  yada, yada, yada.  The CFO should be competent and have integrity.   Sometimes a CFO gets ____-canned because he/she actually has integrity, and losing someone you can have confidence in is generally a bad thing for employees and the public.   When this happens, one can assume the CEO's boss, the BOD, is less than ethical to go along with the decision to terminate someone trying to abide by good ethical standards.  There is a rumor that DesVaux was indeed competent.  The wheels of justice grind slowly...


Edited by quant2325 - 4/8/14 at 3:07pm
post #379 of 1770
Quote:
Originally Posted by quant2325 View Post
 

Two updates from the Park Record.  One is Cumming claiming Vail is "in a bit of a pickle" and the other reaffirms the Talisker/Vail deal.  It is appearing as if PCMR may lose, with the   Woodward Park City threat being given again.  Of course, all the former PCMR snow boarders would go to Canyons and the skiers would split between Deer Valley and Canyons, so I don't know how good of a threat that is in terms of hurting the cash flow of Vail Resorts.  .

 

http://www.parkrecord.com/park_city-news/ci_25497926/talisker-reaffirms-vail-deal

 

http://www.parkrecord.com/park_city-news/ci_25493737/powdr-corp-ceo-vail-bit-pickle-canyons-deal

 

Anyone know the former CFO?  They found the lease in his desk drawer gathering dust months after he departed and was replace by someone with less experience. In fact, they called him after the renewal date and asked him if he knew where the lease was.  He did.   I'll bet from time-to-time he has a big grin on his face when thinking about the lease dispute, and all those months nobody called him or looked into his former office.  

The video interview of Cumming gave me a different perspective of "a bit of a pickle". Out of context this seems like wishful thinking on his part. From the video I translate this to be what we all know already. The subtitle of the article is that Cumming claims Vail wants PCMR for cheap. Duh! Vail overpaid for the Canyons deal because of the PCMR opportunity. Vail paid precisely to get into the pickle and the pickle is getting sweeter every day. Now that Cumming is waving "above market" offers for lease or purchase and Talisker is "reaffirming" the deal with Vail it's pretty obvious who is really tasting the pickle juice. Talisker has reaffirmed that they packaged (dumped) the lease on the Vail deal to get out of dealing with PCMR. It seems obvious that PCMR still feels that the transfer of the property to Vail was not legal and PCMR is entitled to a slap on the wrist "do over". It is beginning to look like if PCMR really wants to continue operating the resort in its traditional form it will require a "WAY above market" (i.e. extortion in their mind) deal with the devil (i.e. Vail not Talisker). If I owned a shop in the PC base area I'd be working on inventive ways to pickle Mr. Cumming if he succeeds in transforming the base area into Park City Woodward. In the video interview I see a guy who sees the writing on the wall that his lease and right of first refusal is history but is too proud to admit defeat. Is anyone else smelling blood on the snow yet? I want to meet the Vail lawyer running this show.

post #380 of 1770
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheRusty View Post
 

The video interview of Cumming gave me a different perspective of "a bit of a pickle". Out of context this seems like wishful thinking on his part. From the video I translate this to be what we all know already. The subtitle of the article is that Cumming claims Vail wants PCMR for cheap. Duh! Vail overpaid for the Canyons deal because of the PCMR opportunity. Vail paid precisely to get into the pickle and the pickle is getting sweeter every day. Now that Cumming is waving "above market" offers for lease or purchase and Talisker is "reaffirming" the deal with Vail it's pretty obvious who is really tasting the pickle juice. Talisker has reaffirmed that they packaged (dumped) the lease on the Vail deal to get out of dealing with PCMR. It seems obvious that PCMR still feels that the transfer of the property to Vail was not legal and PCMR is entitled to a slap on the wrist "do over". It is beginning to look like if PCMR really wants to continue operating the resort in its traditional form it will require a "WAY above market" (i.e. extortion in their mind) deal with the devil (i.e. Vail not Talisker). If I owned a shop in the PC base area I'd be working on inventive ways to pickle Mr. Cumming if he succeeds in transforming the base area into Park City Woodward. In the video interview I see a guy who sees the writing on the wall that his lease and right of first refusal is history but is too proud to admit defeat. Is anyone else smelling blood on the snow yet? I want to meet the Vail lawyer running this show.


I always thought is was Cummng who was in a bit of a pickle!  (LOL)   :rotflmao:  This is indeed tragic for Cumming, but WTH is this claiming Vail is "in a pickle?"  Vail has cash flow and marketing power to the east coast and Asia.  No matter what happens, Canyons will start looking a little more like Heavenly, but with much more class (similar to Deer Valley in terms of service).  You will see a lot more Asian tourists, people wearing Green Bay Packer jackets, BRONX sweatshirts, all mingling with the rich donning the latest Bogner or whatever the hell a proctologist's wife from Florida is wearing this season.  And all of this is without getting PCMR. 


Edited by quant2325 - 4/8/14 at 3:14pm
post #381 of 1770
Quote:
Originally Posted by quant2325 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheRusty View Post
 

In these days of lean hiring it's not all that uncommon for desks to gather dust after a departure. These days who really cares what's printed on paper any more? I guess that old CFO did not get the primo office location?


In a public company, the CFO rocks.  Why?  He has the large latitude in terms of how everything gets reported, aside from being responsible for financial planning and overseeing financial risk management.  If he changes a word or two in the footnotes and changes how the company recognizes revenue (or accounts for inventory, etc.), he can manage earnings all day long.  In a small private company (like PCMR) the CFO is still no glorified bookkeeper.  There are still issues ranging from crating the best accounting systems for management, revenue recognition for purposes of management bonus,  using accounting methods favorable for meeting debt covenants and increased borrowing, financial risk management,  yada, yada, yada.  The CFO should be competent and have integrity.   Sometimes a CFO gets ____-canned because he/she actually has integrity, and losing someone you can have confidence in is generally a bad thing for employees and the public.   When this happens, one can assume the CEO's boss, the BOD, is less than ethical to go along with the decision to terminate someone trying to abide by good ethical standards.  There is a rumor that DesVaux was indeed competent.  The wheels of justice grind slowly...

I have a friend that is a "rental CFO" for small companies. He goes in and either gets things started or cleans up messes. Some of his gigs are fun and buddy buddy and some gigs he's about as popular as fingernails on chalkboard because of what he has to do. I'm betting he never gets the primo office space. I have another friend who retired from doing CFO equivalent work for Defense Dept health care IT. There was no question that he "ran" things (i.e. a tight ship) and was "well fed" for his efforts. The stink of DesVaux's departure wafts in the air.

post #382 of 1770

It is official:  PCMR threatened to dismantle the lifts if they lose.

 

http://www.parkrecord.com/ci_25521543/pcmr-intends-dismantle-remove-most-lifts-if-it

 

 

PCMR intends to dismantle, remove most lifts if it loses lawsuit Talisker claims the lifts must remain, says the 'threats are disturbing'

 

by Jay Hamburger, THE PARK RECORD

 

Posted: 04/08/2014 11:01:34 AM MDT2 Comments Talisker attorney John Lund (left) and Park City Mountain Resort attorney Alan Sullivan present opposing arguments in Summit County’s Third District Talisker attorney John Lund (left) and Park City Mountain Resort attorney Alan Sullivan present opposing arguments in Summit County's Third District Court during a September 2013 hearing. (Christopher Reeves/The Park Record)

 

The president and general manager of Park City Mountain Resort last week indicated the resort intends to dismantle and remove most of the ski lifts if it is forced off the land involved in a lawsuit between PCMR and its landlord, Talisker Land Holdings, LLC.

 

It was another in a series of dramatic statements made by both sides in the case. The intention was outlined in a declaration filed in 3rd District Court by Jenni Smith, the president and general manager of PCMR. It was also included in a PCMR memorandum in opposition to a Talisker Land Holdings, LLC request that the resort be found to be unlawfully occupying the land.

 

According to the Smith declaration, filed on April 2, the PCMR side would remove all of the lifts except Jupiter, Thaynes and Motherlode. The lifts that would be removed "are constructed so that the ski lift towers are bolted to concrete footings but are not otherwise affixed to the land," the filing says. The Jupiter, Thaynes and Motherlode lifts are located in more remote areas of the resort and do not have the uphill capacity of most of the other lifts.

 

The distinction highlighting the concrete footings is important to the PCMR side based on the leases in dispute in the case and the detailed language of the de facto eviction notice Talisker Land Holdings, LLC served on the resort in August. The eviction notice maintains that structures and improvements "that are affixed" to the property, including the ski lifts, will belong to Talisker Land Holdings, LLC if it is successful in the case. The leases in dispute in the lawsuit required that PCMR leave behind the infrastructure affixed to the land.

 

The Smith declaration details the components of the lifts that would be dismantled and removed if it must leave the acreage. They include the towers, chairs, cables, the grips attached to the chairs, the bullwheels that move the cables and counterweights.

 

"If we are forced to vacate the property, we will take our property with us," Alan Sullivan, PCMR's lead attorney, said in an interview.

 

He acknowledged that scenario is a "really remote possibility" that would occur if Talisker Land Holdings, LLC successfully evicts PCMR and obtains a restitution order against the resort. Sullivan said the filing was made at this point in the legal proceedings to illustrate the complexities of the case to Judge Ryan Harris. The filing argues that a restitution order should not be made until the various points in the case are decided.

 

The resort's memorandum points to past cases outside of Utah addressing airplane hangars and silos as precedents in defining what is affixed to a property. Hangars and silos were not found to be fixtures in those cases, the PCMR side says. It says previous cases, also outside of Utah, are "split on whether ski lifts are fixtures" and the outcomes depended on the details of those cases.

 

The PCMR side's memorandum, meanwhile, argues that it will require more than the few days outlined in the de facto eviction notice to remove the infrastructure if it must leave. The "magnitude of the task" is "immense" and must be done when there is not snow on the ground, the filing says. It also says the Talisker Land Holdings, LLC side will not suffer if PCMR is delayed since the firm's countersuit already seeks damages. The PCMR side indicates it would post some sort of security deposit if required by the judge.

 

The case centers on PCMR's leases of Talisker Land Holdings, LLC acreage underlying most of the resort's terrain and whether the leases were renewed. The PCMR side also claims it was denied a right of first refusal when Talisker Land Holdings, LLC reached an agreement with Colorado-based Vail Resorts to operate Canyons Resort. The deal with Vail Resorts can be expanded to the disputed terrain at PCMR depending on the outcome of the lawsuit.

 

John Lund, the lead attorney for Talisker Land Holdings, LLC, rejected the idea that the resort is allowed to take the chairlifts. He said in a prepared statement PCMR is inflaming the situation.

"PCMR does not have the legal right to remove all the chairlifts from the mountain, but their threats are disturbing and not constructive and designed only to further delay a realistic resolution of this matter," Lund said. "Talisker's chosen new operator, Vail Resorts, clearly has the wherewithal and expertise to ultimately replace these lifts with state of the art equipment. PCMR's inflammatory talk is risking community disruption and the resort's guest experience, and is not focusing on realistic solutions."


Edited by quant2325 - 4/8/14 at 4:45pm
post #383 of 1770
Quote:
Originally Posted by quant2325 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheRusty View Post
 

The video interview of Cumming gave me a different perspective of "a bit of a pickle". Out of context this seems like wishful thinking on his part. From the video I translate this to be what we all know already. The subtitle of the article is that Cumming claims Vail wants PCMR for cheap. Duh! Vail overpaid for the Canyons deal because of the PCMR opportunity. Vail paid precisely to get into the pickle and the pickle is getting sweeter every day. Now that Cumming is waving "above market" offers for lease or purchase and Talisker is "reaffirming" the deal with Vail it's pretty obvious who is really tasting the pickle juice. Talisker has reaffirmed that they packaged (dumped) the lease on the Vail deal to get out of dealing with PCMR. It seems obvious that PCMR still feels that the transfer of the property to Vail was not legal and PCMR is entitled to a slap on the wrist "do over". It is beginning to look like if PCMR really wants to continue operating the resort in its traditional form it will require a "WAY above market" (i.e. extortion in their mind) deal with the devil (i.e. Vail not Talisker). If I owned a shop in the PC base area I'd be working on inventive ways to pickle Mr. Cumming if he succeeds in transforming the base area into Park City Woodward. In the video interview I see a guy who sees the writing on the wall that his lease and right of first refusal is history but is too proud to admit defeat. Is anyone else smelling blood on the snow yet? I want to meet the Vail lawyer running this show.


I always thought is was Cummng who was in a bit of a pickle!  (LOL)   :rotflmao:  This is indeed tragic for Cumming, but WTH is this claiming Vail is "in a pickle?"  Vail has cash flow and marketing power to the east coast and Asia.  No matter what happens, Canyons will start looking a little more like Heavenly, but with much more class (similar to Deer Valley in terms of service).  You will see a lot more Asian tourists, people wearing Green Bay Packer jackets, BRONX sweatshirts, all mingling with the rich donning the latest Bogner or whatever the hell they wear.  And all of this is without getting PCMR. 

I had the same reaction when I saw that and tried to explain how it made sense .... in a twisted sort of way. Consider if there really was some legal basis for the original lease to still be in force despite the late "renewal" and PCMR could continue using the property for (what?) $150K/yr. In that case Vail would clearly have overpaid for the Canyons deal. How could Cumming see things this way? Seeing all those "third modifications to the fourteenth amendment to the party of the fourth part" crap agreements reminds me of all the paperwork for buying a house. At some point you let the lawyers do their thing and at the end of it all you believe the fiction that you actually own the house. It's easy to see how PCMR got fat, dumb and lazy.

 

Anyone seen the CNN movie Blackfish? I'm reminded of the scene where the orcas knock a seal off a patch of ice. In the beginning of the clip it looks like the seal has a chance. By the middle it looks like the orcas are really smart. The end is just anticlimactic: crash, tip, slide, SNACK! Cumming claiming pickle is just like a trained seal tooting on the horns before the orca comes in and eats the show.

post #384 of 1770

Is Lund (Talisker) running the show legally? I was thinking the legal strings had to be pulled by Vail.

post #385 of 1770
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheRusty View Post
 

Is Lund (Talisker) running the show legally? I was thinking the legal strings had to be pulled by Vail.

A division of Talisker owns the lease, and Vail is the lessee.  Anyhow, the real news is a few posts up: PCMR is going to take out all the lifts if and when they lose in court claiming they are not "fixed" under the terms of the leas, because they are bolted down.  I wonder if those lifts were depreciated on the corporate tax return as a physical "fixed" asset (assuming the lifts are owned and not leased)?


Edited by quant2325 - 4/8/14 at 4:04pm
post #386 of 1770

I don't know how anyone in their right mind could argue that a chairlift is not affixed to the property. But, hey, if some lawyer found a way for an airplane hanger to be not fixed, then I guess it all depends on how good a lawyer you have. This isn't like arguing that a refrigerator is attached to the house because of the water line for the ice maker. It's like arguing that the expensive chandelier does not come with the house because it can be unscrewed. OK - so let's see. The concrete block is attached to the property and the lift tower is bolted to the attachment and can be readily unscrewed? For $500/hr I'll argue that.

 

Gotta love the theater of this! I can see PCMR being allowed to take the cable and the chairs, but does anyone really believe it will ever get to that point. It's just posturing.

 

Do you think if PCMR had not backdated the renewal that they would have kept the lease?

post #387 of 1770

The way I read the filings, PCMR has a good argument that Talisker has effectively transferred ownership to Vail. Not necessarily a winning argument, but a good one. The Talisker lawyer probably has to be the "official" party for the lawsuit. But is he really calling the shots?

post #388 of 1770
Quote:
Originally Posted by quant2325 View Post
 

A division of Talisker owns the lease, and Vail is the lessee.  Anyhow, the real news is a few posts up: PCMR is going to take out all the lifts if and when they lose in court claiming they are not "fixed" under the terms of the leas, because they are bolted down.  I wonder if those lifts were depreciated on the corporate tax return as a "fixed" asset?

 

I would expect they'd be amortized over a period consistent with industry practice. What bearing does that have? Unless you are suggesting that "fixed" asset means "fixed" to the ground.;)  Isn't "long-term asset" usual terminology these days?

post #389 of 1770
Quote:
Originally Posted by HardDaysNight View Post
 

 

I would expect they'd be amortized over a period consistent with industry practice. What bearing does that have? Unless you are suggesting that "fixed" asset means "fixed" to the ground.;)  Isn't "long-term asset" usual terminology these days?


I am thinking how they classify the asset for tax reporting gives a clue as to whether they previously throught it is a fixed (as in permanent) structure.  Double declining...15 year straight...whatever?  I dunno accounting that well and certainly not for the industry, but if the depreciation method used indicated they thought that asset would be around for a very long time, then how can they reclassify the asset now to something different?  I know they made $7 million or whatever in capital improvements recently, but this is not the right way to get that back. Vail may just call their bluff, because the footings (assuming they are good) aren't going anywhere.  Vail can drop in new towers by helicopter.

post #390 of 1770

I really am not sure what to wish for in this debacle. On one hand, I like the vibe of PCMR as it is. On the other, it is certainly true that POWDR has not invested much, if anything, in maintaining and upgrading the resort over the past five years at least and it's getting decrepit. At a lease cost of 155K per year the place must be a gold mine (silver doesn't begin to cover it).

 

This morning I ran into a woman in the locker room who was the lead attorney for the landlord in the White Pines Touring case. White Pines argued at trial that the reason they failed to renew their lease was stress of business - they were run ragged, a manager had just resigned, the family dog had died (I'm not kidding). The judge ruled in their favor. The case went to the Utah supreme court where the judgment was overturned and White Pines evicted. The attorney didn't make many local friends on that one.

 

Her view of this situation is different however. She believes there is a strong case based in equity here. Add the fact that Talisker asked for payment of the lease fees for the year period going forward beyond the time the lease had ostensibly expired and cashed the check, waited a substantial time before informing PCMR that the lease had, in their opinion, not been extended, etc. and her view is that the judge may well rule that the lease was constructively renewed. We shall see.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Skiing News
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › EpicSki Community › Skiing News › Park City Mountain Resort bought by Vail - All of the messy history