Park City Mountain Resort Files Lawuit Againt Talisker

[Loinlover]

I am not sure how to feel.

Corporation A. is supposedly evil and they sure as hell are kind of evil charging $95/day for lift tickets

Corporation B charges just as much and wants to put in a ton of houses and lifts. Corporation B. bought the company that owned the land rights that leased those land rights to PCMR.



My thoughts are - Talisker probably asked for a 5-15% increase in $ and PCMR is all like fuck that?


I think it really is a case of the douche vs. turd

[Loinlover]

This whole drama was interesting enough to do a little research.

Short answer - a large set of unforeseen circumstances over more than 40 years seems to have put Powdr in a position where Talisker is about to legally gang-rape them. At the same time, this also looks like a simple contract stalemate not some sort of criminal act by Talisker or stupidity on Powdr's part.

A timeline
1963 United Park City Mines builds the original PCMR using federal money
1971 - UPCM transferred the resort, and leased the land to the resort for 20 years
1991 - Lease extended another 20 years
1994 Powdr buys PCMR, subject to the leases with UPCM
2003 - Talisker buys UPCM, including the leases with PCMR
2007 Talisker buys Canyons out of liquidations from American Ski Corp
2009-11 Talisker and Powdr negotiate to extend the leases for PCMR
3/12 - Powdr takes their case to the courts of justice and public opinion

Leases of property where lessee makes substantial improvements usually have a right of first refusal if the property goes up for sale.

My guess is that in 2003 Powdr, not being in the real estate biz, made an offer for just the PCMR land, but UPCM found Talisker's offer for the whole enchilada to be better overall. Especially if Talisker would take on the environmental liabilities.

Powdr likely figured everything was OK with Talisker owning the leases - they were only in the hotel and golf course business - until they bought Canyons. The Cummings' probably shit their Mountain Hardware pants at that point.

Would be interesting to see the leases to see if the extensions to 2031 (2051?) are at set amounts or "fair market rates". If the latter, Talisker is likely squeezing Powdr for every nickle they can get - I know I would. And that is what is probably driving the legal action.

The only way I see this as being a argument PCMR can win is if history shows that even with inflation the cost of the land rights only increased say 1% a year. But for some reason Talisker comes in and wants 15% increase year over year or something.

[quantman123]

There is too much misinformation going on:

1) Powdr Corp. screwed up in a very big way by not renewing the lease agreement. How stupid can they be?
2) Powdr Corp. is and is not "local" since Ian Cummings lives out of state. He is a billionaire. This this is a fight amongst heavyweights. It is not a "local" vs. outsider fight.
3) Talisker likely wants a lot more than $155,000 per year for the lease, which represents less than 1,600 skiers paying full price on a given day. Talisker currently pay $3 million per year for their lease. Talisker is not stupid and they now want a current market rate for the lease.
4) PCMR will not close, and if it does it will close out of stupidity. Powdr Corp. can afford to pay market rates for a lease if they have to. They run (I believe) eight other ski areas and figured out how to pay market rates for leases.
5) This is a landlord-tenant dispute and nothing more. The tenant has high-priced lawyers on staff that screwed-up by not renewing the lease in writing per the lease agreement. Therefore, the court will likely rule that there is no lease to renew. I believe the lawyer that screwed this up should be fired.
6) Delaying the inevitable will hurt PCMR more than the Canyons and Deer Valley (properties at both resorts will pick up the bookings), so I expect PCMR is doing this as a ploy.
7) Powdr Corp., after purchasing Killington, told the original investors their lifetime passes were no good based upon contractual law. Powdr Corp., like all landlords, would never allow anyone who missed the opportunity to extend a lease to get formerly beneficial terms. No way. They have lawyers on staff that understand the law and they will use it to their advantage just like Talisker is doing now.
8) Anyone thinking this is a battle of Evil Empires is wrong since both entities are big employers and create a lot of jobs in the area. This is, again, a landlord-tenant dispute. Like like the old TV show People's Court Judge Wopner (or Judge Judy or whomever) will tell the tenant, "You are a f&^%ing idiot for not following the terms of the lease. You didn't write a letter and send it to the landlord. You f&^%ed up big time and now you must pay a higher rent or vacate the property. So get your dumb asses into a room and work this out."

[TBS]

^^^And how do you know "Powdr Corp. screwed up in a very big way by not renewing the lease agreement."? Have you seen the lease? Is it renewable totally at lessee's option at old rates or is it "renewable on mutually agreeable terms".

You do know that PCMR served notice long before expiration of their intent to renew, right?

None of the other crap you put up here is any different from what others have posted earlier on this site. Way to enlighten us with first post dumbshit.

[Canada1]

I do not know the owners at PCMR. I do know alot of their leadership team. They live in my neighborhood and other working class neighborhoods.(Although it is debateable if working class applies to any ski resort properties). They really are nice folks. Taliskers execs live in the multi-million properties they sell when they come to town. You know, the vacant homes in every resort town that are full two to four weeks of the year. They allegedly treat their employees less favorably then some of the past owners. (I've only spoken with Canyon Employees and some of their Golf Course deevelopment teams) They work back room deals with politicians to get access to cut through and build on public lands without public input. They miss dead lines on a key lift, and while not opening the resort, open it for them and their kids while season pass holders are left sitting on their decks regretting partnering with them. (This was stopped when employees leaked it to the press and Talisker faced huge backlash.) They close and do a half ass job of reworking one of the top ten mountain bike trails in the state rather than do the work arounds that prior ownership used when they did projects on the mountain.

I recognize an out of towner might see this and think why are you backing one corporation over another. Business is Business and companys do what they need to. The thing is, PCMR hasn't done anything to make me mad in 12 years. Talisker has found a way to push my up tight buttons every year they've stepped into ski area management. They don't care about the town and PCMR seems to manage to make money without seeming to go out of their way to stick it to the public here. I don't know what their management teams have had to do to make a profit in other towns, but this management team in this town has done it right in my opinion. If this same conflict was taking place between Deer Valley and PCMR, I would remain silent. The potential outcome here is bad. If it were Deer valley, or Vail, or even American Ski Corp., I wouldn't care. I would just say another proven ski area manager is going to take over. Actions speak louder than words. Talisker has certainly spent money since they came to town. Every good resort operator does this. Talisker has played the game with the iron fist of a developer. That is okay if your building $100 million in homes and moving on. It is not how you work with a community to have a long term success.

Sorry for the lack of stoke. Just to much mis-information here from parties with direct interest in the success of Talisker.

[Long Duck Dong]

There is too much misinformation going on:

1) Powdr Corp. screwed up in a very big way by not renewing the lease agreement. How stupid can they be?

This is the whole dispute in the lawsuit. If this fact were were transparent either way, we wouldn't be here. Powdr claims that they renewed the lease agreement and that Talisker cashed the check. So, I could just as easily assume that the matter is resolved and how could Talisker be so stupid? But that would make me an idiot. See what I mean? Probably not.

[strawjack]

I do not know the owners at PCMR. I do know alot of their leadership team. They live in my neighborhood and other working class neighborhoods.(Although it is debateable if working class applies to any ski resort properties). They really are nice folks. Taliskers execs live in the multi-million properties they sell when they come to town. You know, the vacant homes in every resort town that are full two to four weeks of the year.

ya, you might want to speak with someone who knows about the owner of pcmr and what house is theirs in pc. when you do you'll prolly want to retract that statement...or not. ...the wife is very nice and i believe a former us ski teamer

[Hutch]

LDD, I haven't seen the lease and I don't know anything that's not public record, but if PCMR had sent a letter formally exercising their option to renew the lease that letter would have been Exhibit A to the Complaint, they wouldn't have needed to hire the retired Chief Justice of the Utah Supreme Court (Mike Zimmerman), and they wouldn't have had to make the equitable (i.e., non-contract-law-based) arguments they made in the Complaint.

[brutah]

ya, you might want to speak with someone who knows about the owner of pcmr and what house is theirs in pc. when you do you'll prolly want to retract that statement...or not. ...the wife is very nice and i believe a former us ski teamer

maybe he doesn't know the owner or what house is his in PC, but I DO know a bunch of people that have worked for PCMR for years like since the early 80s. There's a reason these employees still work for PCMR. the turnover at the canyons is like 1-3 years, even now after talisker has taken over. shit there is even a pretty high turnover at tuhaye and they're other properties around town. I worked at a restaurant at the canyons right when talisker took over, during the course of the season we went through 5 managers, FIVE in less than 4 months!!! That's pretty crazy, they were canning people with familes, that were well liked by their employees, it was a weird atmosphere to work in. I always enjoyed when the higher ups came in for dinner, got it comp'd and still left you a 15% tip. I think the high turnover rate compared to PCMR's employees loyalty speaks for itself.

[creaky fossil]

The comments in the paper are largely Pro Talisker.

Which means jack shit. You want to know whether people approve, you go personally interview skiers and snowboarders who use PCMR and the Canyons and other related ski areas in that part of Utah. What dorkomatics in the "newspapers" think is pretty well irrelevant since print media are overwhelmed by online media, and since there's no necessary correlation between newspaper commentary and the thoughts of those who use the ski areas that will be affected by Talisker's douchebaggery.

[Tye 1on]

LDD, I haven't seen the lease and I don't know anything that's not public record, but if PCMR had sent a letter formally exercising their option to renew the lease that letter would have been Exhibit A to the Complaint, they wouldn't have needed to hire the retired Chief Justice of the Utah Supreme Court (Mike Zimmerman), and they wouldn't have had to make the equitable (i.e., non-contract-law-based) arguments they made in the Complaint.

ruh row. Isn't trying to use non contract law arguments in a case that involves contracts kinda like trying to explain weighting the inside edge of the downhill ski to a snowboarder?

[Canada1]

Letting Talisker know that they have as many favors to call in and politicians in their pocket as Talisker. I believe they (PCMR)also have the court of public opinion in there corner. Talisker may have the stronger position in contract, which is really all that matters. But Talisker can also make people mad and cost themselves on the interconnect and create blow back on every future deal they do in the state. While locals on this site care alot about interconnect, most of the people in SLC probably won't loose sleep about one more chair or gondola in the Wasatch. But make people angry by making a politically unpopular move and every building you ask to put up for the next decade is now contested by parties who say "Remember what they did to Park City".

Talisker has alot at stake here, and didn't want this power play to come into the daylight of the public record.

It really is going to be interesting. I predict a mutually agreeable settlement in the next 90 days.

[quantman123]

Canada1,

Perceptions are sometimes reality, and sometimes perceptions become reality. Employees hated ASC at the end, and with Talisker being so "customer kiss-ass experience" oriented turnover happened quickly...perhaps too quickly. Either way the perceptions are going to be bad for both sides if it doesn't get settled quickly (you mentioned 90 days). Tourists and locals will perceive PCMR may not open, and book their vacations and conventions and seasons pass at DV or Canyons. Locals, particularly those who work for PCMR, will remain unfriendly (as in $) towards the Canyons. If the lease is valid (and from the complaint it may be), Talisker (private and family owned) will remember what happened in 40 years and own it all then. Either way, everyone loses.

I can't wait for discovery.

No matter how this turns out, someone at Powdr needs to be terminated over this. Zimmerman and his team charge what, $600 per hour or more? This should have never happened both strategicly (Talisker buying out the mining company) and tactically (Powdr seemingly not sending in notification to renew the lease). I'll bet old man Cummings, a billionaire, isn't losing sleep in Jackson Hole over this. I also imagine he personally flew into Park City to reem out his son!

So who loses short-term if this isn't settled? I would think that depends if PCMR gets an injunction to operate for 2012-2013? If not, everyone coming to PC simply skis at DV and the Canyons. Powdr would show less revenue (it won't bankrupt them) but local employees and business dependent upon PCMR get killed. Long term? A backlash against both side, with anyone connected to PCMR hating the Canyons. This is bad for everyone. Therefore, I agree with you and this gets settled within 90 days. My prediction of the outcome is easy, with Talisker getting more money for each lease payment and Powdr having business as usual. If I am wrong and both sides don't settle, and if Talisker legally prevails, I have to wonder if a lift will someday connect the two resorts?

[strawjack]

I believe they (PCMR)also have the court of public opinion in there corner. Talisker may have the stronger position in contract, which is really all that matters.

i would agree with that and i guess it's unfortunate. i have 3 good friends in pc for over 20yrs now and they hate talisker, but you are so correct in saying the contract is what matters. what a mess.

in other news, my bud who worked for alpine meadows says that they're a mess since the powdr sale to squaw. ahh...big business

[Canada1]

First, I'm way too tied to this thread.

A lift connecting the resorts only benefits Talisker. Have you ever heard of occupancy issues at PCMR? But rumors abound that all of the new development at the base of the canyons is 75 % occupied on busy weekends. The lift is a tie in to town, which is what the canyons never has had. They have substandard terrain, lesser snow quality, and poor location. Maybe the lift issue is the whole issue? Understand that all of these comments are from the perspective of the tourist. I know there is some good terrain there, but the comments you hear from tourists are 1.) Icy. 2.) Too many long traverses. 3.) Isolated.

[quantman123]

I skied both resorts this year (actually all three) and no, it isn't more icy at the Canyons than anywhere else (worst at DV actually this December), PCMR's Home Run isn't a WROD, and Deer Valley isn't just for the rich. A lift benefits both resorts because locals aren't going to make resorts that size the money they need to operate... tourists are. All three resorts need more tourist skier days. The real competition IMHO is not amongst the PC resorts, but with Colorado, Lake Tahoe, and to some extent Canada. Locals may want everything for themselves, but that isn't going to pay the bills. That is why this dispute over the lease is so stupid. The idea is to draw tourists throughout the year by offering them a better perceived experience than they will get elsewhere. Take out one of the three resorts and that perceived experience isn't as good.

If PCMR closes--and I think any threat of that is bogus--less tourists will come into the entire area. In the short run that helps Canyons and Deer Valley, but in the long run that hurts everyone. All three areas need each other more than the people on this board think.

PCMR needs to sell a bunch of passes for next season, and they won't be able to do so if the lawsuit drags on. That is why there will be a settlement well before next season. If they lose in court Powdr will just pay more for the lease and it will be business as usual.

[quantman123]

Best article yet from Skiing Business about the bruhaha: Attorney Sheds Light on PCMR, Talisker Lawsuit: http://skiingbusiness.com/12513/news...isker-lawsuit/ The article includes a great analysis of the arguments from David Cronheim, Esq.

Note: Cronheim claims the state legislature is " pushing a plan to link the seven Park City and Cottonwood Canyons resorts. Such an ambitious plan requires cooperation, not litigation.” That is the first I've heard of a 7 resort link-up. It will definately drive tourism but I am kinda shocked.

[Hutch]

Best article yet from Skiing Business about the bruhaha: Attorney Sheds Light on PCMR, Talisker Lawsuit: http://skiingbusiness.com/12513/news...isker-lawsuit/ The article includes a great analysis of the arguments from David Cronheim, Esq.

Note: Cronheim claims the state legislature is " pushing a plan to link the seven Park City and Cottonwood Canyons resorts. Such an ambitious plan requires cooperation, not litigation.” That is the first I've heard of a 7 resort link-up. It will definately drive tourism but I am kinda shocked.

Signed by Herbert on 3/16: http://le.utah.gov/~2012/bills/sbillint/scr010s01.pdf

Cronheim overstated it. There is no "plan."

Hate to say it, but I don't see PCMR continuing to exist in its current form (i.e., an independent resort paying rent to Talisker as opposed to a member of a JV or shareholder of an operating company with Talisker). This isn't just a rent negotiation, Talisker doesn't give a fuck what Canada1 (or anyone else) thinks.

[AdironRider]

Best article yet from Skiing Business about the bruhaha: Attorney Sheds Light on PCMR, Talisker Lawsuit: http://skiingbusiness.com/12513/news...isker-lawsuit/ The article includes a great analysis of the arguments from David Cronheim, Esq.

Note: Cronheim claims the state legislature is " pushing a plan to link the seven Park City and Cottonwood Canyons resorts. Such an ambitious plan requires cooperation, not litigation.” That is the first I've heard of a 7 resort link-up. It will definately drive tourism but I am kinda shocked.

The picture of Cronheim is hilarious. Its like the lawyer version of Doogie Howser .. ESQUIRE. The kid is clearly pretty amped hes a lawyer.

[bigdude2468]

The picture of Cronheim is hilarious. Its like the lawyer version of Doogie Howser .. ESQUIRE. The kid is clearly pretty amped hes a lawyer.

Do we know or was anyone aware of the seven resort interconnect plan being seriously looked at or is it just someone's idea? Seems strange it pops up here and nothing has been said previously. Would it not make more sense to start with a PC resorts only or Solitude / Brighton when they are right next to each other? For Soli and Brighton to do so would be easy yet they have never done it. The Alta / Bird IMHO is only somewhat successful, I do not see very many people ever accessing the gate at Baldy and I have never figured out why a tourist would pay the extra money to be able to ski both on the same day. Pass holders a different story but the premium is a hurdle. Unless you can significantly increase the total traffic I don't see how the resorts make out. If I want to ski the four CW resorts in a day what do you charge me? You can't charge me $60 for each - $240 so lets say the all CW access pass is $120, each resorts get $30? that don't work unless you can more than double the number of skiers. If you have 120 skiers that buy a pass for an average of $65 and they ski all four resorts equally, that is 30 skiers at each, $1950 in revenue. Using my $120 example you need 260 skiers buying the CW pass for each resort to get the same $1950 in revenue. Now if they are talking about creating a way to access the other resorts only and not ski multiple resorts on the same day perhaps it works better. The CW areas I think make out because they get the PC skiers who don't want to drive. The PC areas get screwed as the four CW resorts do not have nearly the numbers of accommodations that PC has.

[brutah]

Do we know or was anyone aware of the seven resort interconnect plan being seriously looked at or is it just someone's idea? Seems strange it pops up here and nothing has been said previously. Would it not make more sense to start with a PC resorts only or Solitude / Brighton when they are right next to each other? For Soli and Brighton to do so would be easy yet they have never done it.

Not so good at reading, eh???

Ski Utah has been pushing to connect all 7 of the central wasatch resorts FOREVER!

it's been discussed. shoot, the utah legislation just passed a bill encouraging the ski resorts to connect

Signed by Herbert on 3/16: http://le.utah.gov/~2012/bills/sbillint/scr010s01.pdf

The primary obstacle has always been resorts not wanting to play nice with each other, i.e., Talisker suing PCMR, PCMR having some problem with Brighton, Alta not wanting to allow snowboarders (and being in the position to block snowboarders to get to/from the other five resorts to snowbird, not an issue with Deer Valley as their resort is on the fringe and wouldn't be able to block access to the rest), the Osgothropes owning the land between PCMR and the Canyons aka Monitor Bowl and running a successful operation there, etc.

oh, and there is already a solbright pass that is sold at both brighton and solitude, allowing access to both with a single day pass

also, these resorts are already more or less interconnected. its not hard to travel between all of them in a single day without even riding a single chairlift.

but let's keep it on the subject of this thread.

[creaky fossil]

The article includes a great analysis of the arguments from David Cronheim, Esq.

"great analysis"? or merely a junior attorney's junior-level analysis?

drop the qualifier "great" and your comment makes a lot more sense.

easy for a junior lawyer to impress a legal layman... what, with those legal phrases and polysyllabic puffery, it must be a "great analysis" huh?

a "great analysis" would be simple to read and would cover every angle, and would skip the Alfred E Neumann profile picture.

good to keep in mind that 20-something new lawyers don't have much (if any) relevant life experience of the type that makes for GREAT legal analysis.


hi 5 bro!

[bigdude2468]

First off quit being a smart ass I have been on this thread early so I HAVE been reading. The plan to do the inter-connect is the Canyons on their own to Soli, period nothing more. Sure it could develop into something more but we all know the connection is just to favor THE Canyons real estate operation. Great, Ski Utah has been in favor of it, as you said they have been in favor of it for years, so nothing new here. The Utah Legislature can pass anything they want but that does not do a thing. The Congressional delegation behind it could make a difference.

As far as you can already ski the resorts in a day that is correct but most tourists are not interested in hiking even a little so there is no current inter connect via the BC. To be effective you need to allow a skiers from PC to ride over, ski the day and ride back. Last I checked I doubt you are going to get many skiers going to Soli and then skiing to Brighton to access Alta with a boot pack.

I am totally opposed but at some point Utah may have to do something to compete with things like the Epic Pass for $700 with unlimited access to the summit county resorts.

[itsnowjoke]

Do we know or was anyone aware of the seven resort interconnect plan being seriously looked at or is it just someone's idea? Seems strange it pops up here and nothing has been said previously. Would it not make more sense to start with a PC resorts only or Solitude / Brighton when they are right next to each other? For Soli and Brighton to do so would be easy yet they have never done it. The Alta / Bird IMHO is only somewhat successful, I do not see very many people ever accessing the gate at Baldy and I have never figured out why a tourist would pay the extra money to be able to ski both on the same day. Pass holders a different story but the premium is a hurdle. Unless you can significantly increase the total traffic I don't see how the resorts make out. If I want to ski the four CW resorts in a day what do you charge me? You can't charge me $60 for each - $240 so lets say the all CW access pass is $120, each resorts get $30? that don't work unless you can more than double the number of skiers. If you have 120 skiers that buy a pass for an average of $65 and they ski all four resorts equally, that is 30 skiers at each, $1950 in revenue. Using my $120 example you need 260 skiers buying the CW pass for each resort to get the same $1950 in revenue. Now if they are talking about creating a way to access the other resorts only and not ski multiple resorts on the same day perhaps it works better. The CW areas I think make out because they get the PC skiers who don't want to drive. The PC areas get screwed as the four CW resorts do not have nearly the numbers of accommodations that PC has.

I'm extremely aware of THE PLAN. As has been previously discussed, this has been studied by the State of Utah, Salt Lake County, and Salt Lake City for over 30 years. It is going to happen very, very soon. The planets are aligning.

The revenue models that you point out are interesting, hypothetical models could be talked about at length. Particularly interesting and enticing is the fact that several ski areas will get a piece of the pie regardless of whether the skier actually makes it onto their lifts on a given day. Speaking of pie, given a European model, tourist skiers tend to gravitate to wherever the best food can be found.

As far a terrain is concerned, LCC, BCC, and the backside have their own unique personalities, I can see the potential for much daily migration.

Utah Rep. Jim Matheson is rumored to have recently re-introduced wilderness designation legislation. It would designate areas such as Lone Peak, Pfeifferhorn, Twin Peaks, etc., as Wilderness Areas, which I think would be highly appropriate. I suspect Sklilink will be left out, so again, every Wasatch user gets a piece of the pie they desire.

Interestingly, the Skilink is the current kingpin in the Wasatch Interconnect formula: It is a challenge to obtain the Forest Service land on which it is to be built. Other ski resorts won't face the same challenge, as they will be connected by lifts built on private property.

[brutah]

Utah Rep. Jim Matheson is rumored to have recently re-introduced wilderness designation legislation. It would designate areas such as Lone Peak, Pfeifferhorn, Twin Peaks, etc., as Wilderness Areas, which I think would be highly appropriate. I suspect Sklilink will be left out, so again, every Wasatch user gets a piece of the pie they desire.

hey dumbass,

lone peak, the pfeiff and broads fork twin peaks are already in wilderness areas and have been long before you graced this state. american fork twin peaks, the ones that sit within snowbirds boundaries are not in wilderness areas and are not included in the bill for potential designation. then again you probably didn't know there were multiple peaks called "twin peaks" in the wasatch range. maybe you should read up on your facts instead of believing what you want and posting misinformation on facebook and this site.

SkiLink isn't the kingpin in the Wasatch interconnect formula, its so that shitty ass resort you ski, the canyawns, stays relevant when the interconnect happens. Maybe it will go away if Talisker strong arms itself into position to buy PCMR, since Talisker owns the land on Guardsman's to connect PCMR to brighton.