Shames Mtn Coop in Terrace BC

[soulskier]

There are multiple flights daily from Vancouver (2 hours). There is talk of discounted flights for shareholders. People will know about the resort as the proud shareholders will talk it up. The reason it hasn't made money is what you just said, people don't know about. Buy using the collective global intelligence to support the locals running the mountain, upgrades, changes and new ideas will be formed and applied.

I compare the current resort to a fixer upper apartment building in an ideal location. With some work it has the potential to get much higher rental income.

IMO, 480 inches annually, big mountain and easily accesible terrain, along with a mountain run by riders for riders will ensure rider satisfaction, thus creating happy and return visitors.

Thanks for the banter, please keep it going.

 

[soulskier]

There are about 50,000 people within a day's drive.

The terrain beyond the boundaries (less than 200 acres of the resorts 8700 tenure have been developed) is world class. Smithers reosrt is not in the same league if you like steep terrain.

Here is a link to the terrain. http://www.azadadventures.com/bc/home.html
And a article on Shames Mountain. http://www.leelau.net/2009/centralbc/sh ... 009_03_10/

 

[Tony Crocker]

Admin's done the work for me on this :snowball fight: . With regard to New Zealand the South Island population is 1 million and half of them live in Canterbury, the region bounded by Christchurch on the coast, and the section of the Southern Alps where all of the club fields are located about an hour's drive west. I'm sure the location of those club areas is pure coincidence. At any rate, NZ club field population base is 10x that of Shames.

Patrick has not yet quoted the price Lucky Luke has paid for those flights. How many eastern Canadian expert skiers with the appropriate ski priorities will pick Shames over, let's see: Revelstoke, Kicking Horse, Red, Fernie, Castle? How about Whitewater and Rogers' Pass for the backcountry types? B.C. has an embarassment of ski riches like SLC. And in a region like that even easy-to-drive-to Powder Mt. is deserted most of the time.

The reason it hasn't made money is what you just said, people don't know about.

It's not easy and can cost $$$ to get the word out. Hell, Mt. Waterman is daytrip from 20 million people and it's almost completely forgotten after being out of business for 6 seasons. 250 people showed up for a blue sky powder day on the Saturday of President's weekend last year.

I compare the current resort to a fixer upper apartment building in an ideal location.

Completely backwards. Shames is a little gem in one of the worst locations imaginable. Restaurants in this situation fail all the time.

Smithers resort is not in the same league if you like steep terrain.

From what I've read I agree Smithers is not much competition for Shames. But my impression is that Powder King is a similar area. Anyone know how that area is doing?

 

[Admin]

There is talk of discounted flights for shareholders.

And just who's going to financially subsidize those discounts? Somebody has to pay for them for they don't come for free. I don't expect Air Canada to fly to Terrace on a loss, and it's not like this proposed co-op will have sufficiently deep pockets to fund seat guarantees.

People will know about the resort as the proud shareholders will talk it up. The reason it hasn't made money is what you just said, people don't know about.

Can you honestly say that its remote location has nothing to do with it not making money? Remember also that its inaccessibility is why people don't know about it. It's a vicious catch-22 that unfortunately can't be solved in its current location.

Buy using the collective global intelligence to support the locals running the mountain, upgrades, changes and new ideas will be formed and applied.

Do those ideas involve picking up and moving the mountain somewhere more accessible?

(Sorry, I couldn't resist!)

I compare the current resort to a fixer upper apartment building in an ideal location. With some work it has the potential to get much higher rental income.

Based on what? Have marketing studies been performed to indicate potential shareholder buy-in and other capital sources, as well as growing market share? If so, what specifically do those studies indicate?

And the location is hardly "ideal" for all of the reasons put forth in this topic. A fixer-upper apartment building in Utah's Skull Valley would be a more appropriate analogy.

IMO, 480 inches annually, big mountain and easily accesible terrain, along with a mountain run by riders for riders will ensure rider satisfaction, thus creating happy and return visitors.

Perhaps, but in this case rider satisfaction doesn't equal money. A business needs to profit to survive unless it has a wealthy benefactor who has no problems with pissing money. Until I see concrete market studies that prove otherwise I can't be convinced that it'll pay the bills.

 

[soulskier]

There is talk of discounted flights for shareholders.

And just who's going to financially subsidize those discounts? Somebody has to pay for them for they don't come for free. I don't expect Air Canada to fly to Terrace on a loss, and it's not like this proposed co-op will have sufficiently deep pockets to fund seat guarantees.

Actually, the other airline servicing Terrace will likely be discounting their flights for shareholders. More on that later. They understand that offering shareholders a discount makes sense because the flights will be more full and shareholders will bring their friends.

People will know about the resort as the proud shareholders will talk it up. The reason it hasn't made money is what you just said, people don't know about.

Can you honestly say that its remote location has nothing to do with it not making money? Remember also that its inaccessibility is why people don't know about it. It's a vicious catch-22 that unfortunately can't be solved in its current location.

I don't think a 2 hour flight from Vancouver is remote or far at all.

I live in Argentina and watch people travel to Las Leñas and Bariloche (both require not only an overnight flight but then changing airports in Buenos Aires) or a very long bus ride in BA. Both Las Leñas (Marte chair) and Cerro Catedral are very prone to shutting out their visitors. I beleive that the terrain and reliable snowpack, along with people wanting to give their hard earned money to their ski area, instead of being another unsatisfied guest at another resort, will translate into an increase in skier visits.

Buy using the collective global intelligence to support the locals running the mountain, upgrades, changes and new ideas will be formed and applied.

Do those ideas involve picking up and moving the mountain somewhere more accessible?

(Sorry, I couldn't resist!)

No, but everything that Shames faces has already been solved before. It isn't like reinventing the wheel.

I compare the current resort to a fixer upper apartment building in an ideal location. With some work it has the potential to get much higher rental income.

Based on what? Have marketing studies been performed to indicate potential shareholder buy-in and other capital sources, as well as growing market share? If so, what specifically do those studies indicate?

Well we have almost 1000 Facebook fans, and about 200 hits a day on the website and the idea is less than a month old, that's a pretty good start. We also believe that many locals will want to buy a share, if for nothing else, to have their voices heard about their mountain and community.

IMO, 480 inches annually, big mountain and easily accesible terrain, along with a mountain run by riders for riders will ensure rider satisfaction, thus creating happy and return visitors.

Perhaps, but in this case rider satisfaction doesn't equal money. A business needs to profit to survive unless it has a wealthy benefactor who has no problems with pissing money. Until I see concrete market studies that prove otherwise I can't be convinced that it'll pay the bills.

Really, if you had a crappy meal at a restaurant a few times in a row, would you keep going back or find a different restaurant?

You might appreciate this article about how Co-ops actually are resilence in these times.
http://zunia.org/post/resilience-of-the ... isis-2009/

Bare in mind the ski resort has never done anything like marketing, never had the restaurant open after the lifts close, develop the ski school, etc. Apparently it is not far off break even for lift ticket sales, according to this article.

http://www.bclocalnews.com/business/59246957.html

The issue is the outstanding debt, which won't be any issue with the new owners.

Sorry if my multiple quoting skills are sub par.

 

[soulskier]

I compare the current resort to a fixer upper apartment building in an ideal location.

Completely backwards. Shames is a little gem in one of the worst locations imaginable. Restaurants in this situation fail all the time.

Again, a 2 hour flight from Vancouver isn't bad. You could fly non stop LAX-VAN in the AM and be to Terrace (30 minutes away) for dinner.

When I refer to location, I am talking about the 480 inches annually and the outrageous terrain.

 

[Admin]

Again, a 2 hour flight from Vancouver isn't bad.

Of course it isn't! But a $1200+ ticket from virtually any US or Canadian population center other than Vancouver isn't bad, it's obscene! And a discount from some two-bit puddle jumper airline that services only Terrace, Smithers, Prince Rupert and Vancouver doesn't mean jack crap unless you live in Vancouver. Right now, checking the same dates I tried last night it would cost you CAN $398 to fly Hawkair from Vancouver to Terrace. Let's say that they discount the fare 25% for shareholders - that's still $283.21 USD at today's exchange rate plus the fare to get from your origin city to Vancouver. You'd also have to coordinate flight times into and out of Vancouver with Hawkair's departure and arrival times, so in all likelihood you wouldn't enjoy the good fortune of being able to choose the least expensive flight option to Vancouver. End result? No cheaper than the fares I quoted last night.

These are the realities. A place like Shames, with one chairlift and one surface lift, and no infrastructure, is only going to attract the duct-tape crowd, and the duct-tape crowd typically aren't the ones shelling out over $1K for an airline seat unless they're a trustafarian.

Really, if you had a crappy meal at a restaurant a few times in a row, would you keep going back or find a different restaurant?

Of course not, but I sure wouldn't drive a thousand miles past a zillion other restaurants to reach a different one, nor would I pay hundreds of dollars more...and in some cases a thousand dollars more...to travel there. And I hate to break it to you but Shames is hardly the world's only good "restaurant."

You might appreciate this article about how Co-ops actually are resilence in these times.

A co-op structure's resilience in times of economic challenge means absolutely nothing to an individual co-op if that individual co-op is founded on inaccurate financial assumptions to begin with. And 480 inches a year means nothing to a business if no one can get there to ski it.

If I continue this debate I suspect that I'll just be repeating myself, so let me bow out here by once again emphasizing that I hope for this co-op's success should it come to fruition. Success benefits the ski area, the members, the regional public, the regional economy, and the ski industry as a whole. I just won't hold my breath for the reasons I've already espoused. I see this as more of a case of wishful thinking without any concrete analysis to back it up, an if you're one of the parties actually creating the co-op your comments merely reinforce that impression, but hey...good luck to ya! Admin out.

 

[soulskier]

Shames isn't MRG. The market and population in the area is lower

Hell, I'll say! By the numbers above, MRG's potential market base is 64,582% of that of Shames!

MRG is a low angle hill with lots of firm snow. Shames Mountain receives a ton of snow and has world class terrain easily accessible from it's boundaries. While they both may be Co-op's, if this project succeeds, the comparisons quickly stop there.

 

[Admin]

Shames isn't MRG. The market and population in the area is lower

Hell, I'll say! By the numbers above, MRG's potential market base is 64,582% of that of Shames!

MRG is a low angle hill with lots of firm snow. Shames Mountain receives a ton of snow and has world class terrain easily accessible from it's boundaries. While they both may be Co-op's, if this project succeeds, the comparisons quickly stop there.

Read this again, slowly if you must:
Potential customers.

Are you actually one of the founders of the potential co-op? If so I worry for its success more now than ever.

 

[soulskier]

Again, a 2 hour flight from Vancouver isn't bad.

Of course it isn't! But a $1200+ ticket from virtually any US or Canadian population center other than Vancouver isn't bad, it's obscene! And a discount from some two-bit puddle jumper airline that services only Terrace, Smithers, Prince Rupert and Vancouver doesn't mean jack crap unless you live in Vancouver. Right now, checking the same dates I tried last night it would cost you CAN $398 to fly Hawkair from Vancouver to Terrace. Let's say that they discount the fare 25% for shareholders - that's still $283.21 USD at today's exchange rate plus the fare to get from your origin city to Vancouver. You'd also have to coordinate flight times into and out of Vancouver with Hawkair's departure and arrival times, so in all likelihood you wouldn't enjoy the good fortune of being able to choose the least expensive flight option to Vancouver. End result? No cheaper than the fares I quoted last night.

I think you will see fares come way down to Vancouver from many cities. Also, don't forget about the Seattle market, they can do the quick drive to VAN and fly non stop.

These are the realities. A place like Shames, with one chairlift and one surface lift, and no infrastructure, is only going to attract the duct-tape crowd, and the duct-tape crowd typically aren't the ones shelling out over $1K for an airline seat unless they're a trustafarian.

While that might be the case now, as mentioned the room for expansion is huge. There is currently only 144 acres our of 8,730 developed thus far.

I respectfully disagree that only the duct tape crowd will come. Many people like my wife and I, who are middle aged,middle class big mountain skiers will visit, as we are always looking for the next great zone.

Really, if you had a crappy meal at a restaurant a few times in a row, would you keep going back or find a different restaurant?

Of course not, but I sure wouldn't drive a thousand miles past a zillion other restaurants to reach a different one, nor would I pay hundreds of dollars more...and in some cases a thousand dollars more...to travel there. And I hate to break it to you but Shames is hardly the world's only good "restaurant.

"

Please tell me how many places in the world combine 480 inches/year with great terrain and an emphasis on rider satisfaction, ie run by skiers, for skiers exist, within 30 minutes of a real town or city?

You might appreciate this article about how Co-ops actually are resilence in these times.

A co-op structure's resilience in times of economic challenge means absolutely nothing to an individual co-op if that individual co-op is founded on inaccurate financial assumptions to begin with. And 480 inches a year means nothing to a business if no one can get there to ski it.

Who said it will be founded on inaccurate assumptions? Before any pledge will be made, a thorough business plan will be presented.

And I will repeat again, flights from LAX, SFO, and other West Coast locals will not be that much money.

If I continue this debate I suspect that I'll just be repeating myself, so let me bow out here by once again emphasizing that I hope for this co-op's success should it come to fruition. Success benefits the ski area, the members, the regional public, the regional economy, and the ski industry as a whole. I just won't hold my breath for the reasons I've already espoused. I see this as more of a case of wishful thinking without any concrete analysis to back it up, an if you're one of the parties actually creating the co-op your comments merely reinforce that impression, but hey...good luck to ya! Admin out.

Thanks for the well wishes and the opportunity to present the case here. I encourage you to keep posting, I believe this banter is exactly what is needed at this stage of the grassroots campaign.

 

[soulskier]

Read this again, slowly if you must:
Potential customers.

Are you actually one of the founders of the potential co-op? If so I worry for its success more now than ever.

Exactly, potential customers of big mountain skiing and deep powder. There are many of us that travel the world in search of the goods. My peeps in Terrace tell me there is a very high ratio of great ski days each season. 60-70 powder days a season and trees for storm days. Please don't be worried, what's the worst thing that can happen? Shames gets some much needed and deserved attention?

 

[Tony Crocker]

MRG is a low angle hill with lots of firm snow.

Relative to its marketing region (which is what matters for financial viability) that statement is false. MRG is probably in the top 5% at least in terms of steepness and challenge for the Northeast. I would take some issue with the "firm snow" comment too, again relative to the regional competition. MRG is not in the very top snowfall tier (Vermont north of I-89) but it's in the second tier and ahead of most of the Northeast. With its minimal snowmaking the issue is more likely to be inadequate snow coverage rather than "firm snow" IMHO.

Any ski area needs to be analyzed with respect to its regional market. That means not only the people who live within drive distance but those who fly into the same or comparable gateway airports. Thus my comments comparing Shames to many interior B.C. alternatives that can be comparable in terms of snow and are far bigger in scale. People think places like Revelstoke and Fernie are a PITA to reach, but they are a piece of cake vs. Shames.

We've done similar analysis for Mt. Waterman vs. its Mt. Baldy, Mt. High etc. competition here in SoCal. And I've expressed the opinion that it would be a total joke to build a ski area in desert-like Oquirrhs in Utah, the same distance from SLC as the snow abundance of the Wasatch. The Canyons presumably massively underperformed its skier visit projections due to being in such a competitive ski region.

 

[Admin]

Please tell me how many places in the world combine 480 inches/year with great terrain and an emphasis on rider satisfaction, ie run by skiers, for skiers exist, within 30 minutes of a real town or city?

I live 20 minutes from one. (Hey, you asked.) Sure beats 12 hours! And people from the East or West Coasts can be there in half the time, and at a third of the cost, of reaching Shames. And there's something already there when you get there.

 

[soulskier]

Please tell me how many places in the world combine 480 inches/year with great terrain and an emphasis on rider satisfaction, ie run by skiers, for skiers exist, within 30 minutes of a real town or city?

I live 20 minutes from one. (Hey, you asked.) Sure beats 12 hours! And people from the East or West Coasts can be there in half the time, and at a third of the cost, of reaching Shames. And there's something already there when you get there.

Yah, but do you and they own a part of it? If you owned stock in IBM, would you buy a Mac?

 

[Patrick]

People think places like Revelstoke and Fernie are a PITA to reach, but they are a piece of cake vs. Shames.

PITA to reach Shames compare to Revy? Right now, where do you land to go to Revy? You have 3 airports where Air Canada flies twice daily (Prince Rupert (145km), Terrace and Smithers(200km) that are within shorter driving distance than Revy to main airport.

Day-drive population à la Tony (6 hours radius from Shames) is 180k.

The question is, can a Coop in Shames be viable? Tony talks about Waterman, however there is a greater competition (activity wise) in Southern California than they is in Terrace. If the Yukon can have a tiny ski hill with a total population for the whole territory of 30k, why can't Shames be successful?

Infrastructure is minimal (like other small local hills) which happens to give access to some World class terrain. Hell, people go to heliskiing at Last Frontier for how much?

Membership into the Coop is like ownership. Someone can buy a ski area or business and live all away across the country. The only important thing is the love of skiing and the love for the place.

Admin, you would get any argument from me about the quality of Alta, however Shames can offer something else. Similar to the Clubfields in NZ which offers something else to the typical ski resorts.

 

[soulskier]

MRG is a low angle hill with lots of firm snow.

Relative to its marketing region (which is what matters for financial viability) that statement is false. MRG is probably in the top 5% at least in terms of steepness and challenge for the Northeast. I would take some issue with the "firm snow" comment too, again relative to the regional competition. MRG is not in the very top snowfall tier (Vermont north of I-89) but it's in the second tier and ahead of most of the Northeast. With its minimal snowmaking the issue is more likely to be inadequate snow coverage rather than "firm snow" IMHO.

Any ski area needs to be analyzed with respect to its regional market. That means not only the people who live within drive distance but those who fly into the same or comparable gateway airports. Thus my comments comparing Shames to many interior B.C. alternatives that can be comparable in terms of snow and are far bigger in scale. People think places like Revelstoke and Fernie are a PITA to reach, but they are a piece of cake vs. Shames.

We've done similar analysis for Mt. Waterman vs. its Mt. Baldy, Mt. High etc. competition here in SoCal. And I've expressed the opinion that it would be a total joke to build a ski area in desert-like Oquirrhs in Utah, the same distance from SLC as the snow abundance of the Wasatch. The Canyons presumably massively underperformed its skier visit projections due to being in such a competitive ski region.

With all due respect, MRG and Shames comparisons should only be kept to the Co-op discussion. The terrain, maritime snowpack and copious snowfall at Shames are extremely different than MRG.

 

[soulskier]

I'm afraid that this is one of those situations where emotion is running rampant over logic.

I'm always one to side with emotion, but I just can't see how the fly-in co-op idea will, euh, fly. Best-case scenario: a powder hound who just won the lottery or inherited a pile of money, wants a playground to share with others, and can afford to lose several million buys it outright. Similar to what everyone hopes will happen to Magic VT and dozens of other places.

Hope I'm wrong.

We are talking about shares in the $500 range and selling them to the world, along with the local community.

Shames Mtn Coop, this ain't no ponzi scheme!

 

[Admin]

Yah, but do you and they own a part of it? If you owned stock in IBM, would you buy a Mac?

Now, now, now...don't change the rules in the middle of the game. My response was to your question:

Please tell me how many places in the world combine 480 inches/year

480? Check. (more, actually)

with great terrain

Check.

and an emphasis on rider satisfaction

Check.

ie run by skiers

Check.

for skiers

Check - skiers only, actually.

within 30 minutes of a real town or city?

8 miles - check.

I don't see anything there about having to own part of it.

 

[Admin]

With all due respect, to even discuss a mountain like MRG with Shames is absurd for many of us in the ski community.

Be careful, your arrogance may bite you. You're diminishing your cause to 50% of the people who will read this who are no less a member of "the ski community" than yourself. Worse than that, the people reading this website are precisely type of skier that your co-op will need to court to be in any way viable. Nice way to shoot yourself in the foot.

I personally wouldn't ski at MRG if you paid for my trip, sharpened my edges and included daily massages.

So, what you're saying here is that you haven't skied there, therefore you're speaking from a position of ignorance? Review comment regarding arrogance biting you, above.

Shames Mountain and the terrain around is WORLD CLASS! 2,000-3,000 fall lines with deep snow, that stays at the resort until June, and year -round in the surrounding area.

Which also defines more than a handful of places in the western U.S. and Canada that are far more accessible, cost far less to reach, and actually have something already built there, be it a lift to access in-bounds or sidecountry, a hotel, a restaurant, or a viable town. Sorry, that isn't unique. What is unique is the cost and the logistical nightmare to get there.

Shames is stuck with a chicken-or-egg scenario in that you need bodies to build the mountain and infrastructure, yet you can't draw bodies without the (lift-served) mountain and infrastructure as long as there are ski resorts of equal or better quality that are easier, faster and far less expensive to reach from population centers.

 

[soulskier]

I am not saying Shames is the only place in the world to ski for big mtn skiers that like reliable snowpacks. Admin, would you mind divulging your ski resort so I know who the competition is for the sake of this discussion?