Results 351 to 375 of 555
-
08-26-2014, 09:14 AM #351
It's a weird request. They want to know the bond amount while continuing to negotiate. If I were the judge, I would hold their feet to the fire. It's like Cummings is saying "If you are going to give me the death blow, we'll have the settlement , if not, then lets keep up the fight." If PCMR stays open, they will get good employees. By reputation they are in a better place than Vail and the Deer Valley senority train means you have to be a gray hair to matter.
-
08-26-2014, 09:32 AM #352
-
08-26-2014, 09:42 AM #353observing free range rude
- Join Date
- Aug 2012
- Location
- below the Broads Fork Twins
- Posts
- 5,772
Yes I read them. Your last statement is in dispute, correct? You state it as if it is fact.
Everything in Vail's calculations is predicated on a functioning relationship between the owners of the base and the upper mountain. That relationship simply doesn't exist. I don't see any recourse for Vail to force GPCC to facilitate PCMR's normal operations, so in the current ownership state the revenue assumptions are not founded.
Historically, for the illegal gains on Vail land, you/Vail make a good point. The distribution proposed seems insane based on what Vail/Talisker are really losing, but the underlying claim seems valid.Last edited by Bromontana; 08-26-2014 at 09:56 AM.
-
08-26-2014, 09:57 AM #354....................
- Join Date
- May 2005
- Posts
- 5,518
This is not the law for unlawful detainer in Utah. They are entitled to FMV rent (and triple FMV rent after service of a notice to vacate) plus reasonable attorney fees.
Profits might be an input into the FMV rent under one appraisal methodology, but your statement that they are entitled to disgorgement of all profits (even if the portion of the profits derived from the upper mountain vs. lower mountain could be calculated), is not correct.
-
08-26-2014, 10:02 AM #355
-
08-26-2014, 10:22 AM #356observing free range rude
- Join Date
- Aug 2012
- Location
- below the Broads Fork Twins
- Posts
- 5,772
Vail claims GPCC is entitled to 5% of the resort earnings right? And the figure for the landlord is 30-50%+? It would be easier if so much wasn't redacted.
-
08-26-2014, 10:59 AM #357Banned
- Join Date
- May 2007
- Location
- Sandy, Utah
- Posts
- 14,410
isnt the 3x FMV a set precedent in Utah?
-
08-26-2014, 12:40 PM #358....................
- Join Date
- May 2005
- Posts
- 5,518
yes. http://le.utah.gov/code/TITLE78B/htm/78B06_081100.htm
In most cases the rent is set by an unexpired lease. Here, FMV is not susceptible to ready calculation, which leaves lots of room for lawyering.
-
08-27-2014, 06:10 AM #359Banned
- Join Date
- May 2007
- Location
- Sandy, Utah
- Posts
- 14,410
The news this am said bond was to be set/paid today or 60 days to vacate. Does this mean the judge sets bond today? Maybe they show up to judge with a mediated settlement? Any news im not getting from local broadcasts? Is today really d-day?
-
08-27-2014, 08:18 AM #360
The sides have asked for mediation to continue through Friday. The judge is supposed to issue the bond amount today. I would say D-day is Friday.
-
08-27-2014, 08:22 AM #361Banned
- Join Date
- May 2007
- Location
- Sandy, Utah
- Posts
- 14,410
-
08-27-2014, 08:32 AM #362
I wonder if the parties have contemplated joint ownership. I don't think there's so much bad blood that is impossible at this point. It'd be easy enough for them to assign a value to their respective assets, negotiate and wind up with a new entity where they both have a stake. I don't see them agreeing to a 50:50 split - of course, one of the parties would want a majority stake and management control. That would be a win all around.
Sometimes pride comes after a fall.
-
08-27-2014, 08:34 AM #363
Yeah, I found the request strange for that very reason. But the bond number still doesn't break the key issue. If PCMR can't post, and has to vacate the mountain, they still own the water and base facilities.
Cummings will know if the judge has issued a financial death blow before he goes to sign off on the settlement. My math throws this bond in the $100 mil range. PCMR has pushed in their filing for $1-$6mil. All I care about at this point is that I didn't flush my money on passes.
-
08-27-2014, 08:59 AM #364
I'm unclear on this. Have re-read the articles - there is a hearing today "to set bond", which could mean they actaully set it today, based on the previously submitted arguements, or there is further discussion. I think they'll set today, based on the delay to the mediation.
-
08-27-2014, 09:01 AM #365
-
08-27-2014, 10:43 AM #366
Either that or a profit split would seem to be the common sense solutions.
-
08-27-2014, 12:17 PM #367Banned
- Join Date
- May 2007
- Location
- Sandy, Utah
- Posts
- 14,410
does anyone wonder if POWDR pissed in someones Cheerio's at Talisker or Vail at some point? Maybe they are just really trying to drive that family out of the area? I mean didn't daddy just buy the majority stake in Snowbird? Maybe POWDR knows they're out, and it just stringing the thing along?
Is there any possibility that POWDR could be forced to sell the lift infrastructure/base if they can't remove it in the "60 days" they have to vacate? I think i saw something mentioned about this earlier in the thread but cant seem to find? LAWYERS? what say ye?
I feel bad for all the local businesses up there they are the ones that stand to lose the most out of this whole deal. I couuld give a shit about a bunch of rich fucks having a dick waving contest...
-
08-27-2014, 12:37 PM #368Banned
- Join Date
- May 2007
- Location
- Sandy, Utah
- Posts
- 14,410
looks like talisker is asking for about $124million for the bond.
-
08-27-2014, 12:45 PM #369
Yeah, TPR has been live tweeting the proceedings:
https://twitter.com/Parkrecord
-
08-27-2014, 01:08 PM #370Banned
- Join Date
- May 2007
- Location
- Sandy, Utah
- Posts
- 14,410
-
08-27-2014, 01:40 PM #371observing free range rude
- Join Date
- Aug 2012
- Location
- below the Broads Fork Twins
- Posts
- 5,772
-
08-27-2014, 01:42 PM #372AF
- Join Date
- Jul 2008
- Location
- Sandy by the front
- Posts
- 2,345
I see PCMR is making the same argument that I have which is how do you value the land if you can't gain access or water rights. I may only be 30 miles away but I have not skied PC in maybe five years and have not paid any attention to the boundaries. So locals in the know, how does or can Vail gain access to the disputed property if PCMR keeps them out of the base facilities, lower mountain and snow making??
-
08-27-2014, 02:02 PM #373Banned
- Join Date
- May 2007
- Location
- Sandy, Utah
- Posts
- 14,410
ugh...Delayed a week AGAIN.....oh well guess we wait and allow the speculation to continue.
-
08-27-2014, 02:38 PM #374
There's an even more detailed account of the hearing here:
https://twitter.com/BenWinslow
Last edited by PointOfRelease; 08-27-2014 at 02:56 PM.
-
08-27-2014, 02:54 PM #375observing free range rude
- Join Date
- Aug 2012
- Location
- below the Broads Fork Twins
- Posts
- 5,772
Regarding leases, anyone able to explain the gulf between USFS leases and those proposed by Talisker? USFS sets and collects rent based on adjusted gross revenue, in the low to mid single digits. Talisker's opinion seems to be around 30-50x that figure.
Public subsidies of USFS-based resorts may not be valid comps, but the discrepancy in rents is a little disturbing. Keep the USFS poor as dirt, funnel all ski industry margin to the Vails, Boynes and Powdrs.Last edited by Bromontana; 08-27-2014 at 04:04 PM. Reason: stupid question
Bookmarks