Thread: Park City Mountain Resort Files Lawuit Againt Talisker

Originally Posted by smuggs

why would anyone be against park city? aren't we all against the canyons / taliskier ?

I do not know anything about the issues involved and I am not against Park City for their specific reasons they find in their lawsuit with Taliski - All the power to them and may a judge determine the outcome.

But they (Park City) are DOUCHES for making this a local versus CANADA issue, as I think the wording clearly indicates.

Originally Posted by Garbanzo

I do not know anything about the issues involved and I am not against Park City for their specific reasons they find in their lawsuit with Taliski - All the power to them and may a judge determine the outcome.

But they (Park City) are DOUCHES for making this a local versus CANADA issue, as I think the wording clearly indicates.

It's just a local versus outsiders issue, any time a company comes in from outside and possibly threatens locals' jobs/recreation/backyard, they will use that talking point. Nothing specifically against Canada. If Talisker was owned by Iranian mullahs, or worse yet, Californians, the press release would have said "Iranian company blah blah blah" or "California company ..."

Now Canadian mining companies, they are just downright evil. (WTF is it with them? But I don't want to divert from this Talisker vs PCMR thread.)

Originally Posted by robgoose

talisker's end game is clear -- connect the canyons to both pcmr and big cottonwood (with a park city/can/soli lift ticket) and suddenly the Canyons becomes a viable and desirable place to stay. it's all about leverage

You're only 1/2 right. Talisker wants to sell real estate. Their true profit plan will be a short-term 3-5 year deal selling houses. Ski Connect is merely a marketing component of that plan. The underlying ski infrastructure may or may not make money in the long term but I doubt that will be Talisker's problem down the road.

Interesting to read Talisker's rebutal:

"We had hoped to reach terms on the new lease that would be fair to both parties. Unfortunately it appears that PCMR is attempting to use litigation to better its position, and avoid reaching a mutually fair outcome. At no time in these negotiations has Talisker contemplated or threatened to close Park City Mountain. We believed the negotiations were continuing and we are disappointed by PCMR’s action today."

What exactly did Talisker buy and why did they buy something that was under PC assets other than to put the screws to them? Also, if this proceeds I have to think it could have a chilling effect on getting any local support for the Skilink? Even the Utah congressional delegation might take a different stance on it. Can you imagine PCMR not running next year and Talisker asking for special treatment, I doubt he gets it.

There is a decent article -and replies- regarding this issue on today's sltrib.com.

Talisker bought the United Park City Mining Company lands roughly 10 years ago. These lands include large areas of Park City Mountain Resort AND Deer Valley.

Park City appears two have blown it in three major areas. These wounds appear to be self-inflicted, no reason to blame Talisker.

1). I assume that Pack City had the opportunity to buy the land they sit on, but didn't.

2). They appear to not have renewed the lease on the land.

3). They sued the landlord.

If Talisker were truly the bully, they would have filed suit first, to get PC evicted. That is not the case. Park City sued in a desperate effort to recover from a serious business blunder. As I've said before, they appear to be the agressor. I have no sympathy. And as someone said on the sltrib page, this is like watching the rich eat the rich!

Park City's threat to shut the hill down is pathetic. It's a cheap business ploy to induce panic, we've seen it hundreds of times before. Ain't gonna happen.

Interestingly, Talisker only owns a large area at the BASE of Canyons. They know the renter game all too well, I believe they pay rent to 14 (or so) different entities which own the whole of what makes up Canyons resort. I hope they don't forget to renew the leases!

Skilink may not need any public support at all. If it goes in over at Park City, then it's all private property. Opponents of the link have been asking for such an alignment all along. When this all washes out, I see PC and Canyons being connected, as well as a link to Solitude or Brighton. It could happen very quickly, now that PC is desperately backed into a corner of it's own making.

Cheers,

Itsnowjoke

I spent the weekend training and had lots of time to reflect on this. If I were advising PCMR I wouls not force the issue this way unless I had no case, or I was very confident it would fall my way quickly. I'm hoping it is the latter and not the former. The comments in the paper are largely Pro Talisker. Once again showing that I am on a different tangent then the populace. Of course this could also be that grumpy old men that post in the paper are libertarian in their views, or that Talisker has employees posting. PCMR sold the land. I don't think they would have done this unless they had iron clad assurances that they would have the lease. If they did this and didn't cement the lease to writting, then they dug their bed. If this is just an overly agressive land developer that got overconfident in their play after they found out the could buy Utah politicians, then this thing will settle very quickly. If not, it could get really ugly. I've picked my side. I believe Talisker wants to develop land first and the skiing is secondary. PCMR has done a goog job runnning a ski area. They are not perfect, but based on their track record, I trust them more than Talisker.

As far as the anti Canada theme of Jenny's letters and email blasts. I don't think anyone hates, or even dislikes Canada. We have one company that has their headquarters on main street. We have another that is based elsewhere, that many believe is here for the short term before they sell out and move on to the next resort community. As stated before, if they were from NY or Cali, public sentiment would be greater against them.

Time to watch it all play out.

Originally Posted by Canada1

As stated before, if they were from NY or Cali, public sentiment would be greater against them.

isn't the current owner or one of the owners of pcmr from cali? my understanding is that they also own a vineyard there. but, it really doesn't matter does it? it's a global economy and some corporations are assholes and others not so much.

i cannot imagine pc closing for a season or any period of time. that would be insane.

Oh to be a fly on the wall of those meetings. Good news for the lawyers though. Most likely things will get settled sometime around mid to late November 2012.

Originally Posted by Canada1

PCMR sold the land.

No, they didn't.

Rephrase, to had the opportunity to buy. Sorry, I understand that is very different. I'm making a guess on that point as well. Maybe US mines had a grudge that would have prohibited PCMR andPowder from buying. Maybe it was an insiders deal? Like most land deals, I would think it just went to the highest bidder? Reality is that I never cared until the announcement on Friday.

Originally Posted by Canada1

Rephrase, to had the opportunity to buy. Sorry, I understand that is very different. I'm making a guess on that point as well. Maybe US mines had a grudge that would have prohibited PCMR andPowder from buying. Maybe it was an insiders deal? Like most land deals, I would think it just went to the highest bidder? Reality is that I never cared until the announcement on Friday.

I haven't been able to verify that PCMR had the opportunity to buy the land but turned it down, but have heard many people make that assumption based solely on the fact that Talisker bought the land and "why wouldn't UPCMC have tried to sell it to PCMR first?" Maybe an offer was made and accepted without the property ever being listed for sale. Since the "PCMR made its bed and now has to lie in it" crowd is blaming PCMR for, among other things, failing to purchase the land when it was sold, it would be nice to know if they really had the opportunity.

What does Talisker want to do with the land? Develop it? Wouldn't they have to get zoning from Park City to do anything really crazy? Talisker sounds like a bunch of jongs.

The Parkrecord.com has an article on the situation. If you are interested in how the property got to be owned by Talisker, read the comments, some of which appear to be posted by an old-timer. Even I am surprised that the comments in both the Park Record and Salt Lake tribune are overwhelmingly in favor of Talisker. It looks as though Powdr Corps desperate, lame sympathy PR campaign has backfired.

Originally Posted by Garbanzo

I do not know anything about the issues involved and I am not against Park City for their specific reasons they find in their lawsuit with Taliski - All the power to them and may a judge determine the outcome.

But they (Park City) are DOUCHES for making this a local versus CANADA issue, as I think the wording clearly indicates.

Bills being put forth in Congress kind of trumps this one. It is a Canda vs. us kind of thing. Like it or not. By passing the public comment draws this fact into focus, regardless of intent.

Originally Posted by Garbanzo

I do not know anything about the issues involved and I am not against Park City for their specific reasons they find in their lawsuit with Taliski - All the power to them and may a judge determine the outcome.

But they (Park City) are DOUCHES for making this a local versus CANADA issue, as I think the wording clearly indicates.

POWDR (owners of PCMR) had no problem with buying Killington 5 years ago....then laying off a large number of people, raising prices, shortening the season, hurting local businesses, hurting the real estate market, canceling lifetime/bond passes, etc. Clearly, they deserve to be shut down and run out of business.

If I only got my news from TGR, I'd assume that the folks who run the Wasatch back resorts are a bunch of douches and the folks who work in LCC are a bunch of douches. I guess BCC is the place to be. (Prepare for SFB incoming in 3, 2, 1...)

Still trying to wrap my mind around the possibility talisker is the victim. When the rubes from Canada bought the UPCM land they took responsibility for cleanup of the silver mining mess. PCMR didn't want to own the land because they understood the cost of cleanup.

They knowingly bought a contaminated site. I would guess they did so making an educated guess. That is that the current EPA has not proactively gone after a mining enforcement or mitigation procedure since Telluride. Yes strict liability ties to any site. Being a knowing purchaser, they stepped into that pile.

The questions as I see them are: 1.) Did PCMR let their lease lapse. 2.) If PCMR did let their lease lapse, then did Talisker actions estop them from voiding the lease?

In neither case is Talisker a victim. If point one is true, then PCMR, or at least a couple of senior managers are complete idiots and they will find themselves unemployable at their current level after this plays out. If they let the lease lapse, the standard for estoping the voiding of the lease is high, as it is big boy land and not someone taking advantage of someone’s Grandma. Either Talisker is making an aggressive play to extort money or the property from a tenant, or they are acting on an opportunity created by PCMR's screw up. If the former, they are even more slimey and self serving than the interconnect led us (everyone but snojoke) to believe. If the latter, then they are just business men doing what business men do. In either case, they are not an innocent victim. The only victims are those of us who are locals and pass holders who potentially see a turf battle play out that drives up pricing and potentially opens the door for pay parking, etc., as these companies play this out in public.

It is not good for the community. The only benefit that I can see is it exposes the politicians that have been scooping up Talisker money. Hopefully it now forces people like our mayor and our national representatives to recognize who they have been dancing with for the last few years. Funny that we have the guys as far to the left (Mayor) and right (senators and representatives) all loving that Talisker money.

Anyway, it looks like we might have five days of snow coming. Maybe the winter that never was is turning. Back to training!!

all i know is it's these types of feuds and turf fights that have kept the central wasatch from being interconnected for a long time

i hope talisker continues to ostracize their ski resort neighbors and the community that houses some of their developments!

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.

Amazing stuff guys. Talisker has alot gain if they can own a large amount of the skiing in Utah and force an interconnect and one-utah ticket.

Originally Posted by telebobski

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.

very interesting. thanks for posting this.

Originally Posted by Garbanzo

Is this Park City's having a hate-on for Canadian companies. Looks like it, cause why else would one company refer to a defendant by nationality rather than by company name (Taliskier)? Nice try to make things political.

FUCK YOU Park City.

Blame Canada

^^ Classic!