Jump to content


Park City Mountain Resort vs. Talisker Land Holdings



227 replies to this topic

#1 CH3skier

    Established User

  • Member
  • 364 Posts:
  • Interests:Skiing, Drag Racing, River running

Posted 09 March 2012 - 12:31 PM

http://www.supportpcmr.com/

The owner of Park City Mountain Resort (PCMR) has filed suit against Talisker Land Holdings, LLC to ensure that PCMR will continue to operate as one of the nation’s premier destination ski resorts. Since 1971, PCMR has used land owned by Talisker as an important part of its ski terrain. On April 30, 2011, PCMR provided Talisker with written confirmation of PCMR’s extension of the parties land-use arrangement for 20 additional years. In addition, PCMR paid Talisker the rent required annually under the parties’ agreement. Between 2009 and mid-2011, PCMR provided Talisker with repeated declarations of its intent to operate the resort through 2051. PCMR also advised Talisker of its intent to make major expenditures for ski terrain infrastructure improvements—expenditures totaling over $7,000,000 during the summer of 2011 alone. In late December 2011, however, Talisker notified PCMR for the first time that it took the position that the parties’ agreement expired in April 2011.
PCMR first asks the court for a declaration that the parties’ agreements have not expired but have been extended to 2051.
PCMR next asks the court for an injunction to prevent Talisker from shutting down PCMR’s business operations. If Talisker is not enjoined, the financial consequences to PCMR, it employees, the Park City community and the state would be disastrous.
Alternatively, PCMR seeks damages for Talisker’s delay in disclosing its intent to terminate the parties’ agreements. With knowledge that it intended to evict PCMR, Talisker continued to collect rental fees, allowed PCMR to invest over $7,000,000 in infrastructure improvements, and participated in discussions regarding a possible interconnect between the two resorts. PCMR seeks compensatory damages in the amount of $7,000,000 plus interest as well as punitive damages.

This post has been edited by CH3skier: 09 March 2012 - 12:33 PM


#2 CH3skier

    Established User

  • Member
  • 364 Posts:
  • Interests:Skiing, Drag Racing, River running

Posted 13 April 2012 - 03:37 PM

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) - The Canyons ski resort says it's willing to offer new leases for much of the land where neighboring Park City Mountain Resort operates.
Park City Mountain Resort filed a lawsuit last month accusing the Canyons of trying to drive it out of business by refusing to extend the leases for years longer.
The Canyons' Toronto-based resort operator, Talisker Corp., filed court papers Thursday saying Park City Mountain Resort let the leases expire and failed to submit written notice it wanted them extended.
However, the Canyons' managing director, Mike Goar, told the Associated Press that negotiations are ongoing on a new set of leases.
Goar says he's optimistic the dispute will be resolved.
Park City Mountain Resort officials didn't immediately return a message from the AP.

#3 CH3skier

    Established User

  • Member
  • 364 Posts:
  • Interests:Skiing, Drag Racing, River running

Posted 29 August 2013 - 07:32 AM

PARK CITY — Park City Mountain Resort has received an eviction notice in an on-going dispute between two companies. But the resort says it's staying.
This appears to be only the latest legal maneuver over a disputed lease agreement.
In a notice, Talisker Land Holdings called Park City Mountain Resort a tenant and said it's giving it five days to get off the land.
In documents obtained by the Park Record, Talisker claims the resort intentionally back-dated a document so it appeared to show the resort intended to renew its long-term lease before a deadline in 2011.
According to one of those documents, Talisker said, "Backdating a document is a tactic solely used to deceive a business partner."
Park City Mountain Resort circulated a statement to the media tying Vail Resorts, which operates The Canyons, to the eviction effort.
"Vail's eviction notice is nothing more than a bald-faced attempt to circumvent the litigation already in process and interfere with our business," the statement said.

Related:Posted Image Park City Mountain Resort files lawsuit against Canyons owner
Park City Mountain Resort filed a lawsuit in March 2012 against the company that owns much of the land where the popular ski resort operates.
"We will not give in to Vail's bullying and intend to conduct business as usual for the 2013-14 season," it added.
According to documents previously filed in the lawsuit, Park City's lease of 3,700 acres of land costs it just $155,000 a year. The Canyons pays $3 million a year for the land it leases from Wolf Mountain.
If Park City Mountain Resort were ever "evicted" from the disputed land, it would include much of its ski terrain. The resort controls its base area, parking lots and town lift base.

#4 floridaskier

    Established User

  • Administrator I
  • 2,814 Posts:

Posted 29 August 2013 - 03:09 PM

http://www.parkcitym...eviction-notice

Looks like the new neighbors are getting along just great
- Tyler
West Palm Beach, FL - elev. 9 feet

#5 SkiLiftsRock

    Established User

  • Industry II
  • 301 Posts:
  • Interests:Industrial Engineering

Posted 29 August 2013 - 04:35 PM

http://www.saminfo.c...eviction-notice


08/29/2013

SAM Magazine--Park City, Utah, August 29, 2013--Another shot has been fired in the on-going lease battle between Talisker Land Holdings and Park City Mountain Resort (PCMR), this time in the form of an eviction notice. Yesterday, Talisker filed a notice saying that PCMR is a tenant and they have five days to vacate the land it leases from Talisker (60 days for equipment not attached to the land), which does not include the base area, but most of the on-mountain terrain. According to KSL.com, Talisker claims that PCMR backdated a document, "a tactic solely used to deceive a business partner," making the lease invalid.

For its part, PCMR claims that the move actually comes from Vail Resorts, which recently entered an agreement to take over operations at nearby Canyons from Talisker, as well as the ongoing litigation between Park City and Talisker.

Snocountry.com reported that PCMR calls this "a move by Vail Resorts because the documents were signed by Fiona Arnold, manager of 'Talisker Land Resolution, LLC.' who is a Vail Resorts executive vice president and attorney."

Jenni Smith, president and GM of PCMR said in a statement, "Vail's action is nothing more than a bald-faced attempt to circumvent the litigation already in process and interfere with our business. We will not give in to Vail's bullying and look forward to conducting business as usual for the 2013-14 season. Park City Mountain Resort's base area, parking lots, Town Lift, lower ski terrain, and water rights and snowmaking systems for the entire mountain will not be affected by this dispute. These will remain with us in perpetuity."

More is sure to come.

For background, check out these previous news items:
http://www.saminfo.c...operate-canyons
http://www.saminfo.c...-doubt-talisker
http://www.saminfo.c...ating-new-lease
http://www.saminfo.c...gainst-talisker

#6 CH3skier

    Established User

  • Member
  • 364 Posts:
  • Interests:Skiing, Drag Racing, River running

Posted 11 February 2014 - 06:53 PM

Recent story on the battle of of the two resorts. Now it is Vail since they bought the lease from Talisker. It is a five page story, so i only posted the link.

http://www.businessw...tains-future#p1

This post has been edited by CH3skier: 11 February 2014 - 07:00 PM


#7 vons

    Established User

  • Industry II
  • 940 Posts:

Posted 12 February 2014 - 09:44 AM

The article doesn't mention it but I had heard that Powdr also retains ownership of all the improvements (lifts, snowmaking equip, etc.) on the leased land and that selling of these assets to the next resort operator or even removing them and recycling them into other powdr resorts are options on the table.

#8 Backbowlsbilly

    Established User

  • Member
  • 259 Posts:

Posted 12 February 2014 - 03:44 PM

I think both sides aren't working very well together on this one. Vail is clearly trying to buy Park City and is using some vicious business tactics but Park City Mountain has given Vail some very negative press on this one, saying "Vail" when Talisker still had a major role. An interesting tidbit, Vail owns land that Powdr wants (PCMR) but Powdr ownes land that could be useful to Vail (Copper Mountain).

#9 skier2

    Established User

  • Member
  • 496 Posts:

Posted 12 February 2014 - 05:17 PM

View PostBackbowlsbilly, on 12 February 2014 - 03:44 PM, said:

I think both sides aren't working very well together on this one. Vail is clearly trying to buy Park City and is using some vicious business tactics but Park City Mountain has given Vail some very negative press on this one, saying "Vail" when Talisker still had a major role. An interesting tidbit, Vail owns land that Powdr wants (PCMR) but Powdr ownes land that could be useful to Vail (Copper Mountain).

Interesting point, although I don't know if I could see Copper being owned by Vail Corp. Although, then again, I couldn't see Vail owning Canyons either...

#10 Peter

    Established User

  • Member
  • 4,314 Posts:

Posted 12 February 2014 - 05:29 PM

View Postskier2, on 12 February 2014 - 05:17 PM, said:

Interesting point, although I don't know if I could see Copper being owned by Vail Corp. Although, then again, I couldn't see Vail owning Canyons either...

I don't think the antitrust folks would allow Vail to buy any more resorts in Colorado.
- Peter<br />
Liftblog.com

#11 vons

    Established User

  • Industry II
  • 940 Posts:

Posted 12 February 2014 - 06:05 PM

View PostPeter, on 12 February 2014 - 05:29 PM, said:

I don't think the antitrust folks would allow Vail to buy any more resorts in Colorado.

yah the anti trust folks all ready made Vail sell Arapaho basin when that deal when't through

#12 Peter

    Established User

  • Member
  • 4,314 Posts:

Posted 26 March 2014 - 03:43 PM

Letter from the CEO of Vail to Powdr and the Park City community:

http://extras.parkre...ertoCumming.pdf

Edit: PCMR's response:

Quote

"We have repeatedly made it clear to Vail that PCMR is interested in exploring all possible solutions that will preserve the independence of PCMR as the nation's premier family ski resort. What we won't agree to is a Vail takeover. Vail's domination of the ski market in Summit County would be bad for our community, bad for our guests, and bad for our employees.

"If Vail and Talisker are interested in having a public discussion about their negotiation strategy, they should be willing to disclose documents to the public. PCMR has sought to make this information public, including Talisker's takeover proposal, only to have such requests blocked by Vail and Talisker in court. People should not be swayed by Rob's attempt to try the merits of this case in the press. We will present our arguments to the court beginning next week."


As far as I can tell this is the first mention by Vail that it could operate on Park City's current terrain via a new lift connection with the Canyons. If Powdr loses and refuses to sell its base facilities and lifts (the so called nuclear option,) things get really ugly.
- Peter<br />
Liftblog.com

#13 Nof

    New User

  • Member
  • 15 Posts:
  • Interests:Stuff

Posted 28 March 2014 - 11:29 AM

Vail resorts......doing what any publicly traded corp does. Gobbling up the competition in the ever increasing need for MOAR $$.

#14 skier2

    Established User

  • Member
  • 496 Posts:

Posted 28 March 2014 - 11:39 AM

Running a successful business shouldn't be seen as a crime. I'm don't really understand the issue of monopolies in the skiing industry, particularly when, in general, larger parent companies are able to deliver a superior experience (hence Vail Resorts' dominance and prestige). Of course, in this case, the issue isn't really about a purchase, but a seizure of property, which I feel demonstrates Vail's lack of ethics and cutthroat expansion strategy.

Just a thought: working together generally produces a better outcome for all parties involved. This is child's play, and I'm rather embarrassed of Vail's (mis)conduct, even with the law technically being on its side.

#15 boardski

    Established User

  • Industry II
  • 760 Posts:

Posted 31 March 2014 - 06:18 AM

I just purchased a Copper season pass which promises 3 days at PCMR for next season. I will need to keep an eye on further developments of this conflict. I highly doubt Vail would honor Copper passes if they gained control but then again, who knows? It is odd that PCMR has existed long before the Canyons or Wolf Mountain yet they are leasing the land from them. Not to be judgmental but the tone of Vail's 5 page letter did seem a little pompous and condescending and we all know what Vail's goal is. I guess times like these are the reason the "legal eagles" get the big bucks. It will be interesting to see how it all turns out, hopefully, for the best for all parties including "John Q. Skier-Rider".

This post has been edited by boardski: 31 March 2014 - 06:29 AM

Skiing since 1977, snowboarding since 1989

#16 floridaskier

    Established User

  • Administrator I
  • 2,814 Posts:

Posted 31 March 2014 - 06:42 AM

Vail sure isn't endearing themselves to anyone in Park City right now, which is a darn shame because they had a chance to be local heroes for turning The Canyons into a top-notch place. I'm amazed this has gone on as long as it has without a settlement. Friendly relations would look much better for Vail in the long run. They need the town on their side, and the value of their investment in The Canyons goes up if the locals like them and want to buy season passes.
- Tyler
West Palm Beach, FL - elev. 9 feet

#17 SkiDaBird

    Established User

  • Member
  • 509 Posts:
  • Interests:Skiing

Posted 31 March 2014 - 12:55 PM

View Postfloridaskier, on 31 March 2014 - 06:42 AM, said:

Vail sure isn't endearing themselves to anyone in Park City right now, which is a darn shame because they had a chance to be local heroes for turning The Canyons into a top-notch place. I'm amazed this has gone on as long as it has without a settlement. Friendly relations would look much better for Vail in the long run. They need the town on their side, and the value of their investment in The Canyons goes up if the locals like them and want to buy season passes.

The problem is that most people from SLC buy passes in the Cottonwood Canyons since it's closer, cheaper and much more friendly to locals so Vail doesn't need a lot of local support since most customers are likely to be tourists.

#18 liftmech

    lift mechanic

  • Administrator II
  • 5,916 Posts:
  • Interests:Many.

Posted 02 April 2014 - 02:37 PM

It'd be nice if our parent company could get this settled. I've heard absolutely nothing internally about how this affects us, but we'd be fools to think that it doesn't. Very little is happening in our off-season this summer-- no upgrades, nothing new, limited budget-- so I'd have to say that's related to the ongoing legal issues Powdr is having with VA.
Member, Department of Ancient Technology, Colorado chapter.

#19 vons

    Established User

  • Industry II
  • 940 Posts:

Posted 02 April 2014 - 03:43 PM

John I'm sure you are right, any season in the past as strong as the one you guys are finishing up would have almost guaranteed improvements. I am guessing that Powdr is keeping the cash at the ready incase things go south.

#20 floridaskier

    Established User

  • Administrator I
  • 2,814 Posts:

Posted 03 April 2014 - 10:24 AM

It has to have been a drag on PCMR itself even more. They haven't done anything visible except the new Three Kings triple in 2011 (not sure how mechanically unavoidable that was). Glad they got Crescent done in 2008 before the financial crisis and legal woes.

There's something to be said for Vail owning even more resorts and putting them on the Epic pass. Prices will be held in check because even if they own every last ski resort, they compete for vacation dollars with beach resorts in Mexico / Disney World / etc. It would always be great to have all 3 Park City resorts on one pass (or at least PCMR and The Canyons, because DV is staying put). That's probably Vail's big idea - unite PCMR and The Canyons on the Epic pass to stick it to Deer Valley, who beat Vail in the Skimag rankings 5 years in a row. To make this really work, you need to upgrade both to Vail Mountain/DV standards of lifts and amenities.

What I hope happens is Powdr keeps PCMR (opening up cash to spend at PCMR, Copper and elsewhere) and Vail keeps The Canyons. This would hopefully lead to more cooperation and competition between the Vail empire and DV/PCMR/Snowbird/Alta (those 4 already introduced a joint pass deal for 2013-14). If Vail fixes up The Canyons, that's good for everyone.

But if you look around the list of other top-line destination ski resorts (the big Colorado resorts, Whistler, Deer Valley, etc), there are hardly fixed grip lifts left that aren't beginner/expert/access lifts. I would put PCMR on that list but they've still got a pretty big portion of the hill served by long fixed grip, and only one significant lift upgrade in the last 15 years (when Vail/DV/Breck/Whistler have done half a dozen each). Long-term, PCMR would need to upgrade a bunch of lifts and base facilities to play with the big boys. The base area has plenty of character but it's really 70s, and lift issues include Silverlode/Motherlode/Pioneer/Thaynes. They've got a great mountain to work with and a nice loyal customer base. I first put on skis there and I hope they get this worked out soon.
- Tyler
West Palm Beach, FL - elev. 9 feet





1 User(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users