Saddleback Mountain Expansion

WOW! WHERE DO I BEGIN!?
i'd love to reply to many quotes here but there are too many to deal with. there have been many nice comments made here about how great the terrain at saddleback is and how its old school new england and how great the tree skiing is. replace the t-bar because snowboarders and skiers have trouble riding it and because not putting the a quad chair there will hurt the future successes of the resort is quite funny to me. that's as silly as saying "let's put a quad to the summit of MRG so the lines will be shorter and the snow can get skied up faster than the first half hour that jay opens on a mid-week powder day. if they're going to put a quad anywhere it should be to replace the double up to the 1200 vert line where the terrain is better and more diverse (trees too!) than most other resorts in new england that caters to most ability levels. given the grand plans for saddleback, leaving the t-bar and not adding a chair won't matter much as they will be spreading modern lifts and plenty of bowling alleys for joey all over the place. speaking of joey, as far as future financials for the resort go, for all that they want to do with the place joey still won't go as it's just too far away and dosen't have the allure of those "cool man" or "rad" places two states to the west. look at burke! ginn co putting all that money into something that will never draw the skier #'s needed to have a successful ski resort, joey will just drive by for an extra hour to jay to wait in lines and ski vw ice moguls in canyonland glade while i shake my head and giggle knowing that burke won't get skied out. for all those in the know, just enjoy the non-joey places like saddleback and the other esoteric places until the current owners with deep pockets and money to burn realize that it wasn't the best investment and sell at a loss until some company wants to have a go at it. then start over.

SAVE THE T-BAR!!!
SKI THE EAST!!!

roger
 
First off, welcome icelanticskier. I share your sentiment but disagree on some particulars.

Mad River Glen is not a fair comparison. MRG has a niche market and a dedicated and loyal following (many of whom are share holders of the coop) whereas Saddleback is struggling and does not have the numbers. Putting a quad to the summit will increase visits to Saddleback but will hardly load the area with skiers. The new development is not aimed at Joeys but rather folks with a few extra bucks interested in a vacation home, second home, or timeshare. Most of those potential real estate buyers (funding expansion plans and providing long term stability for the resort) generally do not share our appreciation of T-bars, unfortunately.

Burke is similar in that Ginn is not looking to make enhancements so that the place will be over run by "joeys." In a matter of fact, it was recently announced that Burke would put a "cap" on lift tickets. Given that the cap was set so high that it may never have to be used, but it sends the message that Ginn wants Burke to be a draw for privileged folks with cash that want an uncrowded, elite, and natural Burke. People driving past Burke to ski VW bumps in Canyonland, that is funny!! It is so true about the bumps in Canyonland, no one skis there any more, it is too crowded. But in reality, I ski both mountains and Jay is the better mountain with more snow albeit with more crowds.

Any ways, I think we like the same things and enjoy the areas that offer something different and have a throw back feel. But I do disagree that they need certain things for long term viability. Saddleback will need a chairlift to the summit if they want to sell real estate and get more tickets sold, both of which will probably be needed for long term sustainability of the resort.
 
greetings rivercoil!
i've had some time to rethink this quad chair thing and you know what? it would actually be a great idea! a quad, or any chair for that matter would be on wind hold so often, we could just bring our skins and have the summit all to ourselves. it works at jay, the best way ski jay is when it's blowin and snowin with no lifts runnin. same thing at wallyworld, i mean alta on a nuking day. a summit lift won't help saddleback much, location, location, location is what is gonna keep saddleback from thriving especially with the loaf being right around the corner, owned by boyne with a world class golf course. ever see a sugarloaf sticker on a car? a someday bigger lift tower? AN ALTA LIFT TOWER? definately. a saddleback sticker, anywhere except for my bumper, I DON'T THINK SO!

i hope saddleback thrives but if it dosen't make it, how great of a skin and ski only cuz it's shut down resort it would be, sounds like a win-win to me.

joey has the money and on sunday night when joey's headin home we're goin the other way laughin!

thanx for the welcome

rog
 
I love (but can't often get to) Saddleback, love (and am now a shareholder of) MRG, and also am happy for the places that shoot for broader appeal and in some cases give more early/late season options (I got first turns in Sunday afternoon at Sunday River) even though I'd avoid a lot of them altogether midseason.

My big question for places like Saddleback and Burke is whether the timing right now is particularly bad for a strategy that depends so heavily on fairly high-end (second-home) real estate sales. I've been following developments at Saddleback pretty closely since I first skied it five or six years ago and while details of the expansion seemed ambitious but not necessarily unreasonable at the time they were seeking the various approvals, now does not appear to be a great time to be building a lot of new housing. (Had the same thought when driving past massive condo construction on the access road to the Barker lodge at S/R the other day.)

In short, do either of these areas risk getting so overextended that their ability to stay in business as ski areas is compromised? No pun intended but is there potentially a snowball effect, where people aren't rushing to buy condos in a down housing market, the ski resorts start faltering because they've sunk so much cash into unsold housing, and then even if the housing market picks up people may be leery of buying housing near a ski area that may or may not stay in business? This was exactly the dynamic that led to the extended closure of Crotched Mountain in SW NH in the '90s -- they came online with a bunch of slopeside condos right as the housing market crashed around 1990. Fortunately Crotched reopened and I think they've found a decent niche (I was skiing there at 2 a.m. one night last winter, no complaints!) but with its distance from the Boston market Saddleback has far less fallback potential as a day-trip destination. Then again, being situated in the Rangeley Lakes region, Saddleback has greater all-season appeal (or make that all but mud season), which could help them weather a down housing market. And I realize they're building out their condos in phases so presumably they have flexibility to postpone or even cancel later phases if necessary, though that doesn't necessarily preclude getting overextended in the interim.

(p.s. another good feature at Saddleback, for anyone with kids learning how to ski, is the network of novice trails they put in downhill of the base lodge about five years ago. Great for a beginner to begin by learning how skis work than by having to endure a rope tow or scary chair lift ... )
 
It will be interesting to see if Saddleback thrives. I think there's 2 ways to look at it. One being that there's only room for one big mountain in the area, which I don't necessarily agree with. Sugarloaf being right around the corner may actually draw more skiiers to the area as they continue to make a name for themselves with the expansion. It's the only place in Maine where you can ski 2 big mountains in the same day. Saddleback is the last mountain in New England with legit vertical currently 2000 ft and with new lifts (2200+ ft), and 4100+ elevation that hasn't really been tapped out. There may be 5 ski mountains in New England with those sort of credentials. There will definately be some appeal for skiiers to take a look at Saddleback. If someone asks you, "do you want to get essentially the same ski experience as Sugarloaf without the crowds?", wouldn't that peak your curiosity a bit? Also, the town of Rangeley has far more to offer than Kingfield so that will be more of a draw in the off-seasons. That's why I think if Sugarloaf can "make it," so can Saddleback.

Speaking of whether or not they can "thrive" or "make it," I guess that depends on how you define it. Sugarloaf is a great ski mountain and is known to most ski enthusiasts all around the country despite it's location. But from a business standpoint, it would be considered a compete failure. They've been in shambles for years, hence the sell off of American Ski Company. They'll continue to invest in real estate and, if executed correctly, they'll rebound and be fine. So in some ways, Saddleback could certainly be a more profitable resort.

The way I look at it, if you have the means and resources to develop a first class ski area (vertical, elevation, views, and or course financial backing), and are unwavering in your committment to achieve that goal, skiiers will come despite its location. Give me an example of one ski mountain anywhere, where all of the aformentioned criteria were met and no one showed up.

I'd love to see both mountains flourish in the coming years, and I fully expect that to happen.
 
I think it's hard to compare Mad River Glen to anyplace.
A wealthy CT benefactor gives away an asset at substantially below market prices and gets $6M in financing by a group of investors at 1.) an effective interest rate below zero & 2.) who also promise to pay $600k every year for an in-kind exchange of goods. I guess it's more egalitarian, marketable and palatable for VT to call it a Co-op instead of a Club?

Saddleback. I think again it missed another window for a modest real estate 2nd home development to help redevelop the mountain / bring it up to speed. I'm not even sure there are enough beds around to support much on-mountain development since no one lives nearby. And isn't this really popular snowmobiling country which competes with skiing for what limited lodging there is? It's too bad.
 
I agree that a down housing market may stunt the progress of the resort development but probably not to the extent most would expect. This is a very different market than those that are being effected by the sub-prime mortgage crisis. Most of the people buying real estate on a ski mountain are in a different class financially and are probably looking at it as a good time to buy. First of all, for those that aren't selling in order to buy, now is a great time. Mortgage rates are as low as they've been in a couple of years. You can get a 30yr fixed for around 6%. Second, buyers or prospective buyers of Saddleback real estate, will presumably be looking at this as more of a long term investment anyway, knowing that the investment won't be fully realized until long after the expansion plan is complete, therefore they're not worring about a decline in value in the short term.
 
ChrisC":1mpx4lce said:
I think it's hard to compare Mad River Glen to anyplace.
A wealthy CT benefactor gives away an asset at substantially below market prices and gets $6M in financing by a group of investors at 1.) an effective interest rate below zero & 2.) who also promise to pay $600k every year for an in-kind exchange of goods. I guess it's more egalitarian, marketable and palatable for VT to call it a Co-op instead of a Club?
Click to expand...

The way you're putting it, sound like you're talking about a different area. I think your numbers are totally off, both numbers are way too high.

The difference between a Club and Coop, is that Club are often exclusive areas with expensive membership fees. MRG is far from being exclusive and limited to shareholders and everyone is allowed to ski there plus you don't necessarily need to take a second mortgage to buy a share.
 
pure and simple: saddleback is too far and difficult too get too for most folks with or without money to justify paying 3+ bucks a gallon in gas to ski a mountain that most skiers don't even know exsists. at $40, lift tickets are a bargain but they need to be to get anyone there at all. ask any u-maine farmington student where they ski and it's "the loaf" or sunday river almost every time. i've worked many ski shows in southern new england for burke, stowe , sunday river, and as much as i love burke people would come by the booth and say "burke"? where's that? " an hour past loon?, that's too far for a placed i've never heard of"! plus! boston's about the only city area that knows there's any descent skiing in maine. most new yorkers and connecticut folks just head up 91 to vermont areas and have no interest in complicating they're trip by heading further east. saddleback is going to have to have a miracle marketing plan to sell enough real estate to warrant following through with any of the ten year plan stuff and having it pay off.

it's just too far off the radar with not enough of a reputable draw. and, about rangeley in the winter, about as happening as the village of burke vt in late april. unless you own a skidoo and want to frequent the one sports bar every night.

location, location, location, reputation, reputation, reputation.

saddleback will be ok in it's current state because the owner has enough money to cover any losses year to year, take care of the employees, and make some upgrades. and that's if he's only making 5 or so percent interest on the cash they've got. it's a hobby for them.

saddleback is an amazing ski experience, great terrain, old new england charm, killer views and one of the east's best kept secrets and will continue to be with or without the expansion.

saddleback is to sugarloaf is what solitude is to alta, "if you only knew"
don't get me started on that one, i'll stop now.

love
rog
 
skiharmony":lfkdk8vn said:
This is a very different market than those that are being effected by the sub-prime mortgage crisis. Most of the people buying real estate on a ski mountain are in a different class financially and are probably looking at it as a good time to buy. First of all, for those that aren't selling in order to buy, now is a great time. Mortgage rates are as low as they've been in a couple of years. You can get a 30yr fixed for around 6%. Second, buyers or prospective buyers of Saddleback real estate, will presumably be looking at this as more of a long term investment anyway, knowing that the investment won't be fully realized until long after the expansion plan is complete, therefore they're not worring about a decline in value in the short term.
Click to expand...

This is the biggest bunch of BS I've seen in a while here. This response parrots the National Realtors Association and other trade groups that have a vested interest, and not an objective viewpoint.

Real Estate appreciates at historical rates of 5%. The multi-year 20% appreciation seen in the 2000s is going to have to give back a lot of ground or stay stagnant for years and years to come. For example, Bay Area real estate stayed stagnant from the late 1980s until the late 1990s. In other words, you lost money in real terms factoring inflation.

I doubt you will make much money in real estate over the next 10 years -interest rates cannot go lower, innovative/BS mortgage financing is done for a while and ratios of rent-to-mortgage are out-of-whack.

Stocks historically appreciate at 10%. They gave back a lot from the late 1990s to return to these historical rates.

Good luck selling those condos in Saddleback. Especially at buying prices that a builder can make money these days -- since material/construction costs are so high now.
 
Patrick":2ox241du said:
ChrisC":2ox241du said:
I think it's hard to compare Mad River Glen to anyplace.
A wealthy CT benefactor gives away an asset at substantially below market prices and gets $6M in financing by a group of investors at 1.) an effective interest rate below zero & 2.) who also promise to pay $600k every year for an in-kind exchange of goods. I guess it's more egalitarian, marketable and palatable for VT to call it a Co-op instead of a Club?
Click to expand...

The way you're putting it, sound like you're talking about a different area. I think your numbers are totally off, both numbers are way too high.

The difference between a Club and Coop, is that Club are often exclusive areas with expensive membership fees. MRG is far from being exclusive and limited to shareholders and everyone is allowed to ski there plus you don't necessarily need to take a second mortgage to buy a share.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I was a little off since I just was glancing.

A share in the Mad River Cooperative costs $2,000. Total cost for installment plan is $2,150 (8.0% Annual Percentage Rate. The only other cost is the annual advance purchase requirement (APR) of $200.
Click to expand...

A 20/80 ratio of share purchase price (I assume most people financed).
$2125/share as average share price

How many shares are available?
As of June 1, 2008, a total of 2158 shares have been sold. Our goal to operate the mountain on a long-term basis is to sell 2500 shares, but the Cooperative is allowed to sell up to 3,000 shares.
Click to expand...

My mistake here for multi-tasking and using 3k shares.

Zero-interest Loan (or MRG says co-op equity)
Shares*avg. share price = 4.6M

And guaranteed payments to MRG
200*2158= 450k

Do I disagree with this? No. It's innovative from both a marketing and finance perspective. But I just do not think Mad River can be compared to anything. Especially to other small struggling ski areas. It's built one of the strongest, differentiated, unique brands in the ski business that allows it to do this.

Co-op Label
It's just a marketing device that you can define however you want. Again think it's more palatable for Mad River Skiers to call itself a "co-op" versus a club that allows non-members to use the facilities for a fee.

This type of marketing device can be found at a much larger scale. For example, the REI Co-op. A big-box retailer under the guise of a Co-op that rewards its execs very, very well (CEO salary $1m++) and puts local, long-time shops out of business.
 
ChrisC":11s69ghu said:
A share in the Mad River Cooperative costs $2,000. Total cost for installment plan is $2,150 (8.0% Annual Percentage Rate. The only other cost is the annual advance purchase requirement (APR) of $200.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
You're correct on the current information, however once Betsy Pratt agree to sell, the Coop goal was to sell something like 1600 shares at $1,500 in order to pay Betsy.

ChrisC":11s69ghu said:
A 20/80 ratio of share purchase price (I assume most people financed).
Click to expand...
I wouldn't assume that, however I might be wrong.

ChrisC":11s69ghu said:
Zero-interest Loan (or MRG says co-op equity)
Shares*avg. share price = 4.6M

And guaranteed payments to MRG
200*2158= 450k).
Click to expand...
4.6M would be closer to current value of the area. In the last 10 years, the Coop has made some investments in charging or improving the general equipment. Double chair was replaced by new + know the new single. Other smaller less spectacular items also.

ChrisC":11s69ghu said:
Do I disagree with this? No. It's innovative from both a marketing and finance perspective. But I just do not think Mad River can be compared to anything. Especially to other small struggling ski areas. It's built one of the strongest, differentiated, unique brands in the ski business that allows it to do this.
Click to expand...
You're right about MRG being unique, but it doesn't need to be the only one. Not being an expert, I believe that they are a few communities run / Coop like areas elsewhere, maybe not in the US, but surely in Canada.

ChrisC":11s69ghu said:
Co-op Label
It's just a marketing device that you can define however you want. Again think it's more palatable for Mad River Skiers to call itself a "co-op" versus a club that allows non-members to use the facilities for a fee.

This type of marketing device can be found at a much larger scale. For example, the REI Co-op. A big-box retailer under the guise of a Co-op that rewards its execs very, very well (CEO salary $1m++) and puts local, long-time shops out of business.
Click to expand...

Maybe it's my understanding of it. The word Club is used in skiing in Canada (especially in Ontario)(also in the US), these are generally very exclusive areas when you have to be a member or invited to ski or use their facilities. Coop is generally something that is owned by a community/group, but doesn't prohibits non-members and is open to all. 1) To join or 2) to use.
 
I'm with ChrisC all the way on this one. Buy ski area real estate if you're going to use it a lot, not as an investment.
 
ChrisC":g3996s7s said:
Co-op Label
It's just a marketing device that you can define however you want. Again think it's more palatable for Mad River Skiers to call itself a "co-op" versus a club that allows non-members to use the facilities for a fee.
Click to expand...

A co-operative also is an ownership structure as defined in VT state law. I presume but don't know for certain (IANAL) if that carries tax and/or other advantages compared to a "club" or some other structure. As long as whatever you want to call it is doing the right things to keep MRG in business pretty much as is, it's all good to me.
 
icelanticskier":wgs44tu0 said:
pure and simple: saddleback is too far and difficult too get too for most folks with or without money to justify paying 3+ bucks a gallon in gas to ski a mountain that most skiers don't even know exsists. at $40, lift tickets are a bargain but they need to be to get anyone there at all. ask any u-maine farmington student where they ski and it's "the loaf" or sunday river almost every time. i've worked many ski shows in southern new england for burke, stowe , sunday river, and as much as i love burke people would come by the booth and say "burke"? where's that? " an hour past loon?, that's too far for a placed i've never heard of"! plus! boston's about the only city area that knows there's any descent skiing in maine. most new yorkers and connecticut folks just head up 91 to vermont areas and have no interest in complicating they're trip by heading further east. saddleback is going to have to have a miracle marketing plan to sell enough real estate to warrant following through with any of the ten year plan stuff and having it pay off.

it's just too far off the radar with not enough of a reputable draw. and, about rangeley in the winter, about as happening as the village of burke vt in late april. unless you own a skidoo and want to frequent the one sports bar every night.

location, location, location, reputation, reputation, reputation.
Click to expand...

The only problem with your "reputation" argument is your basing Saddleback off it's current state. Of course it doesn't have the reputation yet because they haven't been committed to optimizing it's reputation until now. The whole idea of a master expansion plan is to lay the groundwork for an elite ski area in New England. And I don't buy the location argument completely either. It's a complete contradction to bring up Sugarloaf and then say location, location, location. If you want to be picky I believe Saddleback is about 15 minutes closer than Sugarloaf from any points south. You referred to shows in Southern New Engand (and New York) as the basis of why people wouldn't want to hike all the way to Maine. I agree and without taking a look at the marketing statistics, I would believe that Saddleback does very little marketing south of Boston. I'm sure they understand where their market is, and their target will stay within that market. Most folks from New York or Connecticut aren't going to Sunday River let alone Sugarloaf, but does that mean they're not selling real estate? Not at all.

Rangeley doesn't offer much for nightlife in it's current state and even though it will prosper from Saddleback's expansion, it will obviously never be a Whistler. I'm sure that's not the goal either.

I still think there's plenty in the recipe for a success but I guess it depends on how you define it as my idea and your idea cerainly seem to differ.
 
This is the biggest bunch of BS I've seen in a while here. This response parrots the National Realtors Association and other trade groups that have a vested interest, and not an objective viewpoint.

Real Estate appreciates at historical rates of 5%. The multi-year 20% appreciation seen in the 2000s is going to have to give back a lot of ground or stay stagnant for years and years to come. For example, Bay Area real estate stayed stagnant from the late 1980s until the late 1990s. In other words, you lost money in real terms factoring inflation.

I doubt you will make much money in real estate over the next 10 years -interest rates cannot go lower, innovative/BS mortgage financing is done for a while and ratios of rent-to-mortgage are out-of-whack.

Stocks historically appreciate at 10%. They gave back a lot from the late 1990s to return to these historical rates.

Good luck selling those condos in Saddleback. Especially at buying prices that a builder can make money these days -- since material/construction costs are so high now.[/quote]

For the record, I dont' have a vested interest but if I were to buy real estate on a ski mountain right now, it would be at Saddleback (as much as I love Sugarloaf). Here's why: Your real estate appreciation of 5% is irrelevant when your buying at ground zero, or at the beginning stages of a major expansion. This doesn't exactly fall into the "average" category for better or worse. Your example of the Bay Area is way off base. The risk may be higher and you may lose more if the mountain takes a turn for the worse but the reward can be substantially higher, regardless of whether we're going to see the real estate market return to where it was in the early 2000's. In the case of Saddleback, you have a family owned entity who knows the area and is from the area. He has a pulse on the community and the market he's targeting (which is not New York). I'd put more faith in someone who know's the market than someone who doesn't.

No one knows whats going to happen to interest rates. Yes they can go lower and very well may. There's way to many unforseen circumstances to make such a statement.

Having said all that, you missed the whole point of the post you referred to. The innovative BS mortage financing doesn't apply to the majority of people who are buying 2nd and 3rd homes on ski mountains so what difference does that make? And to that same point, those same buyers are more likely using it for enjoyment, with less emphasis on appreciation.
 
I was mostly interested in looking how ski places could raise capital to pay for things. The issue with Saddleback.

Re: Mad River

I thought it is difficult/unfair to compare Mad River to other New England areas due to its uniqueness. It can raise millions by methods other areas cannot and pays no interest. I do not care to much about the exact numbers here, but as long as they're multi-million it's an interesting, legitimate vehicle.

Next - how does Mad River raise millions?
Yes, I totally agree that a co-operative is a specific type of legal entity. And different from LLCs, S-corps and C-Corps. And different from that of a club. They are all different. Agreement. But I do not think the exact legal structure is as important as the marketability of that legal structure to potential investors.

There were a lot of alternatives to explore for the mid-90s sale of Mad River from Betsy to whomever and preserve its character.
1. They might have created a Non-Profit Club of sorts (ex: NZ Ski-Clubs cheap/bare bones/not too exclusive).
There are 17 commercially operated ski and snowboard areas in New Zealand, the remainder of the fields are largely ski club operated. These non-profit organisations operate accommodation and the ski areas welcome club membership and casual visitors to their slopes.
Click to expand...
2. Corporation of sorts. Create a pool of development rights that are legally severable from the land. Transfer unwanted development rights to a Mad River Trust. Details I'm not sure, but there is the possibility of creativity.
3. Co-Op.

I think a lot of structures could have accomplished the desired goals.

Why Co-op?

What is more appealing - belonging to a club or cooperatively owning part of Mad River? I think Co-op and its community themed associations could cause someone to make a decision that may not be financially beneficial, but provides another type of satisfaction -- especially for MRG skiers.

REI is a perversion of the co-op. I vote NO on anything mgt tries to do to enlarge itself.
 
sugarloaf a contradiction? you funny man! sugarloaf's got a reputation that draws more skiers than saddleback ever will and if you want to know the truth i'll get nit picky and say that in fact sugarloaf is about 20 minutes closer from points south because it's shorter to get there and the road is much better, i even clocked at 15 miles shorter. plus the nail in the coffin is that boyne has their poop together and the loaf and sunday river will succeed in maine if anyone will. saddleback may do ok if they build a few properties per season and when they sell, build a few more, do some small upgrades but, as with burke vt people still won't go there over other close by resorts to warrant all of these future plans especially when the towns lack any infrastructure to support what is planned to happen on the hill.

bottom line: saddleback will first have to bring back the BRONCO BUSTER MOGUL CHALLENGE if they want to succeed for the long term.

love
rog
 
skiharmony":dzijo4cu said:
In the case of Saddleback, you have a family owned entity who knows the area and is from the area. He has a pulse on the community and the market he's targeting (which is not New York). I'd put more faith in someone who know's the market than someone who doesn't.

The innovative BS mortage financing doesn't apply to the majority of people who are buying 2nd and 3rd homes on ski mountains so what difference does that make? And to that same point, those same buyers are more likely using it for enjoyment, with less emphasis on appreciation.
Click to expand...

My past comments on real estate/stocks -- it's really hard to fight the laws of big numbers. Things revert back to form. And I think it is risky looking for decent returns after a prolonged period of 2-4x normal - no matter how regional/specific the market.

The 2nd/3rd homeowners are just looking cash-flow wise, those people definitely exist. However, does the cost of owning at Saddleback outweigh renting whenever you want? Will you use it enough? Would that extra cash be better off somewhere else? Most people who got to this point, look at this. I think the novelty of the second home wears off after the realization of actual use/costs weigh in.

And the subprime could effect you a bit. Credit is harder to come by these days in general. Condos at Saddleback cannot appreciate at a rate that is too divorced from rest of the real estate in the area. And if it is tough for the others/locals to prop up the mid/bottom market, prices cannot go up too much.
 
icelanticskier":3jlxrfzr said:
sugarloaf's got a reputation that draws more skiers than saddleback ever will and if you want to know the truth i'll get nit picky and say that in fact sugarloaf is about 20 minutes closer from points south because it's shorter to get there and the road is much better, i even clocked at 15 miles shorter. plus the nail in the coffin is that boyne has their poop together and the loaf and sunday river will succeed in maine if anyone will. saddleback may do ok if they build a few properties per season and when they sell, build a few more, do some small upgrades but, as with burke vt people still won't go there over other close by resorts to warrant all of these future plans especially when the towns lack any infrastructure to support what is planned to happen on the hill.
Click to expand...

I agree with a lot of this. It is hard to motivate from Boston to go to ME areas when in 3:15-3:30 hrs I could get to Stowe/Sugarbush/MRG.

Love or hate this guy, I think it was a succint description of :D Sugarloaf :D as a business
Asked what he'd do if he could change anything at Sugarloaf, new owner Les Otten (of the American Skiing Company) responded, "Move it to Springfield, Massachusetts."
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top