This is pretty nuts

[ski diva]

A small ski area down the road from me is coming back as a private skis area. And while I'm glad to see it return from the dead, this is pretty nuts:

Round Top Set to Reopen in December as Plymouth Notch
Monday, August 25, 2014, NewEnglandSkiIndustry.com
After four years of closure, the former Round Top ski area in Vermont is set to reopen as a private club named Plymouth Notch. Off season maintenance and construction are underway for plans of a December 26 opening.

Located just south of Killington, Round Top originally opened with chairlift served skiing in early 1965. The area struggled financially and was closed for much of the 1980s and 1990s.

Round Top reopened as a private club named Bear Creek in 1998. While there were plans to enlarge the ski area, the real estate market contributed to the closure of Bear Creek following the 2009-10 ski season.

David Panagrossi and Warren Evanko purchased the ski area in the fall of 2010 with plans to continue the development of a private club under the name Plymouth Notch. While the ski area has not operated since 2010, work has been ongoing on a large snowmaking reservoir near the top of the ski area. In addition, the chairlift was inspected in 2014 and routine trail mowing has continued. According to the Plymouth Notch web site, the snowmaking project will be completed in time for a December 26, 2014 reopening.

While Bear Creek sold lift tickets to non-members, there is no indication this practice will continue with Plymouth Notch. Current membership rates are listed as $25,000 per family, plus $7,000 in annual dues, plus a $1,000 minimum spent on food and beverage.

 

[pinto]

Why is it nuts?

 

[Christy]

I hate crowds so much that it sounds pretty sweet to me, although admittedly I'm not willing to shell out that kind of cash. The food/bev minimum is dumb, though. Just make dues $1000 more.

 

[pinto]

I hate crowds so much that it sounds pretty sweet to me, although admittedly I'm not willing to shell out that kind of cash. The food/bev minimum is dumb, though. Just make dues $1000 more.

Many private clubs have food and bev minimums, and this appears to be operating on that model. Assuming it's open 5 months of the year (is that a good assumption? with snowmaking?), that's $200/month. A little high, but not unreasonable for a family. I'm sure they want to corral people into eating there and meeting each other, thus encouraging more of a personal stake in the club. If people just come and go and don't participate and form bonds, it's less likely the club will succeed.

 

[Christy]

Oh, interesting angle. That makes sense re the bonding. Hopefully the food and drink is good. I guess we (as a couple) would probably spend that at Sun Valley if we went most weekends, unless we got sick of the sit down restaurant at the Roundhouse and decided to only focus on the $3 tacos.

 

[sibhusky]

What's the vert and the acreage? Can't imagine that the kind of people willing to pay those fees would settle for exclusivity without decent skiing. You pay that sort of dough for a country club with golf and tennis and you write it off to business. And you can use it all year long. But a ski area? Limited number of clients who ski, coupled with limited season, coupled with limited terrain? They're dreaming.

I'm guessing four months would be more likely than five.

 

[ski diva]

I don't know the vertical or acreage off hand, but it's pretty small. Plus Killington, Pico, Okemo, Sugarbush, and a number of other areas are really not at all far. I hate crowds, too, but that amount of money seems way high to me.

 

[abc]

So far, private ski areas had mostly went bust.

I think the big difference between a golf course and a ski area is, golf course had but 18 holes max. Ski area has no limit on size, the biggest is ALWAYS better. So unless they make Vail a private area, no one will be satisfied by anything smaller!

 

[snow addict]

Skiing would have to be pretty sick to ask this kind of money. Even if money is not an issue there are still better ways of spending it than tying yourself to limited skiing.

 

[Christy]

Even though we wouldn't spend that kind of money for it (husband: "why wouldn't we just move to Ketchum where Sun Valley is practically a private mountain in terms of crowds?") I started daydreaming about what this would be like if there were one near Seattle. There's no way any new ski area could ever open here, since it takes about 10 years of negotiations with the Forest Service, EISs, etc, just to do minor improvements on existing areas. But its fun to think about

 

[abc]

There's no way any new ski area could ever open here, since it takes about 10 years of negotiations with the Forest Service, EISs, etc, just to do minor improvements on existing areas.

That's why they're always on existing mountain that are closed.

 

[mustski]

The acreage would have to be pretty good to interest anyone for a full season at those prices ... never mind multiple seasons. I guess maybe if some one was really rich and tied to their business on the East coast - a fly in, fly out weekend place might sell? Then again, I don't understand the celebrities who pay $250,000.00 for a wedding cake either!

 

[snow addict]

I tried to find pictures online. Not impressed at all. I would say no way. People must have more money than sense if they buy into it. 25 thousand can buy many seasons of skiing in way better places.

 

[abc]

People must have more money than sense if they buy into it. 25 thousand can buy many seasons of skiing in way better places.

Really?

Would you say the same for people who pay for membership in private golf clubs?

Don't forget, some of those same 'people' made their own millions and billions while you who 'has more sense ' toil away at jobs that pay a fraction of their membership fee at a private mountain.

 

[pinto]

I tried to find pictures online. Not impressed at all. I would say no way. People must have more money than sense if they buy into it. 25 thousand can buy many seasons of skiing in way better places.

I understand what you are saying, and agree with you, sort of, but this isn't the either/or situation that you are describing. I don't know the demographics of the area, or exactly who the owners are targeting, but it's true that $25000 to some people is like $250 to most of the rest of us.

I wonder if there is any sort of equity in the membership. I imagine that wouldn't be a selling point anyway, but it's possible. Mostly it's the buy-in to an exclusive group, and the dues and minimum are an expensive season pass. If passes are already $1,000, then it's just an additional $3,000 (which includes food and drink) for a family of four, which isn't really that ludicrous for someone willing to join such a club.

The prices don't really stun me, they seem pretty reasonable to get a small ski area up and keep it running; but my gut agrees with those who wonder if there are enough people close to the area for it to work out.

 

[abc]

Even Yellowstone Club, which my understanding has excellent skiing, didn't make it.

But that doesn't stop others to attempt it again, again, and again...

I'm guessing there might indeed be a sweet spot where there'll be enough buy in to make an area sustainable, given the right terrain & location. And each attempt is just trying out different location and pricing model to find that sweet spot.

 

[snow addict]

I understand what you are saying, and agree with you, sort of, but this isn't the either/or situation that you are describing. I don't know the demographics of the area, or exactly who the owners are targeting, but it's true that $25000 to some people is like $250 to most of the rest of us.

I wonder if there is any sort of equity in the membership. I imagine that wouldn't be a selling point anyway, but it's possible. Mostly it's the buy-in to an exclusive group, and the dues and minimum are an expensive season pass. If passes are already $1,000, then it's just an additional $3,000 (which includes food and drink) for a family of four, which isn't really that ludicrous for someone willing to join such a club.

The prices don't really stun me, they seem pretty reasonable to get a small ski area up and keep it running; but my gut agrees with those who wonder if there are enough people close to the area for it to work out.

It's not about money but about what you buy on it. Would you buy into this area even if this kind money were like a pocket change? When you can have much better skiing elsewhere...

 

[pinto]

Even Yellowstone Club, which my understanding has excellent skiing, didn't make it...

People always say this. The Yellowstone Club is doing fine. It had some, uh, issues with the founder and the economic downturn in 2008, but all it did was file for Chapter 11, from which it emerged less than a year later after being sold.

 

[pinto]

It's not about money but about what you buy on it. Would you buy into this area even if this kind money were like a pocket change? When you can have much better skiing elsewhere...

But as I said, it isn't necessarily either/or. You aren't restricted to skiing ONLY there if you join. You can still go to Aspen for Christmas and Vail for spring break. But if you value a private, uncrowded club experience on the days that you are nearby, then you'll go here.

At least that's what they are hoping.

 

[snow addict]

Really?

Would you say the same for people who pay for membership in private golf clubs?

Don't forget, some of those same 'people' made their own millions and billions while you who 'has more sense ' toil away at jobs that pay a fraction of their membership fee at a private mountain.

Golf clubs are different. Most golf courses I see have quite nice terrain, they are like maintained parks with expensive private access. Skiing is not exactly the same as walking in a park. If mountain/terrain looked different from what I saw, good vertical, varied and interesting terrain, etc. - I wouldn't care how much it costs, I would say "lucky b@stards". This one is just is plainly boring, a rounded hill. Anyway, all the power to them.