The one consistent thing with this whole matter is public statements are completely unreliable indicators of motivations or outcome. A lot of the discussion now has to do with Powder's right of first refusal and whether Talisker discharged it's responsibility as to that by their actions. Talisker's arguments along those lines thus far seem weak and give Powder its best ray of hope yet.
With legal proceedings, all arguments are made. Often losing arguments are placed side-by-side with winning ones and might make a litigant seem as though it's grasping at straws when that may not necessarily be the case. Misunderstanding of this concept has been producing a lot of incorrect and misleading reports and discussions of where things are.
Vail has been quietly attempting to gain separate access to PCMR absent the current base which requires government approvals, including that lof ocal government. If they get it they will be in an on top bargaining position with Powder. If they don't they are in an on the bottom bargaining position. Resolution of that might be as determinative or more so as to who will operate than the legal proceedings.
Smart money would bet against Vail gaining separate access which means in the practical world Powder is on top notwithstanding that in the legal world they don't appear to be, because they own the base. Ask yourself: does Lesotho need South Africa? This has much to do with why Powder is acting a little bit terrorist like, it's the right bargaining position given where they are.
The recent approval and denial by Planning of matters before them proffered by Powder and Vail may need a little illumination to be understood. Vail was trying to put a maintenance facility amongst residential units to save a little money. Then they lied about there not being alternatives. This is the kind of behavior public companies engage in because they focus on all possible cost savings to drive earnings which is their lifeblood. A smarter move would have been to not even bring this kind of thing up right now or at least not argue for something bonehead that would offend locals and alert them to the haphazard potential of Vail's future actions.
The Woodward facility is welcome under any circumstances because PCMR's frontage is not attractive and Woodward would improve that situation as well as bring business activity during the off season. The approval of Woodward and disapproval of the maintenance facility were likely to have happened no matter who was making those requests.
Tomorrow night I'll be at a party with PCMR mountain hosts. There should be some interesting chatter about all this.