or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › Soliciting input for an article on the PCMR vs Vail dispute
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Soliciting input for an article on the PCMR vs Vail dispute - Page 2

post #31 of 47

More nit picking:

 

Park City Mountain Resort:  ..... is considered the crown jewel of Utah’s multi-billion dollar ski industry.

 

I don't know who considers it"the "Crown Jewel" of the PC resorts, and, in fact, it's my least favorite of the PC areas. The real Crown Jewel? Snowbird, but anyway, it's opinion in an article trying to get down to basic facts.

 

"they were caught allegedly trying to cover up the mistake" They weren't allegedly trying to cover it up, they were caught red-handed trying to cover it up.

post #32 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by snofun3 View Post

I don't know who considers it"the "Crown Jewel" of the PC resorts, and, in fact, it's my least favorite of the PC areas. The real Crown Jewel? Snowbird

 

Cumming also now controls the real Crown Jewel,  Snowbird.   He can block One Wasatch, which is much more beneficial to MTN/Talisker than anyone else.  So if MTN screws PWDR too hard, they can kiss One Wasatch good bye.

post #33 of 47
[edited because I mistakenly made it look like this was in response to another post, which it isn't.]


I need to check this again; I don't have a copy of the lease, but I've seen this a few times now and just have to dig it up...

Strangely, MTN does not have a lease for Talisker's PCMR property. Apparently what Vail does have is a lease for Canyons which says that IF Talisker prevails in the litigation, Vail may (not "will") get rights to the PCMR property. There's probably more in the lease than that, and I'll see what I can find.

I'll check back with my source for that once I'm back on the computer. I do wish I could snag a copy of that lease, though.
post #34 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by quant2325 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by fatbob View Post

This negotiation for a higher lease amount or to purchase the lease already happened with Talisker and was unsuccessful, and this is why Talisker ended up leasing to Vail.  It now only makes sense from Vail's perspective for Vail to operate both resorts.  Vail has Vail (the mountain) and Beaver Creek as the biggest ski resort in the USA, and now it will have something similar to market with both resorts in Utah.  Just having resorts in these two states will be responsible for selling lot of EPIC Passes to skiers east of the Continental Divide, who will travel westward and spend money.  A lot of costs are fixed, so all those increase skier days into the combined resorts really adds to the bottom line.   This is why Vail must operate both resorts.  Any compromise from Vail's perspective must have Vail operating both resorts, and any compromise form's perspective must include PCMR operating PCMR.  Therefore, it is possible there will be no amicable agreement.
I agree that Vail isn't going to sublet the upper mountain to PCMR, but given that plus the realities that Cumming is a sharp businessman, PWDER is highly likely to lose the eviction challenge on appeal, and that there's still a way PWDER can make money out of the resort (by selling or leasing the base), I think PWDER will move off its no-compromise position. I think PWDER is as likely to sell the base to Vail as Vail is to lease the upper mountain to PWDER, but leasing the base to Vail or operating it in some form in conjunction with providing lift service for the upper mountain might be profitable enough.

Sorry to go off topic; I know this isn't meant to be a discussion thread...
post #35 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by litterbug View Post


I agree that Vail isn't going to sublet the upper mountain to PCMR, but given that plus the realities that Cumming is a sharp businessman, PWDER is highly likely to lose the eviction challenge on appeal, and that there's still a way PWDER can make money out of the resort (by selling or leasing the base), I think PWDER will move off its no-compromise position. I think PWDER is as likely to sell the base to Vail as Vail is to lease the upper mountain to PWDER, but leasing the base to Vail or operating it in some form in conjunction with providing lift service for the upper mountain might be profitable enough.

Sorry to go off topic; I know this isn't meant to be a discussion thread...

It is off season, so why not go off topic?  I hope you are right, as do most people.  It makes sense for Powdr to lease the base, but as we all know Powdr does not have to do what makes the most economic sense.

post #36 of 47
Thread Starter 

Thanks for all the good points.  In the end I'm just happy that no one pointed out any glaring errors or omissions.

 

Here's the article with some photos as posted on my web site desertsnowjunkies.com/utah-the-greatest-snow-or-show-on-earth/

 

I intend to keep it updated as the story unfolds.

 

Thanks again

post #37 of 47
Let's see, they didn't miss a payment date, they missed the notice that they wanted to renew the lease. And they missed it by two months. So, you apparently didn't read any of the comments in this thread. Why bother asking for input?
post #38 of 47

I couldn't get past the few paras before 'turning off'. Sorry, I've read more accurate journalism  in the Fashion Police column in the Women's Weekly.

Just review the coverage in the Park Record or read the facts in the 83 (?) page judgement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sibhusky View Post

Let's see, they didn't miss a payment date, they missed the notice that they wanted to renew the lease. And they missed it by two months. So, you apparently didn't read any of the comments in this thread. Why bother asking for input?


Wot he said.

 

Btw, PCMR paid 12 months 'rent'for year 1 of the new uum 'lease'  in advance (which opened up the 'equitable renewal of lease' arguments. But why let facts get in the way of a good story. ;) 

post #39 of 47

If the OP wants a good summary, he should refer to the article recently posted in the other thread.

http://www.mountaintimes.info/news/features/2014/07/park-city-mountain-resort-faces-eviction-as-judge-orders-mediation/

 

Quote:
PCMR paid 12 months 'rent'for year 1 of the new uum 'lease'  in advance

Incorrect.  The payment made in 2011 was payment in arrears for the last season of the old lease, 2010-11.  PCMR attempted to pay Talisker for 2011-12 but Talisker refused that payment.  This was spelled out in the May 21 judgment.

 

Like Eagles, the OP is inclined to jump to conclusions regarding unresolved details:

Quote:
PCMR gets fair market value for their properties, and a seamless transition of ownership takes place.  If not, it’s still likely to be business as usual for the upcoming season at least.

"Business as usual" means PCMR operating the entire mountain.  It's hard for me to see Vail/Talisker (having prevailed so far on the core legal issues) allowing that without at least intrusive accounting oversight to determine (and perhaps) sequester any operating profits from the 2014-15 season.


Edited by Tony Crocker - 7/9/14 at 11:31pm
post #40 of 47
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by veteran View Post
 

I couldn't get past the few paras before 'turning off'. Sorry, I've read more accurate journalism  in the Fashion Police column in the Women's Weekly.

Just review the coverage in the Park Record or read the facts in the 83 (?) page judgement.


Wot he said.

 

Btw, PCMR paid 12 months 'rent'for year 1 of the new uum 'lease'  in advance (which opened up the 'equitable renewal of lease' arguments. But why let facts get in the way of a good story. ;) 

Seriously?  The whole reason I wrote the article is for the 99% of all riders out there that don't want nor care to read an 83 page judgement.  I didn't make anything up and just tried to condense and put into a logical order info from the various articles out there including much from the Park Record.

 

And I read every post and whether they missed "payment" or a "notice" is the kind of irrelevant detail that the average reader wouldn't even notice and you guys can't even agree on.

 

Some of my conjecture as to what the future holds is just that.  You are free to agree or disagree and I guess what we think won't have much of a bearing on how things turn out anyhow.

post #41 of 47
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony Crocker View Post

 

Like Eagles, the OP is inclined to jump to conclusions regarding unresolved details:

"Business as usual" means PCMR operating the entire mountain.  It's hard for me to see Vail/Talisker (having prevailed so far on the core legal issues) allowing that without at least intrusive accounting oversight to determine (and perhaps) sequester any operating profits from the 2014-15 season.

 

Duly noted.  A poor choice of words to mean that - as far as the skier knows, the mountain will likely be in business one way or another for the upcoming season.  

post #42 of 47

A bit off topic, but does anyone have any predictions on what the PC vacation rental market will do should PCMR not open?

post #43 of 47

Pretty sure that PCMR not opening would not be helpful to the PC rental market. Especially places very near to PCMR. For obvious reasons. 

post #44 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeSchmoe View Post
 

A bit off topic, but does anyone have any predictions on what the PC vacation rental market will do should PCMR not open?

Canyons and Deer Valley will obviously do very well, but PCMR?  Those walk to the lift properties won't have appeal if the base is blocked off or does not open.  Most summer visitors are clueless about the dispute, and I imagine most winter tourists are also clueless about any issues with their winter plans at this time.

post #45 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fritzski View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by veteran View Post

 
I couldn't get past the few paras before 'turning off'. Sorry, I've read more accurate journalism  in the Fashion Police column in the Women's Weekly.
Just review the coverage in the Park Record or read the facts in the 83 (?) page judgement.


Wot he said.

Btw, PCMR paid 12 months 'rent'for year 1 of the new uum 'lease'  in advance (which opened up the 'equitable renewal of lease' arguments. But why let facts get in the way of a good story. wink.gif  
Seriously?  The whole reason I wrote the article is for the 99% of all riders out there that don't want nor care to read an 83 page judgement.  I didn't make anything up and just tried to condense and put into a logical order info from the various articles out there including much from the Park Record.

And I read every post and whether they missed "payment" or a "notice" is the kind of irrelevant detail that the average reader wouldn't even notice and you guys can't even agree on.

Some of my conjecture as to what the future holds is just that.  You are free to agree or disagree and I guess what we think won't have much of a bearing on how things turn out anyhow.
Despite my passion for facts, I'm totally sympathetic to your situation. You're not an investigative journalist; you're a blogger trying to make an undigestible mass of information easy for the casual reader to understand. Despite so much certainty from so many people, the situation is moderately complex, there's a lot of legal jargon involved that sounds like plain language but isn't, and the usual number of misstatements and misrepresentations floating around.

Anyhow, I think you did a good job of getting the gist of what's happened so far and putting it out there for consumption, which is what you set out to do. Sure, someone who wants the gory details should go back and read every memorandum and decision and communique and article they have the stomach for (which is what I'm doing), but your piece is clear enough to let people know whether it's worth their time to do that.
post #46 of 47
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by litterbug View Post


Despite my passion for facts, I'm totally sympathetic to your situation. You're not an investigative journalist; you're a blogger trying to make an undigestible mass of information easy for the casual reader to understand. Despite so much certainty from so many people, the situation is moderately complex, there's a lot of legal jargon involved that sounds like plain language but isn't, and the usual number of misstatements and misrepresentations floating around.

Anyhow, I think you did a good job of getting the gist of what's happened so far and putting it out there for consumption, which is what you set out to do. Sure, someone who wants the gory details should go back and read every memorandum and decision and communique and article they have the stomach for (which is what I'm doing), but your piece is clear enough to let people know whether it's worth their time to do that.

Thank you dude!

post #47 of 47
Quote:
The whole reason I wrote the article is for the 99% of all riders out there that don't want nor care to read an 83 page judgment.

True.  But hopefully YOU read the 83 page judgment if you were going to write a blog summary about it.  The OP's summary was ~2,000 words, about 100 words more than http://www.mountaintimes.info/news/features/2014/07/park-city-mountain-resort-faces-eviction-as-judge-orders-mediation/

 

The latter article struck me as more factual, even-handed and professionally written, though it concentrates upon the events of the past 2 months and presumes the reader knows a little bit about the background.  One key aspect of the OP's article I preferred was including the map of PCMR with lifts and shading showing which land was owned by POWDR and which by Talisker.  This is a good example of a picture being far superior to verbiage.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Skiing Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › Soliciting input for an article on the PCMR vs Vail dispute