clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

The Votes Are In: Should Vail Take Over Park City Mtn Resort?

New, 8 comments

Last week Curbed Ski threw caution to the wind and asked you, our loyal readers, where you stood on the highly contentious and oh-so-dramatic PCMR/Powdr Corp-Talisker/Vail lawsuit. Lately it's been a war of words between the CEO of Park City Mountain Resort parent company Powdr Corp, John Cumming, and the CEO of Vail Resorts, Rob Katz. In letter after letter the industry giants laid out their claims, but frankly the facts (controversial though they may be) didn't change. John Cumming continues to say that Powdr and PCMR won't stand for a "Vail takeover" and that got us thinking: if Park City Mountain Resort became part of Vail Resorts would that be a good thing or a bad thing? The results are in and you don't want to miss this.

Confused about why Powdr Corp and Vail Resorts are battling it out in Park City? Head over here for a good primer or this way for our extensive coverage.

The Question: Should Park City Mountain Resort become part of Vail Resorts?

Poll results

The Votes: Drumroll please. The votes are in and 52.7% of Curbed Ski readers believe that yes, it would be a good thing if PCMR became part of the extensive Vail Resorts lineup. Reader comments reveal that many of you believe that PCMR had their chance but dropped the ball with the whole lease renewal problem way back in 2011. Says one commenter, "PCMR missed the window to keep the deal and are [sic] now scrambling…" Others like what Vail brings to the table: cheaper pass prices, increased skier visits, inclusion into the Epic pass, and a "bottom line" ski experience one reader thinks is just better than what Powdr brings to PCMR. One reader stated that Powdr Corp is a "B company" and Vail Resorts is an "A+ company". Ouch.

On the other side, 41.2% of readers believed Vail should not take over PCMR. Readers stated that Vail doesn't currently have any rights to the PCMR-owned property on the lower mountain (true) and that Vail overpaid for the Canyons and therefore has more of a financial burden. Although a few comments characterized Vail as a "bully," the main consensus seems to be that PCMR might out last Vail in litigation costs. Whether this is true or not is impossible to confirm, but it's interesting to note that at least in these comments, there were no impassioned statements in support of Powdr like there were for Vail. Perhaps the Vail PR machine is just better?

Finally, 6.1% of readers are firmly in the "I don't care. I just want the ski area open" camp. We hear ya, frustrated readers. And perhaps the best comment of the post (thank you guest #11) broke it down as follows:

"PCMR will lose the lease dispute - the evidence made public thus far is pretty compelling. But Vail can't operate the resort in a reasonable manner w/o the base area that PCMR would still control. POWDR's ridiculous legal theory re: the meaning of "affixed to the land" aside, the two companies will reach a settlement whereby Vail will take over majority ownership of some kind while POWDR gets paid off or otherwise compensated for the lower mtn land/lifts. POWDR can play tough guy all it wants re: that lower mtn land, but do they really want to be in a position with the PC locals and loyalists of preventing access to all of the good terrain there is at PCMR? Me thinks not."

Whether or not the lawsuit and impending negotiation falls out exactly as the above comment implies, we don't know. But what seems obvious is that neither party has a clear path to victory in this battle, so negotiation seems inevitable.

· Park City Will Dismantle & Remove Lifts if it Loses Lawsuit [Curbed Ski]
· Lawsuit Forces Park City to Include Refund Caveat on Passes [Curbed Ski]
· All PCMR-Talisker Coverage [Curbed Ski Archives]