IT'S NOT ABOUT THE MONEY!!!!!

Frank, supposedly Sugarloaf already is profitable and contributes a small amount every year to ASC's bottom line. <BR> <BR>While they may have 15 lifts ( a quick mental count only gives me 13, but I'm probably missing some), not all run all the time. The upper-mountain T-bar only runs on days when no other lift can run due to wind, for instance. Other lifts (Bucksaw, Double-runner long side, Spillway short side, West Mountain) come on and off as demand dictates. Those funny parallel-double chairs usually only run both sides on the busiest of days.
 
sugarloaf is not profitable, at all, never has been, probably never will be
 
Here we have 2 different opinions. <BR> <BR>Do you both have sources for what you say ? <BR> <BR>I don't think that it's written in the annual report, unfortunately... <BR> <BR>There is 1 thing to be careful, when saying : profitable or not. <BR> <BR>Sugarloaf may possibly be profitable, if you just take the operations and the expenses of the resort. <BR> <BR>But if you add the part of the "services" given by ASC to the mountain, whoops, you will fall in the red very fastly, cause there is all the interests of the debt on that. And it's normal to consider those debts, cause ASC took some huge debts to buy the resort and make a couple of new lifts (the 3 I named in the other thread) <BR> <BR>Lifts : 13 chairlifts and 2 surface lifts according to the trail map. <BR> <BR>2 HSQ <BR>2 quads <BR>1 triple <BR>8 doubles <BR>2 surfaces <BR> <BR>It's sure that they don't always operate them, but they should think about selling few of them (if they're not too old) to other ski areas. Actually, there is at least 2 ski areas in the Townships that are looking for some not too old double chairlifts. There is certainly other resorts who could buy them also. <BR> <BR>It depends of a lot of things, of course... but they would not have to pay for maintenance, opening, staff, insurance, and they would make a little bit of $$ selling it/them.
 
<FONT COLOR="ff0000">Woohoo !! good timing for this thread ! <BR> <BR>The annual report of ASC 2003 have just been put on the website yesterday. <BR> <BR>So here are the results <BR> <BR>Net Loss for 2002-03 : only <B>82 018 000$</B>, compared to 206 millions last season ! wow ! I'm almost impressed ! <BR> <BR>Total deficit : <B>515 063 000$</B> <BR> <BR>The lowest price for the common share was 0,08$ in the 4th quarter of the year ! lololol</FONT>
 
I will check the 1996 stockholders report for financial information, however I seriously doubt that the mountain has NEVER made a profit! How could the mountain exist for 40+ years.
 
There is probably a lot of elements, Kevin. <BR> <BR>1 - Look the mountain (solid argument) <BR> <BR>I mean : This is probably (surely) the most nice looking ski area in the east. So there is always a person to say : how can those jerks are able to not make profit with a mountain like that. And many owners have taken their chance I guess. <BR> <BR>The expectations of profit are a big thing, into the puzzle, IMO. <BR> <BR>2 - Political value : For Maine, to have 2 major ski destinations is surely something important. Sugarloaf is one of the serious destinations of the state, so they surely push a little bit to keep the resort alive. <BR> <BR>3 - Local value : how much employees does the mountain has ? It's certainly one of the biggest employers of all the region, indluding all the stores + lodging near the mountain. <BR> <BR>I'm sure this mountain offers seriously amazing skiing, and I rush to believe that it can't be profitable. It could certainly be profitable if it was perfectly (at least "correctly") managed. It would never become super profitable cause it's far from all, but at least it should be profitable. <BR> <BR>A good thing for them, this year should be less worst for their red-ink pencils. Effectively, looking the exchange rate, there is a lot more of skiers from Quebec that will visit the resort and spend money elsewhere than in the slopes. At 76 cents US for a $Can, compared to 62 cents, last year, it really makes a big difference !
 
the biggest issue in the ski industry, mainly in north america is the insurance costs. so many jerks in this country that have been killed or been injured have dropped heavy lawsuits on ski areas throughout the last 20 years. this has driven insurance prices through the roof. a major reason any ski area, say nothing about asc, struggles to turn a profit every year. however if you look at europe and other canadian mountains this isnt an issue. they take the ski at your own risk approach.
 
A good explanation of the history of Sugarloaf can be found here: <BR> <BR>www.k2trav.com/history.html <BR> <BR>I just hope that Sugarloaf never meets the same fate as Enchanted forest Ski Area in Jackman Maine. According to NELSAP this was a mountain with 1800' of vertical and offered great promise for the future. The economy and the oil embargo of the 70's conspired to cause the mountain to have quite a short life span from 1968-1974!!!! <BR>I enjoyed skiing sugarloaf in the pre 1996 days with competition between them and Sunday River. I always chuckled at the sign at a point on the double runner chair that said: <BR> <BR>If you were at Sunday River you would be at the top of the mountain already. <BR> <BR>Reading this and looking up at one massive mountain still to come.
 
Kevin, the people of Sunday River probably didn't have problems with that sign <IMG SRC="http://www.firsttracksonline.com/discus2/clipart/happy.gif" ALT=":)"> <BR> <BR>This could also means the time passed in the chairlift... cause taking a half-mountain double at Sugarloaf is probably longer than a complete side with a HSQ at Sunday River ;) <BR> <BR>Really amazing, for the enchanted forest ski area. Never heard about it !!! <BR> <BR>Thanks Jackd for the insurance point. I always forget it, but it's so true ! <BR> <BR>However, I don't know for the rest of Canada, but here, we have about the same problem than USA, for the insurance... <BR> <BR>We don't have a lot of lawsuits, but we and the mountains are very limited in what we can ski, cause of the fu**in insurances and the civil code.
 
I seem to remember that the sign at Sugarloaf had an elevation marker on it in comparison with Sunday River. In reference to Enchanted Forest Ski Area, I was quite amazed that a resort of that size could close. I think it is the largest resort(in terms of vertical) on that website. I more and more think to go there in January especially for the dog sledding and snowmobiling. <BR>I just don't know how my son will take to 8+ hours in the car.
 
By the way: <BR> <BR>In reference again with Killington the financial reports are for the company as a whole, with total skier visits for the mentioned ski areas in its ownership at the time of about <BR>2,011,000. By there attendance records it appears that Killington exceeded the 1 million skier visits point around 1982. I believe this was the first resort in New England to do so. I personally do not care very much for this place anymore, but I have great memories of some very early season skiing that I would like to relive with my son. With S.K.I management at the helm, they made snow in the early season WHENEVER possible, but this was with a profitable company, not one swimming in red ink.
 
I made it up to Sugarloaf only once for 3-days of excellent spring skiing. Same for Sunday River; I was there for 3-days in midwinter and we we're lucky enough to get 10" of fluff on the second day. I definately prefer the vertical drop and the snowfields of Sugarloaf. Both are just really far to drive to from CT for a weekend though. <BR> <BR>I am looking for a destination for my son's March vacation which, unfortunately, hits the same week as Ontario's. Does Maine get a lot of Canadian skiers?
 
Funny, everytime I come in, today, there is some new posts... I should come a little bit less often... <BR> <BR>Kevin : ah ok, I didn't know that Sunday River wasn't very high in elevation. (never looked). <BR> <BR>Enchanted forest : it may be the highest one on Nelsap, but according to one of my ski buddies, it's far to be the highest lost ski area in the east. He's not completely sure and I never found real info about it, but it looks like there was a very high ski area on the other side of Whiteface, in the 30s, according to him. It started near the top of Memorial Hwy, and had about the same vertical than the actual Whiteface, according to him. <BR> <BR>He told me they decided to develop the actual side of Whiteface, cause there wasn't enough snow on the other side, but there would still remain some visible tracks of that ski area. <BR> <BR>Does anyone have more info about this place ? <BR>(I hope I'm not "out of the track")
 
Uh-oh : 2 other messages before I wrote mine <IMG SRC="http://www.firsttracksonline.com/discus2/clipart/happy.gif" ALT=":)"> <BR> <BR>Kevin : Wow... 1 million ski-visit in the east, it's incredible... especially for Killington which wasn't developped as it is today. Weird thing, no ? the uphill capacity actually is probably 2x bigger than in 1982 and there is quite less ski-visits ! <BR> <BR>Anon : This year : possibly, cause the exchange rate is very low. But don't you worry, our impact is not really big, cause there is a lot of ski areas where we can go and not so much Canadians that are going in the states. May be more from New Brunswick ? I know there is huge banners for Sugarloaf somewhere on the main road down N-B.
 
I do not have any experience with Sugarloaf in March, however there are lots of Canadian college <BR>students there in January. April is also a great time to visit the loaf as there is lots of snow <BR>and very few people. I have not heard of a ski area on the backside of Whiteface and I have only skied there once in 1989. New York State has/had a large amount of ski areas, so there must be quite a few that have gone under.
 
ah, the life of a publically traded corporation in the U.S. to be able to lose millions of dollars year after year and keep on going between loans and investor monies, yay! ><IMG SRC="http://www.firsttracksonline.com/discus2/clipart/sad.gif" ALT=":("> <BR> <BR>amazing that they cut their deficit more than 50%!!! i'm sure nipping early and late season skiing at K will probably save them huge too. <BR> <BR>it is very disturbing that they could lose that much money given how many skier visits they have, how much money they charge for tickets, how many excellent mountains ASC owns, and how little they pay so many of their employees. it doesn't add up! they're probably cooking the books and still in the red! <BR> <BR>granted, insurance these days is sickening and driving prices through the roof. but there's gotta be some bad decisions and serious mis-management going on at ASC. unless this is still backlash from too much expansion and too many lifts in the les otten days??? still suffering after all these years? perhaps. it'll be nice to see ASC finally start making a profit again one day so perhaps prices could come down and the early/last season could thrive once more.
 
Good luck River, for your last sentence ! <BR> <BR>I think it would be more with a new ownership <IMG SRC="http://www.firsttracksonline.com/discus2/clipart/sad.gif" ALT=":("><IMG SRC="http://www.firsttracksonline.com/discus2/clipart/happy.gif" ALT=":)"> <BR> <BR>For their deficit of 2002-03, just think a little bit to the wonderful winter we got in 2001-02 in the east (fu**** sh** b**t*rd winter). Also, they had some big costs for their restructuration in 2002. It's why this year is less worst, on paper, but looking to the snow they had this year, compared to last year, I think that this year was financially really worst than last one !! (the restructuration cost covers most of the difference between the net income of both years). <BR> <BR>Chairlifts : yes, of course, it's one of the major fact in the debts. Ok, they probably spent over 100 millions$ in chairlifts in the last years. For them, the lifetime of those lifts is about 20 years. So, in accountancy, we split the expense on 20 years... so it's 5 millions of more deficit at least by year, for them. Ok, 5 millions is not very big, compared to 80 or 200. But it's not all. To buy those chairlifts, they didn't have money (certainly not), so they took some debts, probably at something like 10+% by year. 10% x 100M$ = 10 millions dollars of interests by year. So just for the chairlifts, we're now at 15 millions $ of expenses by year. <BR> <BR>There is another big thing : the Goodwill. When they bought the stocks of the old companies like SKII (or so), they paid something like 18$ for each parts. Now, the value of those parts is extremely lower. They paid too much and now, with a new international accounting rule, they are obliged to write-off a good part of the excess they paid, and it reduces also a lot, the net income. <BR> <BR>For the rest, I guess most of their losses come from the interests on the debts and of course, a little bit on the operations. It's really their savage growth that killed them.
 
It ain't cheap building huge lodges and large, fancy hotels up in the mountains either. I'm curious, have any of you guys actually bought any ASC stock?
 
Kevin was stockholder of SKII, but I don't think any person here bought some ASC. May be Joegm... this would explain why he hates so much ASC :-D
 
I met Les Otten once, pre ASC days when he had turned Sunday River into a huge success. He seemed like a good guy and really got what the sport is all about. I wonder if he regrets all the growth and mega resort building. The only shares of a ski area I ever considered were Mad River's, but that's more of an investment in preservation than anything else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top