Shames Mtn Coop in Terrace BC

[Tony Crocker]

I was going to mention the SKIING magazine article too. Personally, I thought Shames had a better shot than Magic.

http://www.bclocalnews.com/breaking_news/70653262.html

I hope our friend soulskier has as many locals on board with his plan as he thinks. It can't be good if this degenerates into a locals vs. outsiders struggle.

 

[Patrick]

Do you have a link?

Here are a few links...

I think Soulskier and the rest of the people behind the Coop are going a great job so far. Here is the local (mostly) press is saying. If you read the comments from a few of the stories, you see that suppose for the Coop isn't limited to soulskier and a few friends.

Terrace Daily
CLARITY REQUIRED BETWEEN FRIENDS
Merv Ritchie
http://www.terracedaily.ca/show5072a/CL ... EN_FRIENDS

Terrace Standard
Two groups vie for Shames Mountain future
By Kat Lee
http://www.bclocalnews.com/bc_north/ter ... 53262.html

Vue Weekly, Edmonton, Alberta
Global uprising
Concept for Shames Mountain could trigger industry transformation
Jeremy Derksen
http://vueweekly.com/article.php?id=13606

Terrace Daily
SHAMES MOUNTAIN CO-OP PLAN MAKES HUGE STRIDE FORWARD
Merv Ritchie
http://www.terracedaily.ca/show5066a/SH ... E_FORWARD_

 

[Mike Bernstein]

Reading some of the other articles by this Merv Ritchie individual, one doesn't exactly get the feeling that his is a voice worth listening to.

Regardless, the notion that a Co-op is the only way to go without having done any research on the matter, is something of an indictment on SMC. We'll see how this plays out, but having read all of the pie-in-the-sky predictions used by soulskier here and elsewhere, it didn't exactly inspire confidence in his leadership of this venture. Regardless, if this turns into an outsiders vs. locals pissing match, they're all doomed to failure.

 

[Patrick]

Regardless, the notion that a Co-op is the only way to go without having done any research on the matter, is something of an indictment on SMC. We'll see how this plays out, but having read all of the pie-in-the-sky predictions used by soulskier here and elsewhere, it didn't exactly inspire confidence in his leadership of this venture. Regardless, if this turns into an outsiders vs. locals pissing match, they're all doomed to failure.

I might have a different spin on it, I've been to Shames...I'd noticed that place a few years prior to making the trip. Impressed right away once I skied it on the first day. Tony knows how I can be critical sometimes about some areas, but I believe this place can definitely viable as a Co-op or whatever form it takes. Soulskier is only one of many and he might be guilty of seeing thinks through rose-tainted glasses sometimes, but regardless, that besides the point in my books.

I believe that the Coop in Shames has better odds of working than the Magic Coop and Jumbo Resort. :-o

 

[Mike Bernstein]

Regardless, the notion that a Co-op is the only way to go without having done any research on the matter, is something of an indictment on SMC. We'll see how this plays out, but having read all of the pie-in-the-sky predictions used by soulskier here and elsewhere, it didn't exactly inspire confidence in his leadership of this venture. Regardless, if this turns into an outsiders vs. locals pissing match, they're all doomed to failure.

I might have a different spin on it, I've been to Shames...I'd noticed that place a few years prior to making the trip. Impressed right away once I skied it on the first day. Tony knows how I can be critical sometimes about some areas, but I believe this place can definitely viable as a Co-op or whatever form it takes. Soulskier is only one of many and he might be guilty of seeing thinks through rose-tainted glasses sometimes, but regardless, that besides the point in my books.

I believe that the Coop in Shames has better odds of working than the Magic Coop and Jumbo Resort. :-o

I'm not saying that a Co-op can or cannot work - I have no idea. But then again, neither has a guy from Argentina who has never skied Shames a day in his life. The first precept of any business plan is to start by answering the big questions and then drill down to the details. There is so much "cart before the horse-ism" from the SMC crowd that you have to call into question their credibility and business acumen. Can Shames be successful? With that kind of terrain and snow quality, and a growing segment of the market looking for what it has to offer, there is certainly a chance. But it's going to take some hard-nosed thinking and strategizing to make sure it's done right instead of half-assed - a recipe for failure in anything you do.

 

[Marc_C]

There is so much "cart before the horse-ism" from the SMC crowd that you have to call into question their credibility and business acumen.

That's been my take on it as well. I reread some of the earlier parts of the thread and noted that soulskier only now is working on putting together a business plan. Shouldn't that have been done before deciding that a co-op was the best alternative?

 

[jamesdeluxe]

I like soul skier's enthusiasm, and that's a valuable asset for a project like this (regardless if it becomes a co-op or not)... but he should be on the marketing end of things and leave the number-crunching to other people.

 

[Patrick]

I like soul skier's enthusiasm, and that's a valuable asset for a project like this (regardless if it becomes a co-op or not)... but he should be on the marketing end of things and leave the number-crunching to other people.

Not comparing soul with pioneer but...you have to start somewhere. That what he's going. Did people question Dave McCoy's number-crunching abilities?

 

[jamesdeluxe]

Who knows, maybe SS will become the Dave McCoy or Ernie Blake of Terrace -- pursuing a vision and ignoring conventional wisdom. Check out McCoy's original business plan:
http://www.inc.com/magazine/20081201/ho ... ntain.html

Just saying that it'd be smart to delegate the number-crunching to other people, and let him be the "I have a dream" guy.

 

[Marc_C]

Did people question Dave McCoy's number-crunching abilities?

At the time, when things were radically different, no. Now, where he'd have to line up enough investors for the XX millions he'd need? You damn well bet they would. He'd never be able to do now what he did then.

 

[Patrick]

Now, where he'd have to line up enough investors for the XX millions he'd need?

Does million take an 's' when if only 1.5? Canadian?

You damn well bet they would. He'd never be able to do now what he did then.

Just saying that it'd be smart to delegate the number-crunching to other people, and let him be the "I have a dream" guy.

One step at a time. Let it known and present your case...brainstorming openly on the ski online community...seeing if they is some interest on the idea. Personally, I would do it the same way if I didn't know if their was any interest? That would be the first step. Business plan and common interest and the rest can be workout as a group. Without a group, the Coop isn't going to flight. I'm sure that soul doesn't have the money to do it alone. They you don't produce a business plan on your own. If you're seeking partners in the Coop, you come up with ideas as a group.

That's been my take on it as well. I reread some of the earlier parts of the thread and noted that soulskier only now is working on putting together a business plan. Shouldn't that have been done before deciding that a co-op was the best alternative?

As I just metioned above. First you need to find out if there is any interest in this. Why a Coop? I presume that soul isn't an extremely rich man financially, 1.5(?) is a hell of a lot of money. He's seeking people with a common interest, willing to put some cash down. Similar to what happened at MRG, no individual could buy the place, they had to come together to raise enough money. Shames has been looking for a buying for a number of years, many people would be interest in getting involved, however ski lovers generally don't have a ton of cash lying around. For these people to do something about it, they need to get involved and pool their ressources.

 

[Tony Crocker]

Did people question Dave McCoy's number-crunching abilities?

Perhaps Dave McCoy knew better than the naysayers of the day not only the potential of his mountain but the population base that would support it.

Nonetheless reading Patrick's references makes me more rather than less supportive of Soulskier. The local population has had several years to come up with a buyer and has failed to do so. If Soulskier's marketing drive generates enough international support to retire the debt and keep the place afloat, more power to him.

The I threw at him are in some measure just the way I'm wired. I'm instinctively suspicious of marketing types, always on the lookout for the . His style of pitch turned me off, but maybe it's helpful in generating more widespread support. Successful entrepreneurs are are nearly always wildly enthusiastic about the their product. One of the articles described background of Soulskier and his wife; perhaps they have at least some of the expertise needed to follow through.

 

[Marc_C]

Now, where he'd have to line up enough investors for the XX millions he'd need?

Does million take an 's' when if only 1.5? Canadian?

Reread, please. That was referring to Dave McCoy and Mammoth and McCoy's number crunching and business plan then vs trying to do the same now, not SMC.

 

[soulskier]

Hello all,

I felt like this was a good time to check in. There are several great points and observations made, I would like to respond to some of them.

Somewhat predictably, this has now turned into a full on junk show. Apparently there has been a schism in the movement to buy Shames, with a new group called Friends of Shames splitting off from soulskier's Shames Mtn Co-op. From what I can see on the outside, I'd much rather toss my lot in with FoS, as their first order of business is to determine the appropriate/optimal entity to make the purchase (co-op vs. non-profit for for-profit corp vs. other) before moving on to resolve the next series of issues. SMC appears to be focused solely on the Co-op route without having done sufficient research and features a bit more pie-in-the-sky rhetoric about the "global skiing collective" than I could get comfortable with.

My wife and I have been discussing this global ski co-op concept for many years. (She has been connected to the ski industry since age 12 and me at age 18.) This isn't something we made up overnight. Furthermore, before we even contacted any locals, set up the Facebook Fan Page or built the website and message board, we did a lot of research on Co-ops, specifically in Canada and learned they are very pro Co-op development. We are now in daily contact with the http://bcca.coop/. We have retained a Co-op Coordinator from http://devco.coop/. They have both been proofreading our website content before we have been posting it.

As far as why we believe the Co-op model is the best, many case studies support the model in these economic times. Here's a good one. http://zunia.org/post/resilience-of-the ... isis-2009/

The local community hasn't been able to support the area for 19 seasons, it's time to try something different. Besides, I don't think setting up a business model around hoping to get government money, aka non profit society, is the play in 2010.

I don't mean to offend anyone, but we didn't do all this work and I didn't fly across the world to discuss other options. The ski hill has been for sale for several years. I think that FOS had sufficient time to research various models. I believe to start a committee once a co-op movement has begun is reactive, not proactive.

I'm not saying that a Co-op can or cannot work - I have no idea. But then again, neither has a guy from Argentina who has never skied Shames a day in his life. The first precept of any business plan is to start by answering the big questions and then drill down to the details. There is so much "cart before the horse-ism" from the SMC crowd that you have to call into question their credibility and business acumen. Can Shames be successful? With that kind of terrain and snow quality, and a growing segment of the market looking for what it has to offer, there is certainly a chance. But it's going to take some hard-nosed thinking and strategizing to make sure it's done right instead of half-assed - a recipe for failure in anything you do

.

Again, I don't really think we are being half-ass. Please remember, we first floated the idea to confirm their was a global interest. Now that it has been confirmed, we are moving on to the next steps.

We do have a business plan and strategy. However, now it is time to collaborate with the other founding directors, incorporate and write the bylaws. Within 90 days there are elections for directors. Additionally, SMC will be utilizing any interested shareholders and their expertise to help make the plan as solid as possible. That's where the "pie-in-the-ski" global intelligence comes in. Then we will be assisted by our Co-op coordinator to draft the final business plan.

A ski area is a ski area, I don't think it is too important I haven't skied there yet. Nothing Shames faces hasn't already been occured somewhere. Also, the strength of a Co-op is working in collaboration. The locals know what is going on with their ski area. SMC is going to work together for the best interest of the community, environment and skiers/guests.

I like soul skier's enthusiasm, and that's a valuable asset for a project like this (regardless if it becomes a co-op or not)... but he should be on the marketing end of things and leave the number-crunching to other people.

Totally agreed. Everyone bring their strengths to the table for the good of the cause. I spoke to a prominent ski industry "guy" recently, who already said he will help with that aspect, I am sure there will be others. (BTW I was a Hotel Auditor for 7 years. But I totally agree, my better contribution is to continue with global outreach than number crunching.)

Did people question Dave McCoy's number-crunching abilities?

Perhaps Dave McCoy knew better than the naysayers of the day not only the potential of his mountain but the population base that would support it.

Nonetheless reading Patrick's references makes me more rather than less supportive of Soulskier. The local population has had several years to come up with a buyer and has failed to do so. If Soulskier's marketing drive generates enough international support to retire the debt and keep the place afloat, more power to him.

The I threw at him are in some measure just the way I'm wired. I'm instinctively suspicious of marketing types, always on the lookout for the . His style of pitch turned me off, but maybe it's helpful in generating more widespread support. Successful entrepreneurs are are nearly always wildly enthusiastic about the their product. One of the articles described background of Soulskier and his wife; perhaps they have at least some of the expertise needed to follow through.

Thanks Tony. That is easily the nicest thing someone has posted about me in some time.

On that note, I am not responding on the TGR board as I don't believe it is at all productive. And that is the reason I deleted this first thread. It was filled with negativity, and at times hatred.

We are encouraging anyone that wants to become involved, to visit the SMC website and engage on the message board. We are reviewing candidates in the local community to become founding directors. The criteria can be downloaded from the message board. The next step will be to incorporate the Co-op.

As far as SMC and FOS, I would like to think we will be able to work together for the long term substainable future of Shames Mountain.

Thanks for allowing me to respond.

 

[soulskier]

I decided to post on TGR the reasons why a For Profit Co-op is the better model than a Not For Profit Co-op. I wanted to post it here as well.

I have chosen to stay on the sidelines, but think this might be a good spot to chime on about the two types of Co-op models being discussed. This is taken from the message board of the SMC site. http://smcmb.com/

The major difference between a Co-Op For Profit and Co-op Non Profit is that the For Profit Co-op sells actual investment shares versus the Non Profit sells memberships.

In a Non Profit Co-Op, only member shares (memberships) are sold. Member shares are usually not a Non Profit Co-Op's only source of capital. A Non Profit Co-Op often needs to borrow additional money, or rely on donations and/or grants.

SMC selected the For Profit Co-Op based on the following reasons:

-A tangible investment for local and global communities instead of a membership.

-Both types of Co-Ops are eligible for grants, such as the Innovative Co-Op Project (ICP)

-To be able to partner with for profit companies that share the same vision as SMC.

-To be able to support and partner with non-profit organizations.

-To be able to exchange investment shares for sweat equity and intellectual property, which will reduce overhead.

-It allows the ski hill to be a stand alone enterprise, not needing to rely on government or charitable funds.

-It helps ensure the ski hill remains affordable, as well as a long term community asset, as any profits can be directed to wherever the members want to place it, just as in a Non-Profit Co-op.

-A for profit Co-Op has a much stronger capacity to raise capital than a Non-Profit Co-op. (We estimate needing $3-5 million dollars to make this project work.)

In addition, the global co-op for profit model is a means of extensive free marketing to the worldwide ski community, leading to more skier visits and increased revenue for Shames Mountain and the surrounding committee.

Based on the last 19 seasons, it is clear that Shames Mountain needs additional (non local) skier visits and exposure to be profitable. This will be much easier attainable by selling investment shares globally rather than memberships locally.

Even though SMC will be a For Profit Co-Op, business decisions will be made based on what is best for the community, environment and guests of Shames Mountain.

Said another way, SMC is a values-based business and won't be making decisions based on trying to turn a quick profit. We believe that the final product, ie a cool place to ski and assisting the community, will lead to eventually profits due to a high level of customer satisfaction. (See Ben and Jerrys Double Dip, http://books.simonandschuster.com/Ben-J ... 0684838557, for more info on this business concept)

 

[soulskier]

Here's a blog post my better half wrote about ski area Co-Ops. http://eraofcollaboration.wordpress.com ... -ski-area/

 

[Admin]

From the Shames Mountain Co-op page on Facebook:

(Dated Jan. 23, 2010)

For the time being, the Shames Mountain Co-Op is on hold. SMC does not want to compete with a community controlled ...non profit organization, which is the business model selected by the Friends of Shames.

However, we are actively reviewing other locations to apply a values-based, environmentally-friendly, rider owned and operated ski area.

From http://www.friendsofshames.ca :

So far the FoS has accomplished the following:

• gathered and shared information with the communities of Terrace, Kitimat, and Prince Rupert;
• hosted Town Hall meetings in both Terrace and Prince Rupert to hear from the communities and share what the FoS is doing;
• set up a website, Facebook page, and contact email address to share information;
• researched other ski areas, societies, charities, and co-operatives with similarities to Shames;
• connected with the current ownership of Shames Mountain to ensure alignment of intent;
• extensively reviewed business model options including Non-Profit (Society), Co-operative, and Charity business structures;
• consulted with lawyers and consultants who specialize in non-profit and alternative business structures;
• determined the Community Service Co-operative model as the best legal structure from which to build a business plan;
• commenced the business planning process.

 

[jamesdeluxe]

I'm curious to know if Soul Skier attributes the hostile reaction from some Terrace-ites to the Global Co-Op idea itself or that it was being championed by a non-local.

 

[Tony Crocker]

I'm curious to know if Soul Skier attributes the hostile reaction from some Terrace-ites to the Global Co-Op idea itself or that it was being championed by a non-local.

I would guess mostly the latter. But if he lit a fire under the locals that will result in keeping the area going, it's good by me.

 

[soulskier]

I'm curious to know if Soul Skier attributes the hostile reaction from some Terrace-ites to the Global Co-Op idea itself or that it was being championed by a non-local.

Great question. I would attribute it to not being Canadian and also that it wasn't one of their ideas.

Tony, I agree, if they got a fire lit under their arse and something positive comes out of it, then it was worth it for Shames.

Additionally, we have been shown the ski community is ready for a refreshing change to the industry. We think we may have found a couple great spots to create a values based, eco friendly, skier owned and operated ski area. More on that later!