227 replies to this topic

[Peter]

I don't see how Powdr keeps PCMR. They had a lease, failed to renew it by the deadline and did not sign a new one.

[CH3skier]

Looks like it went to court today.

PARK CITY — The ski season is winding down, but litigation season is just getting started.
Lawyers for Park City Mountain Resort and the landlord over the mountain it sits on — Talisker Holdings — went before a judge in Silver Summit’s 3rd District Court on Thursday. Park City Mountain Resort asked the judge to reconsider its legal claims, Talisker wanted the judge to toss their lawsuit.
Park City Mountain Resort, a crown jewel of Utah’s ski industry and a former Olympic venue, is in the midst of a landlord-tenant dispute with Talisker. Last year, Talisker served the resort with an eviction notice.
In court, Talisker claimed PCMR missed a deadline to renew its lease for the property and failed to even give notice that it was going to renew.
“The only thing they had to do was provide notice 60 days in advance that they wanted to renew the lease,” said Talisker attorney Howard Shapiro. “They failed to do that.”
PCMR claimed it was an “honest mistake.” Attorneys for the ski resort argued they had been operating on the belief they were renewing their lease, making improvements to the property and talking about long-term goals.
“It was a perfectly justifiable mistake,” PCMR attorney Alan Sullivan said. “Certainly everybody’s expectation was the lease had been extended.”
PCMR also argued that other contracts and agreements (including an agreement with Park City government) tied it to the mountain. Judge Ryan Harris pressed them on whether it was an honest mistake or negligence.
“Are you conceding that what happened here is negligence?” the judge asked Sullivan.
“No,” Sullivan replied. “No, I’m not conceding that.”
Talisker indicated in court that it had another entity waiting to take over — Vail Resorts, which runs the Canyons ski resort next door. Despite being served with an eviction notice last year, PCMR continued operations over the winter — its 50th anniversary in business.
The impact of the PCMR litigation could be huge for Park City. It is a large employer and a major draw for tourists.
“The harm that plaintiffs understandably seek to avoid is to themselves,” Shapiro told Judge Harris. “They have negligently slaughtered the goose that’s been laying their golden eggs for decades.”
The judge took the case under advisement, saying he was hoping for a ruling in 60 days. PCMR urged the judge to send the case to trial.
As he left court, John Cumming, the CEO of PCMR’s parent company, Powdr, gave a brief statement to reporters, indicating he was still hopeful for a resolution.
“We’ve made above market offers to buy the land. We’ve suggested above market lease payments,” Cumming said. “We hope that as the legal process goes forward, there will be some rational discussion from the other side, too.”

[missouriskier]

This is sure a strange case. Both sides say that they want a resolution, but neither side must have given enough to the other to settle it out of court yet. I also hope that PCMR gets to keep operating on the land, but I must say that its case doesn't seem too good to me. I think it's likely that Vail will end up with PCMR when this is all done.

[floridaskier]

http://www.parkrecor...le-canyons-deal

Article from the Park Record - Powdr CEO: "I think they're looking for a really great deal on a ski resort that is well run, has been well invested in, has a great trademark and brand, a great position in the market," Cumming said. "I think they've got themselves in a bit of a pickle with the deal that they've done to acquire the Canyons, and they're hoping they can get Park City Mountain Resort cheap enough to justify it."

Nice little jab at The Canyons in the paper. So far, most of the pissing contest has kept them out of it. He's got a point, though. This is a one-time opportunity for Vail to get their hands on a much more valuable operation, and it's no surprise they aren't giving up easily.

[boardski]

I love Copper and want to see things turn out in their best interest but the "honest mistake" defense of their parent company is very weak. If I stopped paying my mortgage for a few months and said it was an "honest mistake" when I find myself locked out of the house, I am quite certain I would NOT be the one who ends up with the house in the end.

[SkiDaBird]

Vail will have PCMR when all is said and done, although that may be years and years away. The question for me is will they merge Canyons and PCMR into one resort? They could get back the title of largest single resort from Big Sky.

[ss20]

SkiDaBird, on 07 April 2014 - 03:25 PM, said:

Vail will have PCMR when all is said and done, although that may be years and years away. The question for me is will they merge Canyons and PCMR into one resort? They could get back the title of largest single resort from Big Sky.

And more importantly put Vail Resorts back on top as owner of the biggest resort in the US. That'd look great on the Epic pass advertisements.

[floridaskier]

Combining PCMR and The Canyons is an interesting thought, but it would take a lot more than just one lift to make it worthwhile. The good terrain at The Canyons is all the way on the other side of the resort, and it would take about 40 minutes of fixed quads and cattracks to get from a hypothetical lift up Pinecone Ridge from PCMR back to mid-mountain at Red Pine at The Canyons. I'd rather see them spend money initially into making The Canyons better standalone, and offer some nice combined pass deals. Linking them up before they fix up the southern half of The Canyons is a waste of money at this point

Having a hard time imagining Vail Resorts advertising Park Canyons Mountain Resort as their flagship

[CH3skier]

Agree, the Canyons still has lots to improve upon with what they have now, but would be nice to bring on a couple more Utah resorts under the EPIC pass. It would put the pressure on other Utah resorts to drop their season pass prices. Alta/Snowbird pass is pretty expensive @ $1700 bucks. I like the idea of being able to ski a few different resorts under the same pass.

[Peter]

Now PCMR says it will dismantle and remove all but 3 lifts if it loses. (Thaynes, Jupiter and Motherlode apparently aren't worth removing.) Vail counters it would build new, better lifts!

http://www.parkrecor...ost-lifts-if-it

[floridaskier]

Thaynes, Jupiter, and Motherlode are the only non-CTEC lifts, with towers set in concrete instead of bolted to the footings. Never thought that would matter in court! If that's the legal precedent we're using, then the six pack terminals are sticking around, because they're set in concrete too. Time to hire one of us as an expert witness on tower footings.

If they leave only those three lifts, then the only way up the mountain is to reopen the Skier Subway! I'm sure it's in excellent shape after 40 years rusting underground.

This is absolutely ridiculous. There's got to be some amount of money that Powdr can pay Talisker to make this go away

[jaytrem]

As we know from Tamarack a ski lift can be repossessed and carted off. I imagine that could potentially be used as evidence that they're not necessarily "fixed". I'm sure the lawyers will fight it out if it comes to that.

[Peter]

jaytrem, on 09 April 2014 - 07:56 AM, said:

As we know from Tamarack a ski lift can be repossessed and carted off. I imagine that could potentially be used as evidence that they're not necessarily "fixed". I'm sure the lawyers will fight it out if it comes to that.

I'm amazed we still haven't seen that lift reinstalled somewhere. We don't even know who bought it!

[Backbowlsbilly]

This needs to get cleaned up quickly, it's making both companies look bad. If this lawsuit really comes to that, then Powdr knows that Vail will reap rewards since Canyons will be the only Park City area resort that allows snowboarders. That would be disastrous for the town of Park City economically to lose PCMR and it would take Vail years to rebuild all of the lifts. To look on the bright side, it would mean new lifts at all of the Powdr Resorts but I really hope that they can work this out.

[boardski]

A transplanted McKonkey's lift would make a nice 6-person American Flyer at Copper and the Pioneer lift would look great going up Tucker Mountain but there has got to be a better way. To "Coloradoize" this, imagine loosing Breckenridge. Unless people enjoy waiting in 60-90 minute lines at the bottom of every chair, it would be no fun for anyone. A fair settlement has to be reached or it will severely negatively effect everyone. Definitely worth following. Thank you everyone for all the updates.

This post has been edited by boardski: 10 April 2014 - 07:24 PM

[SkiDaBird]

boardski, on 10 April 2014 - 07:22 PM, said:

A transplanted McKonkey's lift would make a nice 6-person American Flyer at Copper and the Pioneer lift would look great going up Tucker Mountain but there has got to be a better way. To "Coloradoize" this, imagine loosing Breckenridge. Unless people enjoy waiting in 60-90 minute lines at the bottom of every chair, it would be no fun for anyone. A fair settlement has to be reached or it will severely negatively effect everyone. Definitely worth following. Thank you everyone for all the updates.

PCMR is a tourist mountain. Locals don't ski it. What it really means is less money for the state of Utah. It will still be very low lines at the other Utah resorts.

[CH3skier]

Rob Katz, the CEO of Colorado-based Vail Resorts, attended a Park City Board of Realtors banquet last Thursday during a visit to Park City. Katz's firm operates Canyons Resort and is involved in a high-profile lawsuit against Park City Mountain Resort. Christopher Reeves/Park Record
The CEO of Vail Resorts anticipates the Park City Mountain Resort side will eventually make a correct decision for the local ski industry in the high-profile lawsuit involving most of the terrain underlying the resort.
The lawsuit pits the PCMR side, led by Powdr Corp. CEO John Cumming, against its landlord, Talisker Land Holdings, LLC, and a firm tied to Vail Resorts, the Colorado-based operator of Canyons Resort. In an interview with The Park Record during a trip to Park City last week, Vail Resorts CEO Rob Katz said he anticipates PCMR's 2014-2015 ski season will not be interrupted. PCMR is selling season passes with a caveat outlining that refunds will be given if the season is impacted by the litigation.
"I know there's a lot of bluster. I know there's a lot of, you know, chatter, but I do believe that the Cummings will do the right thing for this community, too, when the case is ultimately decided," Katz said, later adding that he has confidence "cooler heads will prevail, and people will be doing the right thing for the skiing community."
The Vail Resorts agreement to operate Canyons Resort would be expanded to include the disputed terrain at PCMR depending on the outcome of the lawsuit.
Katz said he had not received a "direct response" from Cumming about a March offer by Vail Resorts to purchase the PCMR base area and the parking lots, which are not involved in the case. A buyout would undoubtedly also involve a settlement to the lawsuit. Cumming made a public statement after the offer rejecting the idea of a buyout as being bad for the community. Katz said he understands the Cumming family's interest in "retaining control," but he said they will not do so if Talisker Land Holdings, LLC is victorious in the lawsuit.
"If they win the lawsuit, then that turned out to be a great decision. If they don't, I don't think it's realistic to think that they're going to maintain control of the resort anymore, or certainly of that ski terrain. Because the landlord, in that case, Talisker . . . they've moved forward in a different direction already," Katz said.
He said there are examples elsewhere in the U.S. where a single company operates more than one mountain resort. Katz cited Aspen, Colo., Summit County, Colo., and Vail, Colo. He noted that Powdr Corp. itself has two mountain resorts in the same market in Vermont -- Killington Resort and Pico Mountain Resort. The arrangements have been successful, he said.
The PCMR side recently indicated in a court filing it plans to dismantle and remove most of the ski lifts if it loses the case. Talisker Land Holdings, LLC responded with a statement that the resort will not have the legal right to remove the lifts. Katz said Vail Resorts would put up new ones if PCMR removes the ones there now.
"It goes without saying that our company has both the wherewithal and the expertise to put in new lifts. With that said, I don't think that that makes a whole lot of sense for anybody. So we can do it," he said, adding, "I think, again, when the case is ultimately decided, I think things will cool down and I believe that the Cummings will do the right thing . . . I don't know what they would do with the lifts if they took them."
Katz, meanwhile, spoke about Powdr Corp.'s intentions to pursue an action sports facility called Woodward Park City on PCMR land not involved in the lawsuit. Cumming recently said Powdr Corp. does not want to build Woodward Park City as a standalone facility separated from the disputed PCMR terrain, but it would do so if it must. Katz in the March buyout offer outlined an option that envisions Powdr Corp. building and operating Woodward Park City and Vail Resorts funding the associated skier parking and skier facilities. The parking lots and the lower skiing terrain -- where Woodward Park City would be built -- are on land outside of the contested acreage.
"We fully support that. We think Woodward is an amazing experience. It's terrific for kids. We 100 percent agree with everything John said, which is this would be great for the community to have a Woodward facility there. Terrific," Katz said. "Why can't we also, if we're willing to pay for it, build skier parking underneath the Woodward facility, build some ticket offices and let people ski from there just like they do today."
Katz said the route onto the slopes is best from where it is now, at the base of PCMR. He said there are other routes to access the disputed terrain, but they are not in the interest of the parties. If it loses the case, the PCMR side has argued, there would be dramatic consequences for the community.
"The only reason these things, these catastrophes, happen is if, for some reason that we don't know why, the Cummings would block access through that base area to the mountain," Katz said. "But why? We actually think people would pay more to be in that Woodward facility, they'd pay more for real estate, pay more for retail if that was also the access point to the mountain."
If a settlement is reached outlining some sort of effort between Vail Resorts and Powdr Corp. at the base area, the results could be spectacular, Katz predicted. That should be the focus, he said.
"This thing could be, right, an unbelievable world class real estate, retail, commercial, Woodward facility and the access to the mountain. It could be one of the great base areas found anywhere in the world," he said.
Katz on Tuesday sent a three-page letter to Cumming discussing topics like places where two or more resorts are under the same ownership, the lawsuit and the prospects of discussions between the two sides.

[CH3skier]

Big news today:
Judge sides with Talisker in critical rulings

Powdr Corp. CEO says a settlement is still needed
by Jay Hamburger, THE PARK RECORD
Posted: 05/21/2014 02:53:44 PM MDT0 Comments





The 3rd District Court judge presiding over the lawsuit between Park City Mountain Resort and its landlord, Talisker Land Holdings, LLC, on Wednesday sided with the landlord in two critical rulings.
Judge Ryan Harris reaffirmed an earlier ruling that PCMR's lease of much of the terrain underlying the resort expired in 2011. He also ruled that PCMR was not denied a right of first refusal when Talisker Land Holdings, LLC reached an agreement with Vail Resorts to operate Canyons Resort. The deal could be expanded to include the disputed terrain at PCMR depending on the outcome of the case.
The rulings had been highly anticipated since two hearings in April, but it was not clear when Harris would issue them. He had indicated it could be longer than the 60 days he normally takes, but the actual length was shorter than 60 days.
The Talisker Land Holdings, LLC side released a prepared statement on Wednesday saying it was pleased with the ruling. The statement read, in part: "Talisker looks forward to bringing in Vail Resorts as its new tenant and operator of the terrain. pursuing this lawsuit, PCMR caused years of unnecessary uncertainty for the Park City community and its guests. It's now time for PCMR to move on and work out a realistic solution for access to the ski terrain from Park City. Talisker also looks forward to concluding the rest of the court case, including working out the amount of back rent and damages owed to Talisker by PCMR."
PCMR also released a prepared statement from John Cumming, the CEO of resort owner Powdr Corp. Cumming said he respects the court decision. He said, though, PCMR and Vail Resorts must negotiate a settlement.
"We respect the Court's decision but at the end of the day it doesn't change the fact that Vail and PCMR can and must resolve this dispute. For that to happen, both parties will need to sit down at the table, negotiate in good faith, and come to a rational agreement. We are committed to doing exactly that, which is why we have made repeated offers to buy or lease the disputed property for an amount far in excess of market value. But let me be clear: we will not walk away and allow a Vail takeover," Cumming said, in part.
In a separate prepared statement, Alan Sullivan, PCMR's lead attorney, said the PCMR side will appeal the rulings. PCMR will operate as normal for the 2014-2015 ski season, Sullivan's statement said.

[hoodoo]

"We respect the Court's decision but at the end of the day it doesn't change the fact that Vail and PCMR can and must resolve this dispute. For that to happen, both parties will need to sit down at the table, negotiate in good faith, and come to a rational agreement. We are committed to doing exactly that, which is why we have made repeated offers to buy or lease the disputed property for an amount far in excess of market value. But let me be clear: we will not walk away and allow a Vail takeover," Cumming said, in part.

So he wants to sit down to talk resolution, but only if things go the way he (Cumming) wants them to go... I gotta say I am rooting for Vail/Talisker at this point. Cumming appears so douchy in his comments.

This post has been edited by hoodoo: 21 May 2014 - 05:08 PM

[SkiDaBird]

There is a pretty big dislike for Talisker in SLC due to SkiLink. In all honesty, I'm just not skiing in PC. I haven't been impressed by anyone there.