Page 15 of 23 FirstFirst ... 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ... LastLast
Results 351 to 375 of 555
  1. #351
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Park City
    Posts
    1,857
    Quote Originally Posted by bigdude2468 View Post
    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?
    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.

  2. #352
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    6,041
    Quote Originally Posted by Bromontana View Post
    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.
    Did you read their arguements......? At all? POWDR has repeatedly stated the land is vital to their operation (duh). Vail is entitled to damages based on the profits PCMR made while illegally on their land.

  3. #353
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    below the Broads Fork Twins
    Posts
    5,772
    Quote Originally Posted by Damian Sanders View Post
    Did you read their arguements......? At all? POWDR has repeatedly stated the land is vital to their operation (duh). Vail is entitled to damages based on the profits PCMR made while illegally on their land.
    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.

  4. #354
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    5,518
    Quote Originally Posted by Damian Sanders View Post
    Vail is entitled to damages based on the profits PCMR made while illegally on their land.
    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.

  5. #355
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    6,041
    Quote Originally Posted by Hutch View Post
    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.
    They are not asking for all their profits. They are asking for a percentage. FMV rent is based on profits.

  6. #356
    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.

  7. #357
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Sandy, Utah
    Posts
    14,410
    isnt the 3x FMV a set precedent in Utah?

  8. #358
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    5,518
    Quote Originally Posted by Skidog View Post
    isnt the 3x FMV a set precedent in Utah?
    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.

  9. #359
    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?

  10. #360
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Park City
    Posts
    1,857
    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.

  11. #361
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Sandy, Utah
    Posts
    14,410
    Quote Originally Posted by Canada1 View Post
    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.
    Im interested to see what the judge sets as bond, especially after all the speculation by the most recent posts in this thread. Today's decision might factor directly into the last couple days of mediation.

  12. #362
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    @Cassidy on Reckoning
    Posts
    873
    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.

  13. #363
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Park City
    Posts
    1,857
    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.

  14. #364
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    6,041
    Quote Originally Posted by Skidog View Post
    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?
    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.

  15. #365
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    6,041
    Quote Originally Posted by bl2000 View Post
    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.
    I think that POWDR will end up leasing the PCMR base area and brand, basicly the business, to Vail, for about $20M per year or so.

  16. #366
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Park City
    Posts
    1,857
    Either that or a profit split would seem to be the common sense solutions.

  17. #367
    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...

  18. #368
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Sandy, Utah
    Posts
    14,410
    looks like talisker is asking for about $124million for the bond.

  19. #369
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Salt Lake City, Utah
    Posts
    188
    Yeah, TPR has been live tweeting the proceedings:

    https://twitter.com/Parkrecord

    Quote Originally Posted by Skidog View Post
    looks like talisker is asking for about $124million for the bond.

  20. #370
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Sandy, Utah
    Posts
    14,410
    Quote Originally Posted by PointOfRelease View Post
    Yeah, TPR has been live tweeting the proceedings:

    https://twitter.com/Parkrecord
    Yeah thats where i got it from. Fox13 is also there and updating their online article as news comes in....

    Hmmm hurry up judge...

  21. #371
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    below the Broads Fork Twins
    Posts
    5,772
    Quote Originally Posted by Skidog View Post
    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?
    Afaik both the ownership of lifts and duration PC has to remove them are yet to be decided by the court. The 60-day thing doesn't discount the implication of having to remove lifts iirc.

  22. #372
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Sandy by the front
    Posts
    2,345
    Quote Originally Posted by Skidog View Post
    Yeah thats where i got it from. Fox13 is also there and updating their online article as news comes in....

    Hmmm hurry up judge...

    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??

  23. #373
    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.

  24. #374
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Salt Lake City, Utah
    Posts
    188
    There's an even more detailed account of the hearing here:

    https://twitter.com/BenWinslow

    Quote Originally Posted by PointOfRelease View Post
    Yeah, TPR has been live tweeting the proceedings:

    https://twitter.com/Parkrecord
    Last edited by PointOfRelease; 08-27-2014 at 02:56 PM.

  25. #375
    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

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •