yurp resorts don't have owners

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seatosky

Hey, I agree with you that skiing is part of living - and obviously most who post on this board consider it the same way. But for the average North American, skiing is a decadent pasttime that has to take a lower spot in the priority list, and often doesn't ever happen for many people. I think a lot more 'average europeans' ski (at least the ones living in mountainous countries) than 'average' North Americans, and part of this is probably caused by the differences in the 'business models' of ski resorts in the two places.

---

that was exactly what I was trying to say, but I used waaaaaay too many words.

also, and here I'm talking out of my ass...a substantial part of North American business strategy has been the concept of chains - chain restaurants, movie theaters, fast-food, video rental, car dealerships, etc...so it's not really surprising that we also have chain ski companies like Boyne and the American Ski Company, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jumper Bones

there is one rather significant factor that people are overlooking here - how much skiing is a part of the western european culture, and how much it is NOT a part of the average american culture. Most Euro countries have some rather substantial mountain ranges, which pretty much dominate several of the countries where some of you starting this thread live. Switzerland and Austria, from what I understand, are all mountainous. Florida and Texas in the US are not at all. Look at where American and Canadian population centers are - there really aren't very many people who live in and around mountains at all (with the exceptions of Denver and Salt Lake City).
Additionally, look at how many europeans have been exposed to skiing, and how many Americans have. Europeans generally get government-mandated vacation time, and considering the sizes of most euro nations are smaller than many of our states, it's relatively easy to get from one side of the country to the other (assuming you don't have mountains at your backdoor already). Not so in America - we don't get gov't-mandated vacation holidays, and generally it can be rather expensive to get a family from say Virginia to mountainous areas like Salt Lake City. So, as a consequence, the average American might only get a week of vacation from his employer if he's lucky, and why would he want to take his kids skiing? I mean they might rather go to Disney World or to see their family for Christmas or something like that. But the average time your average joe can get to "the slopes" is just a couple days a year, if that.
Also, look at whom your average skiing American is - more or less white, from or in a fairly middle to upper class, usually an independantly-minded person who doesn't mind differing from the social norm and not being where everybody else is (at the beach, shopping in the malls, at the NASCAR races, etc). How many American skiers are black? How many are latino? Shit, how many are even female (before people get on me about this, consider the male-female ration in ski towns)? Not many.
And here's a story - I'm in Oklahoma right now, and I've been here for about 6 months now for work, just about to go home. We had a rather substantial cold front move through wednesday, which dropped temperatures substantially - 20 degrees within 10 minutes (I was outside in it when it happened). Temps have been faily low the last couple days, with daily highs in the 60's F. Anyway two days ago I was at a convenience store and there was a guy who came in, all swaddled up in long-sleeve jeans, a leather jacket, a scarf, a beanie hat, and gloves, and he was still red in the face like he'd walked in from it being 30 below outside. He kept raving about how COLD it was, and how he hates the cold more than anything else in this world. Anyway it was in the 50s outside, nice and cool, and I'm standing there in my shorts, flip-flops, and hoodie dumbfounded, but there's your average non-skiing American right there, who isn't pissed that it's been above 90 degrees here every day for the last 5 months straight like I am, and who isn't happy when things cool down for just a couple days.
Anyway the fact is that in the average American culture, skiing is a microcosm of it, and most people don't do it all that often. Generally speaking most good jobs are not located anywhere near ski towns, but are consolidated to cities hundreds or thousands of miles away from the mountains. And skiing and everything involved in the attempt to participate in it is so expensive that most Americans don't do it that much, maybe getting a few chances in a year or even a lifetime. Geography and culture here are significantly different than they are in europe, so this ownership issue is really an apples-to-oranges thing.

---

huh.. I'm not sure I agree. With the exception of switzerland, big yurp countries (Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Poland, not to mention UK) have a skiable mountain/flat country rate very similar to US. And in all these countries, skiing culture is a microcosm exactly like in US

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by davidof

I think you've made a huge generalisation about the structure of ski resort ownership and governance for the whole of Europe which is in reality very varied. In France the public/private model (SEM) has been predominant but there are also resorts where land, lifts, infrastructure the lot are owned by a single company or individual and this is also the case in Switzerland, for example the Schatzalp in Davos which has changed hands in the last few years and may, or may not, restart operations.

To get back to your point, the commune of Artouste in the French Pyrenees was unable to save its local slopes from closing last year. I can name another dozen ski areas that have suffered a similar fate in France over the last decade and just having the CdA or someone involved in the resort doesn't mean everything is rosy. The Compagnie des Alpes employs just as many MBA's as Intrawest and lift infrastructure will only get upgraded if there is a benefit for the company. Lets take a look at the rosy hand of CdA who recently bought a large shareholding in Serre Chevalier - one of the actions of this year has been the scrapping of the Monetier lift pass (around 150 Euros for the season for a local), you now have to spend around 800 Euros on a whole area pass. Given that Monetier has most of the interesting terrain not exactly a good thing from a rider perspective.

---

OK. Mine was certainly a generalization (ore generalisation? who knows). But a generalization that applies to the large majority of large yurp resorts. Or not?

... or in other words...
La grave, cham, 2alpes, 3val, etc etc (F)
zermatt, verbier, st moritz, crans, engelberg, andermatt ect (CH)
St Anton, etc (A)
courmayeur, thuile, cervinia, gress, alagna, dolomiti etc (I)
AFAIK, don't have a single owner

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by verbier61

OK. Mine was certainly a generalization (ore generalisation? who knows). But a generalization that applies to the large majority of large yurp resorts. Or not?

---

erm what was your point again?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cj001f

So the decadently rich in the bay area, seattle, sun valley, aspen, denver, atlanta, nashville, chicago, boston, philadelphia, Washington DC or Florida aren't as louche as those in NY & LA?

HA!

---

/\/\/\/\bump that b/\/\/\/\

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by verbier61

huh.. I'm not sure I agree. With the exception of switzerland, big yurp countries (Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Poland, not to mention UK) have a skiable mountain/flat country rate very similar to US. And in all these countries, skiing culture is a microcosm exactly like in US

---

True. And here's another thing to consider- the sheer size of the USA. While the amount of time for someone living in the farm country of France, say the Bordeaux region, the trip to the alps or Pyrnees is probably a half day's drive. Compare that to the time it would take to drive from, say, Kansas City or Minneapolis to get to the Front Range.

How many cities with a population of 250,000 or greater are within a six hour drive of Verbier? And how many are within that distance from Telluride? Or Sun Valley? Or Banff?

But culture is still the biggest difference. In the US skiing is percieved as something for rich people. In Europe, it's more like, say, golf. Pricey, but still something Everyman can do a few times a year. Of course in Norway, skiing is considered youe BIRTHRIGHT!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by verbier61

yes.
So, said once again....

http://www.rantradio.com/pics/graphi...e-rr-lenin.jpg

:cool: :FIREdevil :rolleyes2 :fmicon: :the_finge :smile:

---

:nonono2: :nonono2: :nonono2: Nothing like throwing gasoline on the fire.

Threadkiller. :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by verbier61

... or in other words...
La grave, cham, 2alpes, 3val, etc etc (F)
zermatt, verbier, st moritz, crans, engelberg, andermatt ect (CH)
St Anton, etc (A)
courmayeur, thuile, cervinia, gress, alagna, dolomiti etc (I)
AFAIK, don't have a single owner

---

First of all you have to remember that big ski areas in Europe are bigger than those in the US in terms of acres of runs, km of runs total vert. As I mentioned above there are smaller European ski areas which are owned by a single company or individual. So you are not really comparing like with like.

In the French section above you've also mixed large linked ski areas such as the 3 valleys with individual resort so obviously the ownership is going to be different. The 3 valleys is essentially 4 communities (St Bon, Les Allues and St Martin de Belleville, Orelle) and a number of ski resorts: Courch, Meribel, Mottaret, Les Menuires, Val Thorens etc so ownership is going to be varied and different.

French ski resorts essentially fall into 3 generations.

1. Traditional mountain villages: Megeve, Chamonix, les Artouste - here skiing developed as an adjunct to other activities
2. Courchevel / Chamrousse - developed post war by 'state' actors
3. Resorts built ex-nihilo by a single promoter

Most big French resorts fall into the third category. They were built as part of the Plan Neige elaborated from the mid to late 1950s. The predominant model, as I have already said, was that of the private/public partnership or societe d'economie mixte (SEM). This is a corporate structure that lets a private promoter and state bodies form a partneship. For example, Flaine, the SEM called the Societie d'amegement Arve-Giffre (SAG) was owned 48% by the Boissonas family and 52% by the local communities. Involving communities meant that the SEM had a triple AAA rating for borrowing (a local community cannot go broke) and also gave access to state development funds. Important as the startup costs - road, buildings, lifts are high before any money is made selling accommodation.

Now the French mountains have a long period of habitation, since Roman times there have been mines and agriculture spread in the middle-ages. This meant that the SEM would buy land held by local landowners. This was usually compulsory purchased at prevailing agricultural rates. The SEM would usually give a franchise to build and run lifts - normally 30 years. This was often the responsibility of the local communities although with many communities facing finanacial difficulties a state actor in the form of the C3D (later spun off into the Compagnie des Alpes) stepped in to run a number of lift systems. If we look at other ski areas we see the same model: les Arcs and Roger Godino, la Plagne and Robert Legoux, Tignes and Val Thorens and Pierre Schnebelen. These people were businessmen and real estate promoters. The purpose of French ski resorts (and I guess those in the US) is for real estate promoters to sell properties in areas that otherwise would not be attractive to owners. In the case of the SAG ownership passed to Meribel Alpina on Eric Boissonans death and since 2000 to the Compagnie des Alpes (who also own the Chamonix-Grand Montets lift system). Meribel Alpina of course being the company set up by Scott Peter Lindsay to develop the Allues (Meribel) valley. Of course much of the ski resort itself is in private hands.

Does this make for better running of French resorts than American single owners? There are certainly a range of interests. For the community there is the need for jobs and a stable business environment for local businesses and landowners. There is the government and his local representative, the prefect, who will ensure laws such as the Loi de Montagne and security are respected as well as certain planning law. There are investors and developers who want to see a return on their money. In the end I suspect descisions are made based on the monetary return they will bring, much like in the USA or Canada and that the biggest investors and landowners have the most influence in those decisions.

The la Grave lift system is owned by Dennis Creissels, who bought it after the original company went bankrupt. Of course the DMC system used at la Grave was invented by Creissels. I suspect that if Mr Creissels wanted to sell the lifts to les Deux Alpes there would be little the community of la Grave could do to stop him. However I'm told, despite frequent rumours to the contrary, that les Deux Alpes (which originally had a single owner) doesn't want to buy and that Creissels is committed to the backcountry aspect of la Grave. What happens on his death is an interesting question. We've seen big changes at Rossignol in the last year where the Boix-Vives children didn't want to run France's leading ski maker and it was sold to Quicksilver.

Thanks for this M. davidof!
very interesting stuff indeed...

Just two points :

Denis Creissels is hard to see through, but what he does say is that he wouldn't sell the lift whatever the price. Plus he's building an hotel on the actual parking lot, so I think he falls in the "I make money with land that wouldn't be worth it without a lift" category.

Artouste will be back on the resort map this year, I don't know the details of the deal (heard that Altiservice had made an offer to the commune) but you'll find them on skipass.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by supercastor

Thanks for this M. davidof!
very interesting stuff indeed...

Just two points :

Denis Creissels is hard to see through, but what he does say is that he wouldn't sell the lift whatever the price. Plus he's building an hotel on the actual parking lot, so I think he falls in the "I make money with land that wouldn't be worth it without a lift" category.

Artouste will be back on the resort map this year, I don't know the details of the deal (heard that Altiservice had made an offer to the commune) but you'll find them on skipass.

---

Thanks Mr Super Beaver,

Great news about Artouste, the negotiations with Altiservice have been long and difficult. If these resorts are left more than a season or two they have trouble coming back. Artouste might be the kind of example that Verbier was thinking of where a range of interests have worked to breath life into the resort although I doubt the American's would be comfortable with the amount of state aid some French resorts receive. Anyway it is a great resort by all accounts and I will have to get over to ski in 2006 if Altiservice can work its magic.

thanks, david, very detailed and interesting. I've learnt a lot

Some good discussion there.
Brings me back to my point on page 1:
What is better for me?

Buying a lift ticket vs. selling real estate makes the difference.

See my point?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeleAl

Some good discussion there.
Brings me back to my point on page 1:
What is better for me?

Buying a lift ticket vs. selling real estate makes the difference.

See my point?

---

mmmmhhh...
an established community with long-lasting traditions is probably more easy-to-predict and to deal with than a corporation with central officies a 1000 miles away.

But US still have a lot of things that are possibly better and cheaper than yurp. Music, for instance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jumper Bones

that was exactly what I was trying to say, but I used waaaaaay too many words.

also, and here I'm talking out of my ass...a substantial part of North American business strategy has been the concept of chains - chain restaurants, movie theaters, fast-food, video rental, car dealerships, etc...so it's not really surprising that we also have chain ski companies like Boyne and the American Ski Company, etc.

---

Does the chain concept really work with ski resorts?

I can't really imagine a Bay Area Heavenly skier deciding to visit Breckenridge just because it's owned by VR. I don't think the general public understands the corporate structure of the big resorts. The only thing they know is that there are some resorts where you can buy interchangable lift tickets. (For example Mrs. ASCS didn't realize that Beaver Creek and Breckenridge were owned by the same company, even though she has taken advantage of their interchangeable lift tickets. She simply assumed that Vail had some sort of deal worked out with Breck.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntiSoCalSkier

(For example Mrs. ASCS didn't realize that Beaver Creek and Breckenridge were owned by the same company, even though she has taken advantage of their interchangeable lift tickets. She simply assumed that Vail had some sort of deal worked out with Breck.)

---

True. The "brand equity" is the name of the resort. Vail, Aspen, Deer Valley, Steamboat. Not American Ski Company (or, any other corp.)

My point is that they should be changing their name to fit their image. American Resort and Condominium Development Corp.

One of my favorite US areas is Alpine Meadows. Just a parking lot, small base area and plenty of great terrain.

One of my least favorite is Beaver Creek. Shit, not a damn beaver in site. Only Trophy Homes lining the Creek. And, that heavily developed base area that smacks of a suburban shopping mall. I truly feel like I am pressing my nose against the glass skiing there. Outside, looking in.

Kirkwood is a mistake in progress. I would have banished all the housing/condo from the base area and lake. They should be located 3 -5 miles down the road and have a shuttle service. Keep the space (base area and surrounding valley) was wild as possible and banish the suburban gated community creep elsewhere. imho :biggrin:

Lookit the big brain on Davidof! Kudos to you, sir!

I think the chain model is basically a hedging of bets for a company. If Heavenly has an off year they're covered, however it's more likely they'll have a better snow year than say Keystone. Also, according to numbers I read in Vail Associate's newsletter a while ago (yes, I'm a Peaks Pass member) Heavenly HAS seen an increase of skiers, especially from the EC, since VA bought them and promoted the hell out of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntiSoCalSkier

Does the chain concept really work with ski resorts?

---

Yes, the consolidation of all back room operations of numerous ski areas/resorts. Folding all HR & Payroll, Purchasing, Accounting, Insurance, IT, Advertising, etc. into single entities instead of duplicating the departments at each ski area/resort lowers overall costs.

Like it does for Home Depot, Walmart, Supermarkets, Banking, Manufacturing, Energy, Hospitals, etc.

But, bigger does not necessarily lead to increased return for shareholders and overall profitability. Bigger doesn't always benefit consumers.

Key questions for me are:

Who benefits? Local community residents, or yuppies w/ 2nd homes, or real estate development corporations and their shareholders?

And, what model could be developed to insure the locals and skiers/boarders profit?

Quote:

---

And, what model could be developed to insure the locals and skiers/boarders profit?

---

Do I read about a maggot-run ski resort in the subtext? Sweet :)