Jump to content


Late BREAKING NEWS


27 replies to this topic

#1 tahoeistruckin

    Established User

  • Industry II
  • 282 Posts:

Posted 26 October 2007 - 05:30 PM

Place your bets, Will Talisker run the Canyons into the ground, considering they have no expreance running a ski resort.

http://www.parkrecor...ines/ci_7268247

Talisker wins round in battle for The Canyons
Judge in Denver denies request from Vail to stop resort sale
Patrick Parkinson, Of the Record staff
Article Launched: 10/24/2007 10:49:52 AM MDT


Officials at Talisker Corp. say they will close a deal with American Skiing Co. to purchase The Canyons resort in Park City after a district court judge in Denver denied a request from Vail Resorts, Inc. to block the high-profile sale.
ASC Chief Executive Officer B.J. Fair, who expects to close the sale in 2007, said The Canyons will open for the winter season on Nov. 17.

The 8-page decision issued late Friday by Judge R. Michael Mullins "represents a sweeping victory for Talisker and ASC," a prepared statement from Toronto-based Talisker Corp. states.

"We are pleased with this ruling in favor of both Talisker and ASC," Talisker Chief Executive Officer Jack Bistricer said. "Since 2000, Talisker has been developing and operating resort communities in the Park City and Deer Valley areas and this important ruling will allow us to move forward and complete our acquisition of The Canyons."

The ruling "scolded" officials at Vail, according to Bistricer.

"This case fundamentally concerns a free market competition between businesses for an economically promising opportunity," the ruling states. "Talisker prevailed, not as a result of any wrongdoings alleged by Vail, in that competition by offering what ASC considered to be a superior deal."

In July, the embattled American Skiing Co., which has gone out of business, announced its intention to sell The Canyons to Talisker for $100 million. A bitter bidding war continued when Vail subsequently offered more than $110 million for ASC's only remaining ski resort.

In his ruling, the judge dispensed with Vail's allegations and "went on to articulate further and independent reasons to deny Vail's petition, stating that Vail's alleged injuries are too speculative, that Vail cannot show a danger of real, immediate and irreparable harm, and for other reasons Vail's motion for preliminary injunction must be denied," according to Talisker.

Meanwhile, an attorney for American Skiing Company praised the Oct. 19 ruling in a press release Monday.

"As a party that has not been accused of any wrongdoing in this matter, we are very pleased with the [court's] decision to allow the sale of The Canyons to go forward. This ruling from the [court] is a first step toward a great future for the resort under Talisker's ownership," said Foster Stewart Jr., general counsel for American Skiing Company. "We will continue to work closely with Talisker to satisfy all remaining conditions to the closing of our sale."

Though disappointed, officials at Vail, who have reportedly spent $2 million on the litigation, vowed to continue their quest to acquire The Canyons.

"We will continue to pursue our legal rights related to this matter," Vail Resorts Chief Executive Officer Rob Katz said in a prepared statement.

Land on which The Canyons is operated is leased to ASC by Wolf Mountain Resorts Managing Partner Kenny Griswold, who claims he must consent before the lease can be transferred to a different owner.

Griswold said "we have high hopes that Vail will prevail."

"Wolf Mountain will vigilantly defend their contractual rights as landlord. Among them is the right to require prior operating experience, sufficient financial stability and numerous other specific requirements None of which Talisker has fulfilled," Griswold said in a telephone interview Tuesday.

An injunction could have spared ASC and Talisker "a lot of embarrassment," he said.

Following the announced sale of The Canyons to Talisker Corp. in July, Vail sued Talisker, American Skiing Company and the Peninsula Advisors investment firm claiming Vail was one day away from purchasing the resort before Talisker conspired with Peninsula principal Mark Robbins to scuttle the deal.

Though Peninsula Advisors may have violated an exclusivity agreement the firm reached with Vail to buy the resort, "Vail has no contractual right under the [exclusivity agreement] to acquire [The Canyons,]" the ruling states.

"ASC was not a party to the [exclusivity agreement] and is not [compelled] by that agreement to negotiate with Vail or anyone else," according to the judge's decision on the request for a preliminary injunction.

#2 Emax

    Established User

  • Industry II
  • 2,904 Posts:

Posted 26 October 2007 - 05:48 PM

View Posttahoeistruckin, on Oct 26 2007, 07:30 PM, said:

Place your bets, Will Talisker run the Canyons into the ground, considering they have no expreance (experience) running a ski resort.

http://www.parkrecor...ines/ci_7268247

Talisker wins round in battle for The Canyons
Judge in Denver denies request from Vail to stop resort sale
Patrick Parkinson, Of the Record staff
Article Launched: 10/24/2007 10:49:52 AM MDT


Officials at Talisker Corp. say they will close a deal with American Skiing Co. to purchase The Canyons resort in Park City after a district court judge in Denver denied a request from Vail Resorts, Inc. to block the high-profile sale.
ASC Chief Executive Officer B.J. Fair, who expects to close the sale in 2007, said The Canyons will open for the winter season on Nov. 17.

The 8-page decision issued late Friday by Judge R. Michael Mullins "represents a sweeping victory for Talisker and ASC," a prepared statement from Toronto-based Talisker Corp. states.

"We are pleased with this ruling in favor of both Talisker and ASC," Talisker Chief Executive Officer Jack Bistricer said. "Since 2000, Talisker has been developing and operating resort communities in the Park City and Deer Valley areas and this important ruling will allow us to move forward and complete our acquisition of The Canyons."

The ruling "scolded" officials at Vail, according to Bistricer.

"This case fundamentally concerns a free market competition between businesses for an economically promising opportunity," the ruling states. "Talisker prevailed, not as a result of any wrongdoings alleged by Vail, in that competition by offering what ASC considered to be a superior deal."

In July, the embattled American Skiing Co., which has gone out of business, announced its intention to sell The Canyons to Talisker for $100 million. A bitter bidding war continued when Vail subsequently offered more than $110 million for ASC's only remaining ski resort.

In his ruling, the judge dispensed with Vail's allegations and "went on to articulate further and independent reasons to deny Vail's petition, stating that Vail's alleged injuries are too speculative, that Vail cannot show a danger of real, immediate and irreparable harm, and for other reasons Vail's motion for preliminary injunction must be denied," according to Talisker.

Meanwhile, an attorney for American Skiing Company praised the Oct. 19 ruling in a press release Monday.

"As a party that has not been accused of any wrongdoing in this matter, we are very pleased with the [court's] decision to allow the sale of The Canyons to go forward. This ruling from the [court] is a first step toward a great future for the resort under Talisker's ownership," said Foster Stewart Jr., general counsel for American Skiing Company. "We will continue to work closely with Talisker to satisfy all remaining conditions to the closing of our sale."

Though disappointed, officials at Vail, who have reportedly spent $2 million on the litigation, vowed to continue their quest to acquire The Canyons.

"We will continue to pursue our legal rights related to this matter," Vail Resorts Chief Executive Officer Rob Katz said in a prepared statement.

Land on which The Canyons is operated is leased to ASC by Wolf Mountain Resorts Managing Partner Kenny Griswold, who claims he must consent before the lease can be transferred to a different owner.

Griswold said "we have high hopes that Vail will prevail."

"Wolf Mountain will vigilantly defend their contractual rights as landlord. Among them is the right to require prior operating experience, sufficient financial stability and numerous other specific requirements None of which Talisker has fulfilled," Griswold said in a telephone interview Tuesday.

An injunction could have spared ASC and Talisker "a lot of embarrassment," he said.

Following the announced sale of The Canyons to Talisker Corp. in July, Vail sued Talisker, American Skiing Company and the Peninsula Advisors investment firm claiming Vail was one day away from purchasing the resort before Talisker conspired with Peninsula principal Mark Robbins to scuttle the deal.

Though Peninsula Advisors may have violated an exclusivity agreement the firm reached with Vail to buy the resort, "Vail has no contractual right under the [exclusivity agreement] to acquire [The Canyons,]" the ruling states.

"ASC was not a party to the [exclusivity agreement] and is not [compelled] by that agreement to negotiate with Vail or anyone else," according to the judge's decision on the request for a preliminary injunction.

There are three roads to ruin; women, gambling and technicians. The most pleasant is with women, the quickest is with gambling, but the surest is with technicians. Georges Pompidou

#3 SkiBachelor

    Forum Administrator

  • Administrator II
  • 6,242 Posts:
  • Interests:Hi, I'm Cameron!

Posted 26 October 2007 - 06:00 PM

If someone believes that a company with no ski industry experience can't run a successful ski resort, look at Intrawest!

All a company has to do is put together well organized and functional team with and action plan and experience in this area to create a sustainable/profitable resort. It's very unlikely that Talisker would purchase The Canyons not knowing how to operate it. However, if it was a company like Pepsi who was trying to diversify, then there might be a good chance that its investment would pay off.

There are also people who have experience owning and operating ski resorts who have failed big time. Less Otten and Edgar Stern have both ran into bankruptcy/financial problems while operating a ski resort.
- Cameron

#4 cjb

    Established User

  • Industry II
  • 598 Posts:
  • Interests:cycling, snowboarding, running, scuba

Posted 26 October 2007 - 06:17 PM

Anybody can make a small fortune in the ski business...(finish the sentence)

#5 floridaskier

    Established User

  • Administrator I
  • 2,814 Posts:

Posted 26 October 2007 - 06:18 PM

Talisker seems to be making plenty of money on real estate, and if they do run it into the ground, Vail is still there to buy them. I would have liked to see Vail buy it because it seems like they would put more money into the skiing part, not the real estate part, but either way its better for The Canyons than a bankrupt ASC
- Tyler
West Palm Beach, FL - elev. 9 feet

#6 Emax

    Established User

  • Industry II
  • 2,904 Posts:

Posted 26 October 2007 - 06:50 PM

View Postcjb, on Oct 26 2007, 08:17 PM, said:

Anybody can make a small fortune in the ski business...(finish the sentence)


...just begin with a large one.
There are three roads to ruin; women, gambling and technicians. The most pleasant is with women, the quickest is with gambling, but the surest is with technicians. Georges Pompidou

#7 SkiBachelor

    Forum Administrator

  • Administrator II
  • 6,242 Posts:
  • Interests:Hi, I'm Cameron!

Posted 26 October 2007 - 07:02 PM

View PostEmax, on Oct 26 2007, 07:50 PM, said:

...just begin with a large one.


I hate the break the news, but this saying is not always true. Okay, maybe if it's a bad season, but I've done some research and have found that investors can earn a higher economic profit investing in the ski industry than keeping their money in the bank earning 3% intrest.
- Cameron

#8 mikest2

    Mountain Operations

  • Administrator I
  • 1,204 Posts:

Posted 26 October 2007 - 07:21 PM

View PostSkiBachelor, on Oct 26 2007, 08:02 PM, said:

I hate the break the news, but this saying is not always true. Okay, maybe if it's a bad season, but I've done some research and have found that investors can earn a higher economic profit investing in the ski industry than keeping their money in the bank earning 3% intrest.

You have to know your stuff, it's a hard business, only 5 months of returns, I have not seen a lot of Vegans succeed in the meat packing industry. Intrawest existed on real estate, that was their business. I sold them doorknobs for their condos long before they built their first ski resort. I have been on board when the ship sank, thats why I now navigate the ship, I will never let her hit the shoals again !!
...Mike

#9 Emax

    Established User

  • Industry II
  • 2,904 Posts:

Posted 26 October 2007 - 08:04 PM

View PostSkiBachelor, on Oct 26 2007, 09:02 PM, said:

I hate the break the news, but this saying is not always true. Okay, maybe if it's a bad season, but I've done some research and have found that investors can earn a higher economic profit investing in the ski industry than keeping their money in the bank earning 3% intrest.


...sorry that you hate to say it. In the long run, it's always true. Buy (or better, sell) condos. That way, you'll make out.
There are three roads to ruin; women, gambling and technicians. The most pleasant is with women, the quickest is with gambling, but the surest is with technicians. Georges Pompidou

#10 cjb

    Established User

  • Industry II
  • 598 Posts:
  • Interests:cycling, snowboarding, running, scuba

Posted 27 October 2007 - 06:38 AM

I don't know, I have watched 11 years of losses here and the primary reason for it is a (mostly) unwise invetment of $. The owner is not a ski area guy but is too stubborn to give up and while he keeps us going it is kind of depressing to stuggle on year after year, especially knowing what we could be. He has been given so much bad advice in the past by former management that it is hard to get things done now. I am giving it 2 more years to see if there are substantial changes and then may look for a fresh start, (still in the ski industry), I am stuck there.

#11 Guest_mjturley34_*

  • Visiting Guest

Posted 28 October 2007 - 04:12 PM

The Canyons ski patrol locked out
The Canyons confirms ski patrollers will be locked out until contract agreement is made
Kelly Evertsen, Of the Record Staff
Article Launched: 10/26/2007 04:32:26 PM MDT

The Canyons faces the possibility of starting the season without a ski patrol.

Canyons officials said Wednesday night that the 50-plus ski patrollers of The Canyons Professional Ski Patrol Association will be locked out of the resort until the company and ski-patrol union come to an accord for the season.

There had been confusion at The Canyons about whether a lockout was in place.

"There's been some miscommunication," said Canyons Official Todd Burnette on Wednesday at about 5 p.m. "We have not locked them out, we're just waiting [to come to an agreement]."

Spokesperson Libby Dowd said in an e-mail Wednesday afternoon that the resort had stopped five union members from attending an avalanche safety and ski patrol workshop at Snowbird because the union company could not reach a deal.

If an agreement is not reached before opening day on Nov. 17, Canyons officials said the entire ski patrol will be locked out.

"Our last deadline of October 19, 2007 was given after multiple extensions," Dowd wrote in an e-mail. "This deadline exists to ensure that the resort will have a well-trained ski patrol this season, even if an agreement cannot be reached with the union."

The union voted Canyons' contract proposal down after its negotiating committee and The Canyons representatives met on Sept. 9. The Canyons' "final offer" for a contract did not appeal to union members and it was rejected. The Canyons agreed to meet again on Oct. 12 to resume negotiations. Instead, said Megan McKenna, business manager of the union, rather than continuing negotiations, The Canyons came back with "an even less favorable proposal," stating the union would be locked out of the resort if it did not accept a "final offer" within one week.

McKenna argued it is impossible to send out ballots and gather votes from all union members within one week. Many members, she explained, live outside the state and will not be returning to Park City until training sessions are scheduled to begin Nov. 5. After requesting an extension of time to gather the ballots, The Canyons told the union a decision still must be made by Oct. 27 or the ski patrol will continue to be locked out.

The disputes have nothing to do with wages or benefits. McKenna said the union voted down the contract proposal because The Canyons wanted to change the regular contract negotiation schedule from the fall to the spring.

"Our disagreement is about when we negotiate the terms of the agreement," McKenna said. "Currently, we [start] negotiating in the summer, and it's been a problem because, in the summer, [ski patrollers] are doing other things."

McKenna argued the resort is at more of an advantage if negotiations are scheduled in the spring or summer instead of the fall. She said this gives the company more time to make changes in the terms of the new contract. That schedule decreases the possibility of a strike or lockout if the union decides to vote down the proposed contract, she said.

"They're definitely at an advantage if we negotiate during the summer," McKenna said. "They don't want to give that up because they think that we're at too big of an advantage in the fall [and] if we don't come to an agreement like where we are right now the union could strike or the company could lock [us] out."

Burnette argued that for two years, The Canyons has negotiated with the union in the fall and said the current schedule does not favor either side. The union brought a job action against The Canyons last fall when union members voted down the contract proposal for the 2006-2007 season. While an agreement was eventually made, it occurred just before the season opened. Burnette and Dowd said, if the union continues to vote down proposals, they fear it will result in an ill-trained ski patrol at the start of each new season.

"It doesn't put anyone in a good position," Burnette said. "We've proposed that we would negotiate in the February-March period." He argued against McKenna's assertion that spring is a bad time for negotiations because, he said, a spring negotiation schedule is just as favorable as a fall schedule because patrollers will still be working at that time and will be able to meet for negotiations.

McKenna said the union also disagrees with the two-year commitment proposed in the new contract. Union members fear the new owners of the resort will alter employment packages once new ownership is in place, she said.

"There's just so many uncertainties with the new company coming in. You could lose benefits and job security," McKenna said. "When a new company comes in, legally, they have to recognize the Union, but they don't have to recognize the contract."

The union formed in 2000, after ASC took over the resort. The union has since negotiated with The Canyons to create a collective bargaining agreement or contract that both parties must abide by, the press release reads.

Dowd, Burnette and McKenna see the possibility of the union and The Canyons coming to an agreement before the resort is scheduled to open on Nov. 17. McKenna said she is sure the union will vote down The Canyons final proposal again. But, Burnette said, The Canyons is scheduled to open on Nov. 17, regardless of whether they reach an agreement. He said if the Union and resort do not come to an agreement by then, patrollers will not be allowed to work without a contract. Burnette said The Canyons is willing to hire a new Ski Patrol if necessary.

"We do remain hopeful that the union membership will vote to accept the offer on the table," Dowd said. "We sincerely want our ski patrol employees to report for duty once the ski season starts and we have a contract in place."

McKenna said while she is not sure what will happen if Union members again reject The Canyons' "final offer" for contracts after the ballots are counted on Oct. 27, she hopes the resort's management will work with the union and allow patrollers to start training Nov. 5.

"We are counting votes on [Oct. 27] and we'll let the company know then. We still think our union will shut it down," McKenna said. "On Nov. 5, [all the patrollers] are back. It's basically up to the company if we don't come to an agreement. It's up to them to decide if they want to continue the lockout."

#12 tmr

    New User

  • Industry II
  • 3 Posts:

Posted 31 October 2007 - 10:23 PM

View Postcjb, on Oct 26 2007, 07:17 PM, said:

Anybody can make a small fortune in the ski business...(finish the sentence)

Hey I made a million bucks in this industry, I started out with two million.

#13 cjb

    Established User

  • Industry II
  • 598 Posts:
  • Interests:cycling, snowboarding, running, scuba

Posted 01 November 2007 - 08:39 AM

[quote name='mjturley34' date='Oct 28 2007, 05:12 PM' post='67137']
You could lose benefits and job security," McKenna said.

welcome to the real world, again I say unions are detrimental to industry, just ask Ford, Gm, Bethlehem steel, etc...

You agree to do a job so you do it. If the company makes changes you don't like then you deal with it or find a new company. You are not a slave to the company and they should not be a slave to you.

#14 Guest_mjturley34_*

  • Visiting Guest

Posted 01 November 2007 - 08:56 AM

"There's just so many uncertainties with the new company coming in. You could lose benefits and job security," McKenna said.

It seems like they are worried about protecting their benefits with the unknown future with whom ever ends up buying their employer. Is that so wrong ? They are trying to "deal" with the changes that are coming with the company.

"If the company makes changes you don't like then you deal with it "

This post has been edited by mjturley34: 01 November 2007 - 09:03 AM


#15 skier2

    Established User

  • Member
  • 496 Posts:

Posted 01 November 2007 - 05:53 PM

No. If a company, such as Northwest Airlines, suddenly decides to take away 40% of your salary, you don't just deal with it.

#16 mikest2

    Mountain Operations

  • Administrator I
  • 1,204 Posts:

Posted 01 November 2007 - 06:23 PM

Don't take this the wrong way, but if you are not happy doing what you are doing, more money won't help. I have been with my employer a long time, but I still remember that I was looking for a job when I found this one.
Life is far too short to be unhappy about anything. When I was in high school I told myself that I'd make my first million by the time I was 40, I guess I'd better start working on my second !
...Mike

#17 RibStaThiok

    Established User

  • Member
  • 1,057 Posts:

Posted 01 November 2007 - 06:23 PM

Thats right, you quit and hope to get hired on by another airline. Thing is, there are tons of pilots out there willing to work for less because they love to fly.
Ryan

#18 cjb

    Established User

  • Industry II
  • 598 Posts:
  • Interests:cycling, snowboarding, running, scuba

Posted 01 November 2007 - 06:37 PM

You do deal with it, a company should be able to pay whatever it wants and you of course have the right to refuse to work below a certain amount of pay. Obviously a company (northwest, vail, mcdonald's) thinks that they can fill those positions to an adequate level at a certain pay why should they be forced to pay more? Perhaps the airlines could make money and NOT need government bailouts if their hands weren't tied by unions. The only time changing pay/beneifts should be illegal is in the form of enlistment in a job where quitting is not an option. For example the military where you can go to jail for quitting. If my company changes something concerning my status then I can decide whether it is still in my interest to continue with them or whether it is time to move on. Maybe soon it will be time to move on but employment and salary is not a right just as their use of my services is not a right. It is a mutually agreed upon situation severable by either party at any time.

#19 yardsale

    New User

  • Member
  • 14 Posts:

Posted 01 November 2007 - 06:53 PM

View PostRibStaThio, on Nov 1 2007, 06:23 PM, said:

Thats right, you quit and hope to get hired on by another airline. Thing is, there are tons of pilots out there willing to work for less because they love to fly.

Park City west, Park West, Wolf Mountain, Canyons. I think they should try Vudgeville next.

#20 Callao

    Established User

  • Industry I
  • 429 Posts:

Posted 02 November 2007 - 09:37 AM

If I recall right, the ski patrol at The Canyons is the only unionized unit in the Utah ski industry. You can't fire a whole union, can you? Because if they can pull that off, and hire a new ski patrol, it seems like they should have done that seven years ago.

Isn't a resort required to have a certain number of patrollers on the mountain at any given time? The Canyons makes it sound so easy to not have any ski patrol at all.





1 User(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users