Shames Mtn Coop in Terrace BC

[Admin]

Oh, come on now...you know where I live (if not, look around the screen a bit). I also said "skiers only" which narrows it down to three potential players anyway.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

 

[Patrick]

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?

My response was to your question

Where the response to my question? Admin and Tony, I know you guys have traveled some way about the North American Ski World and well informed. Tell me why this cannot happen? If there are ski areas like Eaglecrest AK, Sima YT, Mt Miller QC that survived near small town in the middle of nowhere, how come Shames cannot be viable and sucessful?

Shames has greater access and bigger market - check

Shames has World Class terrain - check

Shames has some serious snow - check

Airport with regular flights within 30 minutes - check

I don't think the Coop is looking into becoming another Jumbo, Revy or Kicking Horse for that matter. I agree that it won't be the next big thing...it's not trying to be. I'm more hopefull of the economic of a Shames Coop versus the general economic health of the whole Jumbo resort or neighbouring resort if that mega project happens.

 

[soulskier]

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.

Arrogance would be if I gave you my ski resume and told you I was rad.

All I am saying is myself and many of my peers like to get in the BIG mountains, with a fat and stable snowpack and get it done. Those that share the same love for this type of skiing won't be turned off.

I will admit that your website is new to me, so I don't know the marketing demographics of the readers. I did a google search last night to see who was talking about Shames and saw you guys are. Thanks for having me, and please don't confuse my enthusiasm and stating my beliefs with arrogance. In return, I'll try and tone it down.

 

[Patrick]

Oh, come on now...you know where I live (if not, look around the screen a bit). I also said "skiers only" which narrows it down to three potential players anyway.

DEER VALLEY??? :stir:























Okay, I won't stir it up too much. Admin has a pass at Alta (and a few others I believe - is Deer Valley on your list). However I can vouch that he skies mostly Alta and is a great guy and host. Regardless if he's a Republican and a chain smoker.

 

[soulskier]

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.

Ignorance? I don't need to ski there to know what my experience will be like. As I have stated numerous times, myself and my peers like big mtns, where we can get up to 5th gear, and stay there for awhile. Also, steep, technical rowdy lines, terrain features such as spines and cliffs (thanks to a big maritime snowpack) are a favorite in my crowd.

Since it is clear nothing on the east coast remotely resembles that, I am not interested. Again, this is my personal preference. Others would hate skiing at Shames, there are many different styles of skiing to choose from.

 

[soulskier]

Cool, so we are talking about Alta as the other place? I actually think that the old Alta (when tickets where cheap and the yahoos stayed at the Bird) is what Shames should strive for. Keeping it soulful, run by skiers for skiers. No frills, just banging out powder laps and/or doing tours.

One other difference besides the obvious skier traffic is Shames maritime snowpack versus cottonwood canyon's fluff. This will surely cause an uproar, but I'll take wet sloppy snow that sticks to everything over the best snow on earth any day of the week. Again, that's just me.

For the record, I think High Rustler is the longest substained fall line at Alta, correct? Is that around 2,000 vertical, more or less?

 

[soulskier]

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.

What is unique is a mtn run buy skiers, for skiers and owned by the global ski community. One of the core values is to make business decisions based on what is best for the environment, the community and the guests of the mountain.

As far as the town of Terrace, have you seen this video? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PM7jDKD7MK0

Lastly, I am still not understanding why you feel connecting in Vancouver for a two hour flight is a logistical nightmare?

 

[Admin]

Hoo-boy. :roll: I drive home from work for 15 minutes and I have a ton to respond to already.

Where the response to my question? Admin and Tony, I know you guys have traveled some way about the North American Ski World and well informed. Tell me why this cannot happen? If there are ski areas like Eaglecrest AK, Sima YT, Mt Miller QC that survived near small town in the middle of nowhere, how come Shames cannot be viable and sucessful?

I've been telling you throughout all of this precisely why in my opinion it faces significant, and possibly insurmountable hurdles: location. Shames is losing money right now and will continue to do so whether or not a co-op or its current owner owns it. Something needs to change if the balance sheet goes from red to black. Word-of-mouth from co-op members won't be sufficient to overcome the cost and access hurdles. Co-op members won't themselves drive visits up due to the same cost and access hurdles. Aside from moving the mountain to a better location, or a nearby international airport with reasonably-priced and frequent air access, I don't see skier visits -- and therefore revenues -- increasing substantially under any scenario.

Eaglecrest? Taxpayer-funded -- it loses money every year as far as I know. Sima? Dunno if it makes money but I doubt it. Miller? I can't recall which but it was funded either by the Quebec government or the company that built the town, and now that the company has pulled out they're struggling to even keep residents in town, much less keep the ski hill viable. These are all examples of struggling enterprises as is Shames, and with Shames' access issues I don't see that the prodigious snowfall or admittedly killer-looking terrain is going to overcome that.

I will admit that your website is new to me, so I don't know the marketing demographics of the readers. I did a google search last night to see who was talking about Shames and saw you guys are. Thanks for having me, and please don't confuse my enthusiasm and stating my beliefs with arrogance. In return, I'll try and tone it down.

No need to -- you haven't turned it up.

First of all, welcome. I think that you'll find that our readers are a passionate and remarkably well-informed bunch on average. The level of discourse here also tends to be high on the signal-to-noise meter. While there are certainly some characters who hang around here, there's typically a level of respect amongst each other no matter the disagreement.

What I was trying to tell you was that by belittling a place like MRG that has a passionate following amongst many of the Eastern hardcore, you're likely to piss off that Eastern contingent representing 50% if not more of our readership that may view your comments negatively. Those passionate skiers are your co-op's target market. I can't imagine why you'd want to do that.

I don't need to ski there to know what my experience will be like.

Your comments say otherwise.

As I have stated numerous times, myself and my peers like big mtns, where we can get up to 5th gear, and stay there for awhile. Also, steep, technical rowdy lines are a favorite in my crowd. Since it is clear nothing on the east coast remotely resembles that, I am not interested.

Patrick, care to school your friend here? Or should I go get Ice? :stir:

For the record, I think High Rustler is the longest substained fall line at Alta, correct? Is that around 2,000 vertical, more or less?

Less. That's probably the longest sustained fall line amongst the in-bounds stuff only without any hiking involved. Sidecountry and of course backcountry's a different story. But remember, let's compare apples to apples here. Lift-served at Shames has a vertical drop of only 1,630 feet.

 

[Admin]

Your question:

Lastly, I am still not understanding why you feel connecting in Vancouver for a two hour flight is a logistical nightmare?

My answer:

just for giggles I just priced a flight from Salt Lake City for a week in February. The cheapest round-trip fare I could find is $1074 round trip and that requires an 18-hour outbound travel day! I'll admit that for a relatively insignificant $120 more I could get that down to 6h 50m with an annoying two plane changes, but you get my point. This isn't the kind of place that an out-of-town shareholder will be heading to every weekend, or even once a month. Maybe they'll get there once a year, but anyone with that kind of dough will spend it on a heli elsewhere in B.C.

From other places (and I also checked from surrounding airports in any city with multiple departure points):

LAX: $986 (9h 30m)
SFO: $939 (6h 25m)
SEA: $813 (5h 15m)
YVR (Vancouver): $588 (1h 55m non-stop)
DEN: $1026 (12h 10m)
JFK: $1101 (13h 15m)
YYZ (Toronto): $1290 (7h 50m)

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.

 

[soulskier]

I will admit that your website is new to me, so I don't know the marketing demographics of the readers. I did a google search last night to see who was talking about Shames and saw you guys are. Thanks for having me, and please don't confuse my enthusiasm and stating my beliefs with arrogance. In return, I'll try and tone it down.

No need to -- you haven't turned it up.

First of all, welcome. I think that you'll find that our readers are a passionate and remarkably well-informed bunch on average. The level of discourse here also tends to be high on the signal-to-noise meter. While there are certainly some characters who hang around here, there's typically a level of respect amongst each other no matter the disagreement.

Thank you. I am pleased to know we can agree to disagree without crossing the line and making personal attacks, like on one of the other message boards.

What I was trying to tell you was that by belittling a place like MRG that has a passionate following amongst many of the Eastern hardcore, you're likely to piss off that Eastern contingent representing 50% if not more of our readership that may view your comments negatively. Those passionate skiers are your co-op's target market. I can't imagine why you'd want to do that.

That is a very valid point. What I would hope to accomplish is for the east coast readers to have dreams about skiing deep powder while checking their investment.

 

[soulskier]

Less. That's probably the longest sustained fall line amongst the in-bounds stuff only without any hiking involved. Sidecountry and of course backcountry's a different story. But remember, let's compare apples to apples here. Lift-served at Shames has a vertical drop of only 1,630 feet.

That's where my mention of the fixer upper apartment building. One more strategically place chair would give Shames 2,600 vert. And the available terrain with the tenure offers 2-3,000 foot runs.

Alta won't be getting any taller, but Shames might be making access to it's terrain easier if that's the direction it's shareholders choose.

I am going to dinner now, thanks for the banter. Estamos en contacto.

 

[Admin]

That's where my mention of the fixer upper apartment building. One more strategically place chair would give Shames 2,600 vert. And the available terrain with the tenure offers 2-3,000 foot runs.

Yeah, but you need money to develop those lifts. Shareholder funding, should you manage to acquire enough of it, will fund the purchase price but not any increased infrastructure. You also need operating capital. For the reasons stated throughout this thread (read: access) I don't see any additional visitation that will fund it, either. Short of the current owners filing bankruptcy, which would add additional hurdles to a purchase as it would have to be approved by the bankruptcy court, I'm also at a loss to understand how any purchaser, co-op or otherwise, wouldn't have to acquire the current owners' debt, too. So basically this appears to me anyway to be a cash-strapped endeavor.

Alta won't be getting any taller, but Shames might be making access to it's terrain easier if that's the direction it's shareholders choose.

and if they can somehow come up with the money. Otherwise it's just a pipe dream.

I am going to dinner now

Enjoy!

Estamos en contacto

Thank God for Babelfish!

 

[Tony Crocker]

I'm curious where soulskier lives.

let's compare apples to apples here. Lift-served at Shames has a vertical drop of only 1,630 feet.

Also current inbounds is quoted here http://www.shamesmountain.com/maps.html as "141 acres of trails and 111 acres of natural glades." Smaller than MRG on all counts. Probably not any steeper inbounds either. Patrick?

Therefore it currently requires a major backcountry hiking effort, including salida fitness level, avy gear, and probably local guidance for

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...... As I have stated numerous times, myself and my peers like big mtns, where we can get up to 5th gear, and stay there for awhile. Also, steep, technical rowdy lines are a favorite in my crowd.

to be applicable. And you'll get just a couple of runs a day of it.

I'll take wet sloppy snow that sticks to everything over the best snow on earth any day of the week. Again, that's just me.

Given that Shames' world class terrain is all in uncontrolled backcountry, I'll agree with this 100% in terms of avalanche stability.

Fairly simple to summarize IMHO:
1) Patrick points out that there are other minimalist ski areas like this. True, but like MRG and Mt. Baldy they avoid taking on debt like the plague. If current ownership defaults on the debt, maybe new local ownership can run the place on a breakeven basis.
2) But now we know soulskier wants to add another 1,000 vertical lift service to access some of that world class terrain. How can that possibly be financed? Several thousand coop members at $500 a pop is a much more sensible plan than going into more debt. In addition to the coop members needed to pay the existing debt. Good luck finding that many people though.

 

[Admin]

I'll take wet sloppy snow that sticks to everything over the best snow on earth any day of the week. Again, that's just me.

Given that Shames' world class terrain is all in uncontrolled backcountry, I'll agree with this 100% in terms of avalanche stability.

Errr...let's get it right, that's The Greatest Snow On Earth®, thank you very much. :lol:

 

[Patrick]

Hoo-boy. :roll: I drive home from work for 15 minutes and I have a ton to respond to already.

Well, that hasn't happened since that Killington closing thread bitching season back in 2003, right?

Shames is losing money right now and will continue to do so whether or not a co-op or its current owner owns it. Something needs to change if the balance sheet goes from red to black.

Not to disagree with you, but do we know that it's currently losing money? Someone would have to go over the books.

Word-of-mouth from co-op members won't be sufficient to overcome the cost and access hurdles.

There might be some cost hurdles (ie. prices might be an issue and time travel).

Access: Terrace is closer to Shames than whatever airport you land to go to Revy or Kicking Horse, Tony? I'm not counting Fernie or Red, which is probably not closer either than Shames, as people can land in Castlegar or Cranbrook. People flight to go heliskiing at Last Frontier ...and that is really remote.

Other information needed: what are the day-visit. What is the proportion of local skiers versus traveling visitor. Where are they from? A small bumped in the out-of-towner might make a different is that ratio is very small. Shames is a best kept secret. It takes time to build a word for yourself, the ski area is turning 20. How long did American discover that BC was more than Whistler? Fernie was off radar for so long before US ski travelers discovered it. The news about Kicking Horse is fairly recent south of border (I know, they weren't reading this website), although it's been what? 10-12 years. How long until Revy shows up on radar?

I don't see skier visits -- and therefore revenues -- increasing substantially under any scenario.

Like I said above, it depends of what the numbers (revenues and visits are). I suspect the numbers to be on the low side where a slight bump might make a different.

Eaglecrest? Taxpayer-funded -- it loses money every year as far as I know. Sima? Dunno if it makes money but I doubt it..

Yes, but what is the market for those areas? Smaller than Shames then add all the advantages.

Miller? (...)much less keep the ski hill viable.

Mt Miller seems to be finding a certain niche and I believe they are plan to expand (if they didn't do it already). This place is remote also.

These are all examples of struggling enterprises as is Shames, and with Shames' access issues I don't see that the prodigious snowfall or admittedly killer-looking terrain is going to overcome that.

I pride myself on looking careful at every angle. Sure, this isn't a slam dunk, but word-of-mouth and publicity can help. Many people were naysayers when the idea of a Coop at MRG got started and going against all the conventional ski industry wisdom.

First of all, welcome. I think that you'll find that our readers are a passionate and remarkably well-informed bunch on average. The level of discourse here also tends to be high on the signal-to-noise meter. While there are certainly some characters who hang around here, there's typically a level of respect amongst each other no matter the disagreement..

Agree.

As I have stated numerous times, myself and my peers like big mtns, where we can get up to 5th gear, and stay there for awhile. Also, steep, technical rowdy lines are a favorite in my crowd. Since it is clear nothing on the east coast remotely resembles that, I am not interested.

Patrick, care to school your friend here? Or should I go get Ice? :stir:

Careful, if you open that can of worm, you never know what you'll get. I know he disagrees about soulskier statement, however he might said with us for 95% of the rest of the stuff.

I'm curious where soulskier lives.

let's compare apples to apples here. Lift-served at Shames has a vertical drop of only 1,630 feet.

Also current inbounds is quoted here http://www.shamesmountain.com/maps.html as "141 acres of trails and 111 acres of natural glades." Smaller than MRG on all counts. Probably not any steeper inbounds either. Patrick?

Purely inbound, you are correct on size. Steepness on the slackcountry and immediate backcountry would be similar. Shames is more open as long as you're above the base. Apparently Lucky got cliff out in tight woods lower on the mountain. But again, Apples or Oranges Tony. :-"

Therefore it currently requires a major backcountry hiking effort, including salida fitness level, avy gear, and probably local guidance for

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...... As I have stated numerous times, myself and my peers like big mtns, where we can get up to 5th gear, and stay there for awhile. Also, steep, technical rowdy lines are a favorite in my crowd.

to be applicable. And you'll get just a couple of runs a day of it.

Major backcountry hiking effort? No, not necessarily...only maybe for the steeper and longer wide open fall lines on the south facing stuff (or across the valley from the access road). Stuff off the immediate top lift is either ski into the Bowl is North or toward the trees is West and straight back to the lift.

Less. That's probably the longest sustained fall line amongst the in-bounds stuff only without any hiking involved. Sidecountry and of course backcountry's a different story. But remember, let's compare apples to apples here. Lift-served at Shames has a vertical drop of only 1,630 feet.

I just did a quick check on my logs. From the top of the Dome (1422m) to the base (679m) is 743 meters (2,500). This is the greatest easy vertical you can have, however you can also choose to ski across the Bowl to access higher terrain or on the backside of it for longer lines of ski the backcountry bowl. You can also ski lower than the base. The trek from the top of the T-bar to the top of the Dome (higher along a long ridge line) was 60 minutes someone like me that add never used treekers before. Lucky might have made it up in 40 minutes. I know he was freezing when I got up there.

Thanks as always for your input. I don't know what soulskier plans are? I know I have my own ideas, like on most stuff discussion around here. Lucky probably has his. I remember mentioning that it would be great to install a ropetow of the bottom of the valley to get people can want to ski lower, Lucky wasn't pretty much against anything lift related in the backcountry. Soulskier talks about a chair. Definitely some serious $$$. If I would had something, it would be simple. One of two ropetows.

Anyway I love the dynamic in this. Skiers trying to make it happen. Running a place like they see it. It's happening at MRG now, it would be great if it could happened elsewhere.

I'll ask Lucky or Pete when I get a chance to speak to them on the price they paid for their plane ticket: Montreal-Vancouver-Terrace.

 

[Admin]

Not to disagree with you, but do we know that it's currently losing money?

It it were making money it wouldn't be on the market for $1.5M.

Someone would have to go over the books.

To examine the debt load they're carrying, too.

Other information needed: what are the day-visit. What is the proportion of local skiers versus traveling visitor. Where are they from? A small bumped in the out-of-towner might make a different is that ratio is very small.

That's the first part of the aforementioned market research, establishing your baseline. Once you have the baseline you've described, you then need to determine what kind of market you can anticipate in a co-op scenario.

The news about Kicking Horse is fairly recent south of border (I know, they weren't reading this website), although it's been what? 10-12 years.

Only 9 years. I was invited to the unveiling in 2000 and the gondi went in for 2000-01:
http://www.firsttracksonline.com/News/2 ... ng-Horse!/

Eaglecrest? Taxpayer-funded -- it loses money every year as far as I know. Sima? Dunno if it makes money but I doubt it..

Yes, but what is the market for those areas? Smaller than Shames then add all the advantages.

However, none of those are depending on fly-in business to survive. This co-op idea pre-supposes that.

 

[Tony Crocker]

do we know that it's currently losing money? Someone would have to go over the books.

This question was answered in the original post reference.

Martin said money from season passholders and skiers come close to covering the operating costs, but is not sufficient to paying back some debt.

Only 9 years. I was invited to the unveiling in 2000 and the gondi went in for 2000-01:

My understanding when I was at Kicking Horse in 2002 was that was the first year of the gondi. But 2000-01 was the big drought year in B.C. and they would have had a lot of trouble opening in the configuration they had then.

Snowfall totals increase dramatically as one rises to the ridge, from 240 annual inches at the resort's base to a whopping 600 inches at the summit.

I presume admin is now older and wiser enough not to print a load of marketing like this without some fact checking. The figures now published on the Kicking Horse website are 100 inches at the base and 275 at the summit.

 

[Admin]

I presume admin is now older and wiser enough not to print a load of marketing like this without some fact checking. The figures now published on the Kicking Horse website are 100 inches at the base and 275 at the summit.

Hey, gimme a break...it was nearly a decade ago, and at the time there was no data to compare it to.

 

[Tony Crocker]

Hey, gimme a break...it was nearly a decade ago, and at the time there was no data to compare it to.

How about some common sense? How many ski areas in the world get 600 inches? One (Mt. Baker) to my knowledge. You've been around enough mountains to know that the leeward side of Rogers' Pass is going to get a lot less snow than the windward side. Also you can use your eyes when you're visiting. What do the base areas of 500-inch resorts look like in the middle of the winter? The Kicking Horse base looks a whole lot more like Park City's than Alta's.

Actually, a quiet edit of that piece to match the Kicking Horse website would be in order.

 

[soulskier]

Yeah, but you need money to develop those lifts. Shareholder funding, should you manage to acquire enough of it, will fund the purchase price but not any increased infrastructure. You also need operating capital. For the reasons stated throughout this thread (read: access) I don't see any additional visitation that will fund it, either. Short of the current owners filing bankruptcy, which would add additional hurdles to a purchase as it would have to be approved by the bankruptcy court, I'm also at a loss to understand how any purchaser, co-op or otherwise, wouldn't have to acquire the current owners' debt, too. So basically this appears to me anyway to be a cash-strapped endeavor.

The finances are an excellent point, so thank you for giving me the opportunity to respond.

I strongly believe we will raise a lot more than the US$1.3 Million asking price. In addition to the Terrace community of 20,000, there are an additionally 30,000 people within a day's drive to the area. We expect many locals to buy a share, if for no other reason, to have their voice heard and vote count, about their ski area and community. Furthermore, several Terrace folk have told me if a solid business plan is put in place, they will be buying more than 1 share. In addition, I can confirm the world ski community is watching and interested. I have a wingman in Sweden as well as Australia, both parts of the world that the citizens go "on holiday", ie travel to far and away places. I manage vacation rentals in Patagonia and we have had guests from 29 countries. Please do not underestimate the power of global outreach. Heck, my wife and I are 11,000 kms south of Shames Mtn and spearheaded this Co-op concept, that alone should be a testament to the power of the internet in the 21st century. (I will stop short of thanking Al Gore, don't worry)

Besides selling shares, another angle we will work is the corporate/company/product placement angle. For example, we could offer http://www.FirstTracksOnline.com and it's logo on the trail map in exchange for a flat fee. I am just giving a very hypothetical example, but we have already been contacted by some companies in the industry that love the idea.

Lastly, the Canadian government is very Co-op friendly. In fact, this week is Canadian Coop week. Here's a snippet of interest to this discussion.

Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Minister of National Revenue and Minister of State Agriculture, announced a new and enhanced Co-op development initiative (CDI) program that would invest $19.1 million in co-op development over the next four years.

With the 3 above components, assuming we put a solid business plan together, I don't see any reason why we can't raise 4-5 million. And with a share price around $500 (yet to be determined), it really isn't that much money to shell out. (We can discuss more in another part of this thread, but shareholders will get some discounts, possibly a tiered system based on the amount of shares purchased.)

The asking price wipes the slate clean, the owners recover their debt and the Co-op gets it's "apartment fixer-upper" that I eluded to earlier.

While the Co-op and appropriate teams will determine exact procedure, I propose that any and all revenue generated above operating costs be reinvested into the area for the first 3 years. Not only would this send the message to interested shareholders that this isn't a get rich scheme, but also show a firm commitment to the future viability of the resort.