What will happen to Park City MR?

[Bromontana]

Big surprise that Talisker's bond filing has almost every relevant $ figure redacted. What a bunch of obstructionist fucktards.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/236934829/...esort#download

[bigdude2468]

Big surprise that Talisker's bond filing has almost every relevant $ figure redacted. What a bunch of obstructionist fucktards.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/236934829/...esort#download

Interesting read but tell me how you convince a Court what damages you have or will incur when PCMR can lock you down with access, water rights, base facilities etc?

[Canada1]

And that is PCMR's hammer. It can be worked around, but it will take a few truck loads of money and cost the locals a season. One of the local property managers is saying bookings are down 30% over this time last year, and they are saying it is because of this.

[Benny Profane]

And that is PCMR's hammer. It can be worked around, but it will take a few truck loads of money and cost the locals a season. One of the local property managers is saying bookings are down 30% over this time last year, and they are saying it is because of this.

Well, sure. Bet the whole town did a collective groan when that NYT article was published the other day. Now it's out in the mass media, not just local media and forums. Mr and Mrs Gaper are saying, "wtf??! Time to check out Colorado. Legal weed and easier to drink."
It's gonna hurt the whole Utah market. The canyons south and Snowbasin/Powder get a ton of spillover from PC. It's the only ski town.

[getoutside]

This petition reeks a bit of desperation at a level that makes me think I will be getting my money back and skiing elsewhere this year.

so you getting your cash back and headed elsewhere?

[Canada1]

They've promised if they don't open they will cash us out. Remains to be seen if they honor their word, or if they need to.

[bigdude2468]

They've promised if they don't open they will cash us out. Remains to be seen if they honor their word, or if they need to.

Short of filing for bankruptcy PCMR would have little choice but refund your money if they are not operating.

Short term I think PCMR does have the "hammer" as another poster stated. I see PCMR raising their lease payment enough that Vail figures they are better off taking what they can get until this plays out in the courts. PCMR not operating would certainly have an effect on the revenue at both DV and The Canyons and the conventional wisdom on this board is that Vail is not making any money at The Canyons after paying the $25 million lease payment anyway. If bookings are down 30% PCMR not operating could cost the other two resorts millions. So for Vail not reaching an agreement for this year could be worth a pile of cash.

While it hurts PCMR in the revenue stream it does not have the same effect as the other two. PCMR is not operating so they can cut their costs substantially. The others have to operate the same lifts with the same number of employees, run the same restaurants but have 25% fewer guests. Also as a public corp if Vail shows negative results they get kicked in the ass by analysts and their stock price gets hurt. Powder just bitches about it over dinner and moves on.

[Shredhead]

"While it hurts PCMR in the revenue stream it does not have the same effect as the other two. PCMR is not operating so they can cut their costs substantially. The others have to operate the same lifts with the same number of employees, run the same restaurants but have 25% fewer guests."



I think Canyons and DV would actually see a slight increase in skier days w/o PCMR.

[Damian Sanders]

Can the lawyers please comment on this one???

PG. 1 - http://www.scribd.com/doc/236934829/...esort#download

Substantial damages have accrued and will continue to accrue from GPCC/GPI’s use of Talisker’s property since April 30, 2011. Even though the Court ruled that GPCC/GPI have been unlawfully detaining Talisker’s property and ordered the property restored to Talisker’s possession, GPCC/GPI seek to stay that order, remain on the property and continue to generate revenue and profits from its use. For that to be allowed, while the litigation continues in this Court and in the appellate courts, the required bond must be enough to assure payment to Talisker of its expected damages. As will be fully explained below and in light of the damages from GPCC/GPI’s use of the property in the past and while the litigation is completed, if GPCC/GPI want to remain in possession of Talisker’s property, they must provide adequate assurance of full payment when this Court’s judgments are affirmed on appeal, which is a bond of no less than $----- million, as summarized in the chart below.

-Damages incurred for past use and occupation
-Damages during trial & appeal

This figure reflects rent during the period of over five years that GPCC/GPI will have been in unlawful detainer (at approximately 50% of GPCC/GPI’s earnings and management fees each year), plus the statutorily required trebling (from September 2013), interest, and attorneys’ fees. The size of the bond is merely the impact of PCMR choosing to remain on the land in hopes their remote chance for appeal is successful, and the statutory disincentives required under Utah law to discourage unlawful use of an other parties’ property.
GPCC/GPI’s leases with Talisker expired over three years ago, on April 30, 2011. Since that time, GPCC/GPI have earned in excess of $-- million from their use of Talisker’s property while paying nothing for its occupancy and use, even refusing to pay monies into escrow. Talisker is owed the “reasonable value of the use and occupation of the premises.”

Virtually all of the ski terrain at the Resort belongs to Talisker, and according to GPCC/GPI’s own experts, over 77% of the Resort’s revenue is directly attributable to their use of Talisker’s property. In addition, since the time that GPCC/GPI were served with a Notice to Quit on August 28, 2013, it is “mandatory upon the court” to treble the amount owed. Fowler v. Seiter, 838 P.2d 675, 679 (Utah Ct. App. 1992) (internal quotation marks omitted). Talisker is also owed prejudgment interest at 10 percent annually, Utah Code Ann. § 15-1-1(2), and entitled to its attorneys’ fees.

GPCC/GPI already owe nearly $-- million in damages, and the number will continue to climb so long as GPCC/GPI occupy Talisker’s property.

ERRRR......so if my guestimates of PCMR's annual profits are accurate at $35m-$50m per year, and if my math is right......

.........Vail is asking for a $200M - $300M bond.

[bigdude2468]

[QUOTE=Damian Sanders;4297144]Can the lawyers please comment on this one???



so if my guestimates of PCMR's annual profits are accurate at $35m-$50m per year, and if my math is right......

Would also love to hear what a lawyer has to say. As I posted previously with PCMR owning the base facility, lower mountain lifts which could seriously impact access and they have the water rights how does Vail make a case for what their lost profits are? They can't look at PCMR's income statement and claim whatever PCMR made we would make. Also without snowmaking the crucial holiday season could be a disaster. The question as to who owns the lifts remain to be answered. If the court were to rule that the lift towers less the foundations belong to PCMR then Vail makes no money for at least a year as they install new lifts that work without the resort base. How it plays out is going to be pretty interesting and I bet this gets settled, neither side appears to be in a win-win and both have trump cards at their disposal.

[Damian Sanders]

Would also love to hear what a lawyer has to say. As I posted previously with PCMR owning the base facility, lower mountain lifts which could seriously impact access and they have the water rights how does Vail make a case for what their lost profits are? They can't look at PCMR's income statement and claim whatever PCMR made we would make. Also without snowmaking the crucial holiday season could be a disaster. The question as to who owns the lifts remain to be answered. If the court were to rule that the lift towers less the foundations belong to PCMR then Vail makes no money for at least a year as they install new lifts that work without the resort base. How it plays out is going to be pretty interesting and I bet this gets settled, neither side appears to be in a win-win and both have trump cards at their disposal.

They are basicly asking for half their profits, times 12x. That's what the document says. That is a HUGE number. POWDR would have to put up this cash within about a week. Granted, the judge may not set such a high bond, but they do make extremely convincing arguements in that document and calculate it all out. The actual bond could easily be well north of $100M. PCMR has to come up with this cash in about a week, or find financing and put up collateral. If they can't come up with the bond, they can't appeal, and a large judgement could potentally drive them (PCMR) into bankruptcy. Putting the resort up as collateral leaves them exposed to losing the whole thing when they lose the appeal. These guys are hosed.

I found this helpful:

http://www.jonesday.com/files/Public...ppeal_Bond.pdf

[glademaster]

They are basicly asking for half their profits, times 12x. That's what the document says. That is a HUGE number. POWDR would have to put up this cash within about a week. Granted, the judge may not set such a high bond, but they do make extremely convincing arguements in that document and calculate it all out. The actual bond could easily be well north of $100M. PCMR has to come up with this cash in about a week, or find financing and put up collateral. If they can't come up with the bond, they can't appeal, and a large judgement could potentally drive them (PCMR) into bankruptcy. Putting the resort up as collateral leaves them exposed to losing the whole thing when they lose the appeal. These guys are hosed.

I found this helpful:

http://www.jonesday.com/files/Public...ppeal_Bond.pdf

Maybe bankruptcy is the goal? It would get PCMR out of refunding for season passes, etc.

[Sirshredalot]

Maybe bankruptcy is the goal? It would get PCMR out of refunding for season passes, etc.

Probably not. A bankruptcy trust would just operate the resort while assets are sold off or powdr is re-orgd. Lifts still turn, so no refunds issued.

I doubt it comes to that though. At some point powdr will admit they fucked up, cut a check, and replace the incompetent management who allowed this to happen.

[Damian Sanders]

Maybe bankruptcy is the goal? It would get PCMR out of refunding for season passes, etc.

Tough to say. But passes aren't a big enough deal to really be a concern for them, compared to losing the resort.

Until reading Vail's bond request filing, I did't really think they were in a critcal decision point, it seemed like they would appeal, etc. But being forced to pay a bond over $100m could have wide ranging consequences for PCMR, POWDR, and Cumming. What happens in the next week will be a big deal.

Only way they pay their way out of this is to give up half their profits to Vail as rent, about $20M per year. Which might leave it unprofitable for them after debt, etc. Cumming isn't going to like that one bit.

[Shredhead]

Your profit estimates are ludicrous.

[Damian Sanders]

Your profit estimates are ludicrous.

Ok be my guest, go ahead and estimate their profits. Vail is looking for roughly $20M per year, which is 50% of $40M earnings. There are enough figures in the report to back-calculate to this. Vail values the PCMR land at about $160M, which is 8x the earnings - standard resort valuation.

My range of $35-$50M EBITDA is extremely reasonable.

[Shredhead]

VR's looking to put Powder out of business, period. Their numbers have nothing to do with reality.

$40,000,000/800,000skier days = $50 profit per skier/day = Insane.

[Damian Sanders]

VR's looking to put Powder out of business, period. Their numbers have nothing to do with reality.

$40,000,000/800,000skier days = $50 profit per skier/day = Insane.

Their visits are closer to 1 Million per year. With a yield per visit that could easily be over $100, pulling a EBITDA of greater than $35M is certainly likely. Ski areas are valued at 6x to 8x EBITDA. Many top tier resorts have sold for over $200M, and PCMR is near the top of the top tier.

[TBS]

Ok be my guest, go ahead and estimate their profits. Vail is looking for roughly $20M per year, which is 50% of $40M earnings. There are enough figures in the report to back-calculate to this. Vail values the PCMR land at about $160M, which is 8x the earnings - standard resort valuation.

My range of $35-$50M EBITDA is extremely reasonable.

From MTNs most recent 10k, their average EBITDA per skier day is around $32 across their resorts. They also valued the Canyons+PCMR lease deal at $345 million, of which they say the FMV of the PCMR leases =$58 mill. So a straight forward allocation of the $25 mill/yr total lease payment means MTN believes the proper annual cost for the UPCM leases at PCMR=$4.2 mill.

[Bromontana]

There's also a coherent argument that Talisker has zero right to PCMR profits. Talisker is asking for damages while they've already rented the land for an exorbitant yearly fee. Where is the financial damage to Talisker? They're wealthier as a result of the fracas thanks to Vail's willingness to gamble.

Bob Katz is worth a fraction of the people he's trying to extort. His power is tenuous and dependent on steady financial returns. He simply doesn't have the legal or financial standing to weather a prolonged stalemate on this.

Imo PCMR should be willing to pay something derived from a $60m overall land valuation, 2-5mm/yr. The best Talisker offer to date was reportedly 7.7mm/yr + rights to takeover the base, according to PCMR.

[Damian Sanders]

There's also a coherent argument that Talisker has zero right to PCMR profits. Talisker is asking for damages while they've already rented the land for an exorbitant yearly fee. Where is the financial damage to Talisker? They're wealthier as a result of the fracas thanks to Vail's willingness to gamble.

Bob Katz is worth a fraction of the people he's trying to extort. His power is tenuous and dependent on steady financial returns. He simply doesn't have the legal or financial standing to weather a prolonged stalemate on this.

Imo PCMR should be willing to pay something derived from a $60m overall land valuation, 2-5mm/yr. The best Talisker offer to date was reportedly 7.7mm/yr + rights to takeover the base, according to PCMR.

Did you read the Vail's filing? The old lease doesn't lay claim to any profits. Vail is asserting that any new lease agreement, upon which damages would be calculated, would be arrived at based on how profitable the land/resort/etc is at current level. As is common in the industry.

[bigdude2468]

There's also a coherent argument that Talisker has zero right to PCMR profits. Talisker is asking for damages while they've already rented the land for an exorbitant yearly fee. Where is the financial damage to Talisker? They're wealthier as a result of the fracas thanks to Vail's willingness to gamble.

Bob Katz is worth a fraction of the people he's trying to extort. His power is tenuous and dependent on steady financial returns. He simply doesn't have the legal or financial standing to weather a prolonged stalemate on this.

Imo PCMR should be willing to pay something derived from a $60m overall land valuation, 2-5mm/yr. The best Talisker offer to date was reportedly 7.7mm/yr + rights to takeover the base, according to PCMR.

SLT reports that the parties have asked the judge for an extension of the negotiating period through Friday of this week. Would have to think they are making some progress or why bother?

The above $60 million land appraisal is that based on access from the bottom and includes water rights? If in fact PCMR would walk away and develop their camp whatever they call it what does this leave Vail in terms of skiable terrain, access etc? If it just means they have to install a couple of lifts from The Canyons to gain access then no big deal and can they run water into the property. BTW, does the water rights that PCMR owns mean that if Vail prevails they could end up with no potable water for their restaurants?

[glademaster]

Well one thing is for sure: if PCMR operates this winter it will be with the bottom of the barrel seasonal employees running the place. Most seasonal workers already have their winter jobs lined up, or will in the next 2-3 weeks, so good luck with that.

[Hutch]

Well one thing is for sure: if PCMR operates this winter it will be with the bottom of the barrel seasonal employees running the place. Most seasonal workers already have their winter jobs lined up, or will in the next 2-3 weeks, so good luck with that.

I don't know, my sense is that there is a lot of denial around here about the possibility of the resort not opening. Comments on SLT, the PR and here don't reflect the overall sentiment of "Of course the resort is going to open" that most people I talk to seem to have. The PC ski team is operating as if it were business as usual.

AFAIK they are taking applications, interviewing, hiring, etc.: https://www1.apply2jobs.com/skiparkc...nal.Searchjobs

We will have a full-on recession up here if this doesn't get sorted out soon.

[Bromontana]

If in fact PCMR would walk away and develop their camp whatever they call it what does this leave Vail in terms of skiable terrain, access etc?

This is the problem with Vail's proposed bond. They use assumptions detached from reality. The market discounts little nuances like "we don't own the base. At all." Vail otoh does not. They treat the GPCC land as a passive entity when its use is requisite for valuing the land beyond that of a pasture.