z1000307470
lotsoskiing;c-39104 wrote
Call it the "Big Tupper Effect".
The difference, though, is that SB with a bed base is a better resort than BT would be, even if there were beds.
Except Big Tupper is basically a 650 vertical local bump with boring terrain that does not get a lot of snow.
sugarloaf
December marks 30 years since I have been to Saddleback, so I've driven around in that region alot. I can't say I'm a big fan of Route 17 to Saddleback. You have to drive on Height Of Land, which gets to over 2,000'. In Winter that can be a snow covered mess. Plus the road usually has plenty of potholes and uneaven pavement.
Route 27 and Route 16 is my preferred way to get to Saddleback. Since I stay at White Wolf, I'm in Stratton Maine anyway. Route 16 is "Moose Alley" and you have to be careful with driving and it always has plenty of Deer. Combine that with fast driving logging trucks and the ride to and from Saddleback can be interesting.
I'm usually up there from Mid-March to Late-April, when Wintertime driving conditions are not as much of a factor, and Sugarloaf and Saddleback still have Wintertime snow.
lotsoskiing
z1000307470;c-39106 wrotelotsoskiing;c-39104 wrote
Call it the "Big Tupper Effect".
The difference, though, is that SB with a bed base is a better resort than BT would be, even if there were beds.
Except Big Tupper is basically a 650 vertical local bump with boring terrain that does not get a lot of snow.
Yes, that was my point. BT, even if it had beds, does not come close to SB as a ski area.
joshua_segal
conrad;c-39096 wrotejoshua_segal;c-39088 wroteI am told that the 2-peaks are 5-miles apart as the crow flies, but about 30 miles as the car drives.
A bit of research on Google Earth reveals that the peaks are only 11.5 miles apart as the crow flies and 36.5 miles apart by car. That's still over 3x the distance!
FWIW: The real point I was making is that most people going to either Saddleback or Sugarloaf turn right to Kingsfield or go straight to Rangeley. That's the distance I was claiming as about equal.
powderstud
So like many on here, I was alarmed to learn that Arctaris is trying to now raise $2 million to close the deal. Boy, is that a serious red flag. From my way of thinking, it calls into question the entire basis for the transaction. I had assumed that Arctaris was deploying whatever of its own risk capital to do the deal, and then had secured funds through various funding mechanisms/grants for depressed area investment. My guess is that ALL of the money that will be needed to improve Saddleback post-closing is coming from one third party source or another, not Arctaris equity, and their equity is basically being used to swing the deal. But if they're trying to still raise the funds necessary to close the transaction in the first place, what sort of equity is Arctaris actually putting into this deal? It's not a big number in the first place and certainly as a percentage of the overall funding (Arctaris equity + grants + loans = purchase price + new investment into Saddleback to pay for new lifts, infrastructure improvements, etc.). Obviously Arctaris is doing this to make a buck, and one way you make a buck is by having little to no money of your own in the deal and having it being massively leveraged, as this one appears to be. And if it's massively leveraged, then the ending is already all but clear.
My best guess is that whatever money in this deal that is actually Arctaris' is a relatively small percentage of the total funding, and they are also planning to get their own cash out as quickly as possible--think how leveraged buyouts are done by private equity sharks, who immediately grab what cash they can through fees and mandatory payments to their management company, and hope that the rest of the squeezing they do of employees, costs, suppliers, etc. coupled with some sort of attempt to juice revenues will happen quickly enough so they can then exit and dump the mess onto someone else's hands at an inflated price. With this new piece of information about Arctaris needing to raise money for the closing, this has the same smell, and it's not a good one.
There is plenty of information we don't know. But the reveal of this fact, that Arctaris is needing to get money from others to close the deal, says that the economic underpinnings of this transaction are weak, and that post-closing this new era of ownership is unlikely to be successful in the long run. Perhaps foolishly, I really thought Arctaris had a significant amount of equity it was truly committing to the deal that got the deal done, and then was putting in some additional to fund operations but would be leveraging grants, government monies, loans, etc., to make the needed infrastructure improvements. Obviously they are putting in far less than I imagined, which means this whole deal is weak. Effecting a turnaround costs real investment and commitment of resources, and if the equity is not there to properly capitalize that, it ain't gonna happen.
I've now concluded that Joshua Segal is right, and the only viable long-term pathway for Saddleback is a non-profit coop of some sort. If Arctaris is the last best hope for a profit-making venture to reviving Saddleback, and if my best guess of the situation is correct, then the only viable pathway will be the non-profit entity.
All of this bodes poorly. And I think at this point I'll be surprised if this deal goes through. It sure seems like it's built on the snow remaining on Superstar on May 31.
lotsoskiing
I don't see how the non-profit route could work without bed base. You still need to put people in the chairs, and you can't do that at SB with daytrippers. An MRG-style co-op still relies on a large number of people who live nearby or who own vacation homes nearby and who will pony up the money, regardless of the snow conditions. I don't see this in a place like SB, unless there is a vast underground of loyal SB skiers out there ready to jump in as they did at MRG when Betsy sold out.
I'd love to hear some specifics of how a co-op could work for SB.
sugarloaf
If a co-op does buy Saddleback, they could run it like Powdr does with Pico, a short season and a few mid-week days and weekends. The problem with that is finding enough part time employees.
Maybe run a season from Mid-December to April 1st. As much as I liked late season skiing at Saddleback, we had the place to ourselves. Look at my pictures and you'll see the lack of other people on the mountain. Running 5 lifts, grooming, and paying employees with few customers during the week or late season, isn't profitable with only a few dozen customers.
NewEnglandSkier13
sugarloaf;c-39122 wroteIf a co-op does buy Saddleback, they could run it like Powdr does with Pico, a short season and a few mid-week days and weekends. The problem with that is finding enough part time employees.
Maybe run a season from Mid-December to April 1st. As much as I liked late season skiing at Saddleback, we had the place to ourselves. Look at my pictures and you'll see the lack of other people on the mountain. Running 5 lifts, grooming, and paying employees with few customers during the week or late season, isn't profitable with only a few dozen customers.
Black operates as a non-profit, and that's the reasoning why we only operate late December through early April.
conrad
Powderstud definitely seems to be getting to the root of the problem.
In step 1, they first try to outsource the purchase price as much as possible in the form of free donations from the Saddleback community. Once they own the ski area, then the $28 million in investments fall through and the only option is to liquidate the ski area. And thanks to all the donations from the Saddleback community subsidizing the initial investment, the investors take a healthy profit after the lifts, lodge, and property are sold off.
Saddleback doesn't necessarily need a non-profit or a co-op owner. What it really needs is a serious buyer, obviously very difficult to find one of these.
sugarloaf
It needs a serious Buyer willing to invest before seeing much profit before new lifts and lodging is in place. Hopefully the economy stays strong, because if it tanks, it will be harder to find a buyer if this deal falls through.
The key to success has to include additional lodging, otherwise this is all new icing on a stale cake. I honestly don't think the current buyer has the willingness to spend money on lodging.
loafasaur
Here's a link to a Bangor Daily News article byline dated 12/11/19. Highlights: First, the initial $2m in "donations" is NON-REFUNDABLE once the closing planned for late December '19 goes through, which sounds likely. Second, there's another $1m "ask" coming up in December 2020.
Is another Evergreen-Valley-type NELSAP story in the making?
https://bangordailynews.com/2019/12/11/news/lewiston-auburn/why-prospective-buyers-are-asking-saddlebrook-condo-owners-to-pitch-in-on-resorts-revitalization/
ski_it
rickbolger;c-39099 wrote
There aren't nearly as many people who would say "next trip to Eustis, let's give Saddleback a try"
Hey I never drove from Eustis to Saddleback. It was Eaton to Eustis. Actually Farmington to Eustis IIRC. Closer than for me to go to Mt Snow
sugarloaf
And now the plan is to replace the Rangely Chair with a fixed grip quad.
ME2VTskier
sugarloaf;c-39131 wroteAnd now the plan is to replace the Rangely Chair with a fixed grip quad.
Which, realistically isn't going to bring a flood of new customers to ride a slow uncovered primary lift. Not saying a Direct Drive Bubble 8 is the answer either, but really... if it doesn't whisk you up the mountain fast, the masses won't be drooling to get there and ski. Especially since the rumors are that Boyne is FINNALLY going to make some changes at Sugarloaf.
sugarloaf
ME2VTskier;c-39133 wrotesugarloaf;c-39131 wroteAnd now the plan is to replace the Rangely Chair with a fixed grip quad.
Which, realistically isn't going to bring a flood of new customers to ride a slow uncovered primary lift. Not saying a Direct Drive Bubble 8 is the answer either, but really... if it doesn't whisk you up the mountain fast, the masses won't be drooling to get there and ski.
+1
NewEnglandSkier13
If the new owners of Saddleback want to compete with Sugarloaf at all, they'd better act fast. There are some big changes in the works for Sugarloaf.
sugarloaf
NewEnglandSkier13;c-39138 wroteIf the new owners of Saddleback want to compete with Sugarloaf at all, they'd better act fast. There are some big changes in the works for Sugarloaf.
Saddleback never competed with Sugarloaf. Two totally different mountain vibes. Saddleback was always the inexpensive family mountain, Sugarloaf not so much. Sugarloaf is a vacation destination, Saddleback is a day trip area.
I'd like to see Saddleback reopen, not concerned at all with whatever Sugarloaf is planning.
sugarloaf
sugarloaf;c-39140 wroteNewEnglandSkier13;c-39138 wroteIf the new owners of Saddleback want to compete with Sugarloaf at all, they'd better act fast. There are some big changes in the works for Sugarloaf.
Saddleback never competed with Sugarloaf. Two totally different mountain vibes. Saddleback was always the inexpensive family mountain, Sugarloaf not so much. Sugarloaf is a vacation destination, Saddleback is a day trip area. The only area Saddleback may have competed was in the lift ticket price area. But who knows if the potential new owners will keep ticket prices low.
I'd like to see Saddleback reopen, not concerned at all with whatever Sugarloaf is planning.
NewEnglandSkier13
sugarloaf;c-39140 wroteNewEnglandSkier13;c-39138 wroteIf the new owners of Saddleback want to compete with Sugarloaf at all, they'd better act fast. There are some big changes in the works for Sugarloaf.
Saddleback never competed with Sugarloaf. Two totally different mountain vibes. Saddleback was always the inexpensive family mountain, Sugarloaf not so much. Sugarloaf is a vacation destination, Saddleback is a day trip area.
I'd like to see Saddleback reopen, not concerned at all with whatever Sugarloaf is planning.
That is how it was, but the group interested in the mountains seems like they want to run in a way which competes.
sugarloaf
NewEnglandSkier13;c-39143 wrotesugarloaf;c-39140 wroteNewEnglandSkier13;c-39138 wroteIf the new owners of Saddleback want to compete with Sugarloaf at all, they'd better act fast. There are some big changes in the works for Sugarloaf.
Saddleback never competed with Sugarloaf. Two totally different mountain vibes. Saddleback was always the inexpensive family mountain, Sugarloaf not so much. Sugarloaf is a vacation destination, Saddleback is a day trip area.
I'd like to see Saddleback reopen, not concerned at all with whatever Sugarloaf is planning.
That is how it was, but the group interested in the mountains seems like they want to run in a way which competes.
They can't without a village/lodging being built slopeside. Totally different market in that respect. If the Berry's had followed the master plan, the mountain would have been in a better place to compete. Currently Saddleback is limited to marketing to day trip skiers. Sugarloaf has a broad international market. There's a reason why the mountain has been a perennial money loser, inability to attract vacation skiers.
The original development plan called for two inns, slopeside hotel and village.
