# Wildcat Mountain Stiffing Passholders



## Extremo (Nov 6, 2008)

Another example of greedy resorts caring only about their bottom line.

Wildcat Mountain Rejects Lifetime Pass - New Hampshire News Story - WMUR Manchester


----------



## slyder (Jan 18, 2010)

Extremo said:


> Another example of greedy resorts caring only about their bottom line.
> 
> Wildcat Mountain Rejects Lifetime Pass - New Hampshire News Story - WMUR Manchester


WOW I know how I would feel, that sucks!!!
These people are almost like Partners/Investors that was an investment of 11 million made by those individuals and know they are out with nothing.

NOT RIGHT
-Slyder


----------



## baldylox (Dec 27, 2007)

If you bought a building and there were two tenants in it claiming they had paid lifetime rent, would you let them stay?

I don't know where you are getting 11 million.... That article says the guy paid 8k in the 70s for lifetime passes for his whole family. 30 + years of riding for nothing. I'd tell him to go fuck himself.


----------



## InfiniteEclipse (Jan 2, 2009)

If this guy invested $8,000 and the lift tickets are $63, then he should reasonably hold the pass for 127 years...


----------



## BurtonAvenger (Aug 14, 2007)

It's not the new owners problem their issue is with the old owner for not providing a provision to protect them.


----------



## slyder (Jan 18, 2010)

BurtonAvenger said:


> It's not the new owners problem their issue is with the old owner for not providing a provision to protect them.


I thought the article said 1400 members at $800 each = 11,200,000

"Simone said that out of the 1,400 lifetime passes issued over the years,"
I am not sure all passes were $800 or just that for his WHOLE family, article didn't say

-Slyder


----------



## slyder (Jan 18, 2010)

cifex said:


> If you bought a building and there were two tenants in it claiming they had paid lifetime rent, would you let them stay?
> 
> I don't know where you are getting 11 million.... That article says the guy paid 8k in the 70s for lifetime passes for his whole family. 30 + years of riding for nothing. I'd tell him to go fuck himself.


Welcome to New York, don't they have lifeftime rent control or something like that. Regardless of the owner, but once you move or die the rent can change.

Not positive but thought that was what my east coast relatives told me.

-Slyder


----------



## thetraveler (Feb 24, 2010)

I'd like to know if they get away with it. OP, can you keep us updated on how the story unfolds? I'm sure I'll forget reading about this in exactly 5 minutes (I'm in the mountains so it's all systems snow) but I'm curious to know how this issue is resolved.


----------



## thetraveler (Feb 24, 2010)

InfiniteEclipse said:


> If this guy invested $8,000 and the lift tickets are $63, then he should reasonably hold the pass for 127 years...


how did you work that out?


----------



## alecdude88 (Dec 13, 2009)

8000 divided by 63


----------



## thetraveler (Feb 24, 2010)

alecdude88 said:


> 8000 divided by 63


so, $8,000 divided by 127 YEARS = $63 per year?

where did he get $63 for a YEAR's pass? 

That's my real question up there...


----------



## baldylox (Dec 27, 2007)

InfiniteEclipse said:


> If this guy invested $8,000 and the lift tickets are $63, then he should reasonably hold the pass for 127 years...


That figures to 127 day passes, not 127 years. He got his money worth and then some after 2 years. It's been 3 decades.


----------



## slyder (Jan 18, 2010)

Wouldn't that be 127 LIFT TICKETS. Once you have gone 127 times, after that the pass would be paid for and the skiing/boarding would then be free :thumbsup:

Again, pick a number 40 times a year, roughly the pass is good for 3 years. Any rideing after that is free

-Slyder


----------



## baldylox (Dec 27, 2007)

slyder said:


> Welcome to New York, don't they have lifeftime rent control or something like that. Regardless of the owner, but once you move or die the rent can change.
> 
> Not positive but thought that was what my east coast relatives told me.
> 
> -Slyder


Rent control means the price is locked at a reasonable rate. It still goes up periodically and the tenant still pays rent every month. The purpose of that is so that non millionaires can afford to live in NYC. It's regulated by the city for a living necessity (shelter), not the previous owner's guarantee.


----------



## Toecutter (Oct 11, 2009)

I think the outcome will be dependent on the existence of a written contract. Is the provision in writing anywhere?


----------



## wrathfuldeity (Oct 5, 2007)

BurtonAvenger said:


> It's not the new owners problem their issue is with the old owner for not providing a provision to protect them.


Somewhat agree, however, the new owners bought both the assets and liabilities and these lifetime holders should have been disclosed or discovered in the process, thus perhaps any number of attorneys, accountants, title company could be partially negligent.


----------



## little devil (Aug 18, 2009)

1400 pass holders!. Fuck, that`s a ton of cash out the window to keep an agreement you did not make or sign up for.

Even if only 350 come back that better than not.

I don`t see the problem here. Especially 30 years. If I was the guy who bought in last year I`d freak, at the old owners. Not the new guys.

But I think they could of worked something a little better out considering these people are known to support the mountain you just bought. It is a dick move from that perspective to me. Like grandfather them in, and offer them a discount on lifetime passes again. Soften the blow a bit. 

But the dude on the news has his head up his ass. He think he owns the damn hill.


----------



## thetraveler (Feb 24, 2010)

cifex said:


> He got his money worth and then some after 2 years. It's been 3 decades.


I can't agree with that statement. Adjusting for inflation, $8,000 in 1980 (article says he paid the $8,000 in the 1970's and 1980's so just taking 1980 as the average) would be worth just over $20,000 today. If you paid $20,000 for a lift ticket today wouldn't you think it is worth a lifetime pass? These people gave the resort what was a lot of money back in the day, helped the resort build itself, took a big risk (imagine they moved somewhere in the meantime or got injured, etc.) and now they have been chucked out.

$20,000 is equal to 27 seasons at the current season ticket price of $750.00, which isn't that far off the 3 decades thing. It's silly using the day ticket price as a measure of the lifetime ticket pass' worth...


----------



## Toecutter (Oct 11, 2009)

I wonder how old most of those remaining 100 lifetime pass holders are? If they're seniors, it would probably cost a whole lot more in legal fees to argue their case than it would to just buy a Senior midweek pass for $199/year for however much longer they're able to ski.


----------



## wrathfuldeity (Oct 5, 2007)

wildcat's "contact us" online feedback...email page is down...wonder why?

Boycott wildcat mtn...frickin douche bags...iirc article noted only 100 of 1400 lifetime passes are active, wut the fuck. The whole community should put pressure on the dicks...noting a boycott would hurt the local community's economy. Our little hill, during the winter, brings in tons of money for the county.


----------



## slyder (Jan 18, 2010)

I like the boycott idea.

I hope the new owners have to take this one in the shorts. Like someone mentioned above, the new owner assumed all debt and assests of this business.
Plus it's 100 people maybe 50 of which (a guess) still use the hill from the original Lifetime Holders.

-Slyder


----------



## BurtonAvenger (Aug 14, 2007)

Once again the issue falls on the old owners failing to disclose the deal with the new owners.


----------



## slyder (Jan 18, 2010)

When a business is sold there are several attorneys, accountants and other professionals representing BOTH sides and I find it very difficult that both of these parties were not aware of "lifetime pass holders"

-Slyder


----------



## Toecutter (Oct 11, 2009)

A boycott would be effective, but I wonder how willing the rest of the community that paid full price for a season pass would let good skiing/riding days slip by for the sake of the 100 people who have been able to ski "free" (sort of, not exactly) for the past 30-40 years?


----------



## rgrwilco (Oct 15, 2007)

I would not buy a business if i new i had to give out free product. They aren't douche bags, they need to make money to stay open. Wildcat was not that profitable. the new owners will be making huge snowmaking and infrastructure investments, which could not be done if you basically let a ton of people ski for free. You can also use a wildcat season pass or lift ticket at attitash and other resorts owned by peaks.

get over it.


----------



## linvillegorge (Jul 6, 2009)

This is bullshit and I can't believe people are actually defending the resort in this situation. The resort may not be legally bound to honor these passes, but sometimes you just have to do the right thing in business. I guarantee you that not honoring those passes will cost them more in negative publicity than it will potentially add in pass sales of those holders buying new passes. According to the article, only about 100 of the 1400 original passes are still being used. So, at best, the resort would be potentially picking up 100 pass sales. New ownership had a great opportunity to begin endearing themselves to locals and instead spit in the faces of people who were most likely some of their most loyal patrons. That's fucking dumb.


----------



## Snowfox (Dec 26, 2009)

Legally, I'm not sure what the precedent is in this case, but I feel that Wildcat could have saved itself some trouble by just honoring the 100 lifetime passes (as someone mentioned, most are probably seniors who will die soon anyways). If the passes can't be passed down, they'll soon die off. This is just bad press (I don't think anyone is going to think better of them for not honoring them). 

As BA said, these should have been disclosed in the legal process. Would have saved a lot of time and trouble.


----------



## Toecutter (Oct 11, 2009)

Whether the move was rotten or not, I think it will blow over before long like most bad press. When it comes down to it people favor their own gratification over someone else's justice, and people want to ski more than they want to save others' right to ski. Just reading this forum there are several people who hate the management at their local resort yet they still go ride there. By next week this news will be forgotten and the local press will have something else to focus upon...and all the regular pass holders will probably line up for fresh tracks, business as usual.


----------



## InfiniteEclipse (Jan 2, 2009)

cifex said:


> That figures to 127 day passes, not 127 years. He got his money worth and then some after 2 years. It's been 3 decades.


Ah yes, you are quite right, I was looking at days and thought it seasonal. My mistake


----------



## rgrwilco (Oct 15, 2007)

If your going to boycott Wildcat, make sure not to go to any of these resorts:

Attitash
Crotched
Mount snow
Jack Frost
Big Boulder

-All owned by the same company. Also, DON'T go to killington. They stopped honoring lifetime passholders a few years back.
:thumbsup:


----------



## JoeR (Oct 30, 2010)

cifex said:


> That figures to 127 day passes, not 127 years. He got his money worth and then some after 2 years.


No, he didn't. If the buyer bargained for a lifetime pass, then that's what his money was "worth" to him.


----------



## baldylox (Dec 27, 2007)

I agree, the mountain should be smart and honor the passes for 100 geezers who are about to croak anyway......

However.... Some of you are really living in a dream land. Wake up and smell the coffee. Not every corporation in the world is raping babies to make a profit. In this case, the company has every right to make sure the *huge* investment they made turns a profit as quickly a possible. At a place like Wildcat, 100 people could be 5-10% of their traffic on a weekday.


----------



## JoeR (Oct 30, 2010)

cifex said:


> In this case, the company has every right to make sure the *huge* investment they made turns a profit as quickly a possible.


Certainly. But that doesn't mean they have every right to disregard pre-existing contracts. Suppose a supplier to the resort, which has been selling under the terms of a five-year deal very favorable to the resort, suddenly says, "Whoops! You're under new ownership now -- all bets are off. Let's renegotiate so we can double our price." Do you think Wildcat will reply, "Of course -- tear up our old contract and double the price. You have every right to do so"?


----------



## baldylox (Dec 27, 2007)

The key word there being 'contract'. A contract is between two parties. In this case, the agreement was between the original owners and the customers. The mountain was then sold to Pat Franschi 15 or 20 years ago. Now, Peak Resorts is purchasing Wildcat Mountain's *assets*.


----------



## JoeR (Oct 30, 2010)

cifex said:


> The key word there being 'contract'.


Purchasing a lifetime pass in exchange for money undoubtedly constitutes a contract. That is certain. Now, whether that contract can be _enforced_ decades later involves many other questions (was it in writing? what are its terms? what were the terms of the purchase of the resort? what is the state's law on these points?) to which we don't know the answers, or can't find them out without a lot of effort. My guess is that the new owners don't really have firm answers to all these questions either, and are just daring the holders of the canceled passes to challenge the cancellations. Force the poor old skiers to go on the offensive, and then the worst that can probably happen is having the passes reinstated.


----------



## thetraveler (Feb 24, 2010)

JoeR said:


> Purchasing a lifetime pass in exchange for money undoubtedly constitutes a contract. That is certain. Now, whether that contract can be _enforced_ decades later involves many other questions (was it in writing? what are its terms? what were the terms of the purchase of the resort? what is the state's law on these points?) to which we don't know the answers, or can't find them out without a lot of effort. My guess is that the new owners don't really have firm answers to all these questions either, and are just daring the holders of the canceled passes to challenge the cancellations. Force the poor old skiers to go on the offensive, and then the worst that can probably happen is having the passes reinstated.


Nailed it!


----------



## john doe (Nov 6, 2009)

Judging by the way Hidden Valley is run in St. Louis Peak does just enough to keep people from saying fuck it and not coming. On opening day (Dec. 18th) they didn't even have one jib set-up. It take 15 minutes to do that and they didn't. The one thing a small resort can do almost as good as a big place is build a terrain park and they do the bare minimum. I wouldn't doubt for a second that they revoked their passes just hoping they wouldn't do anything about it.


----------



## Tarzanman (Dec 20, 2008)

$8000 would have bought approximately 20 season passes at $400 per pass.

If it has been 20 years, then the lifetime holders have just about broken even


----------



## linvillegorge (Jul 6, 2009)

Tarzanman said:


> $8000 would have bought approximately 20 season passes at $400 per pass.
> 
> If it has been 20 years, then the lifetime holders have just about broken even


No they haven't. You think passes cost the same 20 years ago as they do now?

The bottom line is they bought lifetime passes, so if they're still alive and want to ski then they're getting screwed. Whether or not the new ownership is bound to honor the passes is up for the courts to decide but I for one hope those pass holders raise all sorts of hell. 

This is bad business, pure and simple. Some corporate number cruncher came up with this plan. He figured they'd gain some income by selling some of these people tickets or passes. It's up to these pass holders to make sure that plan backfires big and publically.


----------



## AweYeeeMuffins (Dec 24, 2010)

100 active life time passes? Why not honor it? Are you really losing that much money? Now it will just get tangled up in a bunch of court battles and end up costing both parties money anyway. All about the money now a days...


----------



## slyder (Jan 18, 2010)

cifex said:


> The key word there being 'contract'. A contract is between two parties. In this case, the agreement was between the original owners and the customers. The mountain was then sold to Pat Franschi 15 or 20 years ago. Now, Peak Resorts is purchasing Wildcat Mountain's *assets*.


*and liabilities* IE: assuming all outstanding debt as well, like nearly all business buy outs


----------



## baldylox (Dec 27, 2007)

As I understand it, there are a number of ways to transfer a company's assets. Among them purchasing a the stock of a corporation. In that case they would also be liable for private debts. 

Alternatively, they could purchase a company's assets only (which is what I believe was done). If the company had tax liabilities floating around, that could follow the sale to the new owner, but not private debt.


----------

