Peak Resorts Reports Results

Harvey wrote

snoloco wrote

IMO Peak has done a better job at Hunter than the previous administration did.  Annapurna actually opened, even if only for a short time.  West Side was kept in good condition and many more people skied it.  

A mountain is better off under a publicly traded company than a family that is sick of running the place and wants out.

What happened with Annapurna? Sounds like blew a bunch of snow on it and it opened for a few days?

Don't confuse what skiers want with short term or long term financial results.  They are different.

It was open for over a month.  They groomed it on the weekends as well.

So was it worth it?  

As a skier would you pay $100 (or whatever) more for a seasons pass if you knew they'd try to open Annapurna? Or on a day when it was open would you pay $20 more for a lift ticket?

As an accountant... did the snowmaking and grooming etc provide a positive ROI?

I have no idea, but maybe you do.  How much does it cost to open Annapurna?

I skied Purna a few time this season..Definitely worth it , and it is a important trail on the west side..

you can argue if Rumor is worth blowing on warm year too..It takes a butt load of snow and  money to cover. That said, people want to to see it covered and it is the center of upper mtn..

JasonWx wrote

you can argue if Rumor is worth blowing on warm year too..It takes a butt load of snow and  money to cover. That said, people want to to see it covered and it is the center of upper mtn..

Again on Rumor accountants and skiers might disagree with each other. Then you got the BRAND marketers...

I actually agree with JasonWx on this one.  Just because it's acceptable to have a HSQ serve 2 trails at Gore doesn't mean it's acceptable at a mountain that actually has to make a profit.

Last year, even with it being a great year, Annapurna never opened and Westway was only skiable a few days.  That left Clair's and Wayout which were usually crowded as heck and skied off by 10.  The lift sent chairs up empty, even on the busiest days when even the D-Lift had a line, but because the trails sucked, no one skied them.  The days that Westway was skiable were the days that people used that lift.  This year, the month that Annapurna was open, that lift had lots of users and even a short line.  I know people like Harvey want the lift to not be used efficiently so they can have it to themselves, but that's not good business and could be a danger to the mountain.

Ski areas need to cater to all ability levels, not just be meat factory for beginners/gapers to take their money.  I'm sure many people chose to drive past Hunter to go further north when Annapurna wasn't open.  For many people it was their favorite trail.  Obviously it makes sense to open it every year no exceptions, and keep the rest of the West Side in good shape all year.

I understand that money is always a concern but reading these posts I am definitely going for the Peaks season pass. They did a great job at Hunter  in the toughest year I have ever seen. I spent a crapload of money to go out West recently, had some fantastic days, but then it went up to 60 in the sun, and that night down to twenty, first steep run I was on the next day, very spooked, my son yelled up, "make believe you're on Clairs" Not saying Hunter is Colorado, but skiing is skiing and a little more money for the season pass for a company that tries to give you a good experience is worth it.

You're not big on listening sno.  I am not an accountant, I am a skier, and yeah a bit of a brand marketer.

You attribute crap to me that is bullshit.  I vote for Annapurna and Rumor and leave the risk to the people paid to worry about it.  I want the lifts to run and the snow to fall.  The difference between us is that I understand the gray area where most of life is conducted.

This Peak thing will be very interesting.  If Jeff's analysis is right - and IMO he knows this stuff - these guys are doing exact what you want. All in with improvements, full speed ahead with little (apparent) concern for the risk of a downturn or consecutive warm winters.  They may be fine or they may implode. Time will tell.

It will also be interesting to see if your perspective on risk changes when you are earning and spending your own money.

Hunter is a money maker, plain and simple: Wide bunny hill, classes galore, rentals galore, packed lodge, large terrain park, urban crowd that buys their food and drink there, bus trips galore, on mountain photographers, the zip line, proximity to NYC, infrastructure that has been well maintained, nastar course, and brand hype all over the place. When I moved to new york city and started to look into mountains, hunter was the first one I heard of. Peak was smart to buy it. They are also smart to keep the forward momentum going.

Harvey wrote

You're not big on listening sno.  I am not an accountant, I am a skier, and yeah a bit of a brand marketer.

You attribute crap to me that is bullshit.  I vote for Annapurna and Rumor and leave the risk to the people paid to worry about it.  I want the lifts to run and the snow to fall.  The difference between us is that I understand the gray area where most of life is conducted.

This Peak thing will be very interesting.  If Jeff's analysis is right - and IMO he knows this stuff - these guys are doing exact what you want. All in with improvements, full speed ahead with little (apparent) concern for the risk of a downturn or consecutive warm winters.  They may be fine or they may implode. Time will tell.

It will also be interesting to see if your perspective on risk changes when you are earning and spending your own money.

You did say multiple times that you don't want more trails on Burnt Ridge, even though that lift is 5 million down the drain with only two overcrowded trails off it.  No other ski ars in the east would install a high speed quad and only cut 2 trails.  Why keep pissing away money on natural trails, glades, and new lifts that only serve natural terrain at a mountain that gets what, like 130 inches of natural snow a season.  If the money that built the Ski Bowl went to upgrading the snowmaking elsewhere, Gore would be in much better shape than it is now.  The ski bowl could be built later, with the funds that might go to upgrading the snowmaking now.

Peak does run my perfect model.  They're a bit stuck now, but of they have a decent year next year, Hunter's profit should pay off most of their debts.  My top priority would be consistent snow conditions if I were running any ski area.  Any lift that is functioning will get you to the top, but you could spend 8 million on a bubble chair, but it's useless without snow.  Skiing is heavily weather dependent and snowmaking lessens that dependence.  

My perspective isn't changing.  Don't upgrade your snowmaking and you're not getting my business, especially when other mountains nearby have.

Sno, it's OK to like the product as a consumer and at the same time recognize that the financial model upon which the parent company is based may fail.  You need to separate those two things.

Yes, Hunter was a good acquisition for Peak, but the entire purchase price ($36 million) was financed with debt.  Hunter throws off a $6 million profit annually, so it's going to take a lot more than a good 2016-17 to pay off that debt.  In fact, one third of that $6 million profit will be needed to pay interest on the debt alone before paying down the principal one cent.

And it's one hundred FIFTY inches mofo.

Adk Jeff wrote

And it's one hundred FIFTY inches mofo.

Snowmaking doesn't count.

In the east, snowmaking is ALL that counts.  Natural snow is overrated and obsolete.  If you're mountain gets ony 130 inches a year, you need 100% snowmaking coverage.  If you're mountain gets 300 inches, not so much.  Actually Wildcat, NH gets lots of natural, but still has upgraded their snowmaking.

Are you people trying to tell me that it's a good business model to piss away millions of dollars on building lifts and trails and completely blowing off snowmaking upgrades so that they're never open, or spend it wisely on upgrading lifts and snowmaking for sections that already exist?  Mount Snow has done the latter.  They're doubling their capacity to give them the capability to expand to 100% snowmaking.  Is a brand new lift that is never open going to bring in more people?  No.  Is having a ton of terrain open for Christmas going to?  Yes.

There's a way to upgrade your snowmaking without running up debts.  Peak maybe has moved too fast, but they're focusing on upgrading snowmaking before expanding terrain.  I'm going to use Hunter's numbers as an example.  If you've got a 6 million dollar profit, take 1 million and bank it as a "bad year fund" every year.  Now you've got 5 million to spend on upgrading snowmaking, or a lift.  If you need more than that, then save it up over multiple years.  This doesn't account for money already allocated toward capex.

snoloco wrote

Are you people trying to tell me that it's a good business model to piss away millions of dollars on building lifts and trails and completely blowing off snowmaking upgrades so that they're never open, or spend it wisely on upgrading lifts and snowmaking for sections that already exist?

I don't disagree that both Gore and WF should double their snowmaking capacity.

As for the new lifts and terrain pods at Gore and WF, if the State of New York decides that it's going to allocate funding for those projects, you don't say "No, they won't be utilized enough to justify the investment."  Instead, you go forward with those projects knowing that in time the snowmaking infrastructure improvements will be made.  That's called having a long term plan or vision.  Comparing a state-run entity to a private enterprise is apples and oranges.  Private enterprise operates  operates with a much shorter time horizon.  Sometimes that's a good thing, but sometimes that emphasis on short term results means worthwhile projects are never undertaken.

snoloco wrote

In the east, snowmaking is ALL that counts.

For you, maybe.

snoloco wrote

Natural snow is overrated and obsolete.

Bannable offense.

snoloco wrote

TL;DR;

please stop.

That post has to be trolling sno.

Yeah I like Burnt Ridge developed below max capacity. And I'd also be fine with a used fixed grip double on Burnt. I'm just saying what I like.  You want max everything, I don't.

I don't expect people responsible for mountain profitability to take direction from me.   I acknowledge that I am out of the mainstream on many things, not just skiing. I don't expect the world to conform to me.  I'm just looking to get along and have some fun on the way.

What Jeff said about long term vision and taking what the state gives you is spot on.  We've had this discussion before: you'd pass on the BRQ, a "free" HSQ, because it didn't come with snowmaking.  That would be a big fuckup, in my opinion.

and ml FTW.

Burnt Ridge had snowmaking only on Echo the first season.  They put in on Sagamore the 2nd or 3rd.  They should have also cut 2 additional trails plus a way to the Ski Bowl before those lifts went in down there.  Burnt Ridge wasn't a waste initially.  While it originally was a great addition and was my favorite section, it now sucks and gets skied off to bare ice by 10am cause they didn't put more trails off that lift and flushed all their money down the toilet to build the ski bowl.

Back on topic, I think that all of Peak's upgrades have made sense, but were done a bit too fast and ran up some big debts.  Hopefully next year is quite a bit better and they make tons of money and pay off many of their debts.

snoloco wrote

In the east, snowmaking is ALL that counts.  

You keep blathering on about Hunter's snowmaking capabilities blah blah blah. Do you not think it's quite easier to do that on some condensed boring piece of terrain?

Hunter has way more snowmaking capacity than they need to open all lifts by my mandated day.  They have 60 acre feet per day.  Gore has only 30.  If they doubled firepower to 60, that would be plenty to open all lifts by my mandated date and do basically what Southern Vermont does.  If they went to 80 (Stratton's capacity) they could expand Burnt Ridge and have 100% snowmaking coverage.

<quote author="ml242">

snoloco wrote

In the east, snowmaking is ALL that counts.

WHAT?? Snowmaking is insurance. Don't remember how awesome last year was?

CONTENTS DELETED