My "tidbits" are not new. It seems like a lot of folks, even in the press disagree. My source are people who are directly in the deal one way or another, or VERY close. This whole thing has been brewing for a long, long time.
All that KSL/Aspen are competing with Vail for is the intimate skier dollars. And they want to carve off the top end of Vail's current skiers. The people who may not like the homogenized resorts.
1. This has just begun. Look for this group to be buying some special properties and selling some dogs. Or non destination resorts. My hunch is that three or four are gone over year one. And more are being "discussed" right now.
2. They do not intend to be Vail 2.0. This is not about the Epic Pass, on the cheap. A consolidated pass, absolutely. I hear that consistently. Do not be thinking this is about playing Vail's game and cheap passes. Nor is it about I/70 or "feeder mountIns."
Interesting insights--thanks for sharing! I'm going to comment and add some specific names in the western US to see what further insights might come up.
It sounds like you're describing a theoretical group with high-end visitation patterns similar to Aspen, but without the Mountain Collective riff-raff (I'm not saying that--just putting hypothetical words in hypothetical mangers' mouths). So for Aspen, more or less business as usual, with some higher-income visitors replacing some of the current middle-income tourists (sounds like a financier's dream). For Squalpine, drive off the locals (good start this season!) and day-trippers, and focus on tying Silicon Valley wealth into the rest of the group's properties. For Mammoth, price out the middle class and cater to LA wealth (again combined with the other areas' strengths). Steamboat seems like an odd man out... I guess the idea is to take it really upscale, but so much of its current economy is based on middle-income tourists that it'll be a rough transition, and might take some significant investment to get the resort infrastructure up to the boutique caliber you seem to describe.
And then the dogs/feeder mountains. June is clearly in the "dog" category, and it doesn't fit very well at all with an idea of a resort group focused squarely at millionaires and billionaires. It's good to have it in the portfolio just in case anti-trust regulators decide to look tough by requiring a divestiture. But really, does the new group want to sell it to Vail or Vail 2.0 and risk having it as a permanent competitor? Snow Summit/Bear Mountain have been called "feeder mountains," although I think really it's more accurate to say they've provided an important rounding element in the Cali4nia portfolio, delivering significant added value to value-conscious Southern Californians. So under the strategy you describe, it makes sense to get rid of Big Bear, and just write off Southern California's middle class. But that takes a
huge chunk out of Mammoth's current business--particularly if they go to Vail or some other future conglomerate who wants to compete in the mid-range market. And then Winter Park, while not actually on I-70, is clearly currently aimed at the I-70 market... Denver locals and tourists who aren't extremely wealthy. So it sounds like an obvious target to sell. But the fact that Vail is effectively shut out from bidding for Winter Park means that it might not fetch the sort of quick-sale price they might have hoped.
3. High end, unique perfect destination resorts. No homogenized product at all. Same umbrella brand, but unique destinations. He mentioned that a bit.
4. I think almost any one of us can imagine the shopping list. I suspect that a couple that most assume will "never" be for sale will be sold. And I assume that Vail is right in the mix.
So the possible competition/acquisition targets for that top-tier customer, I guess, would be the new Aspen/KSL group, Vail, Deer Valley/Solitude, Alta, Snowbird, Telluride, Jackson Hole, Sun Valley/Snowbasin, and Yellowstone Club/Big Sky. Maybe Powder Mountain, Sundance, Taos, Whitefish, and/or Crested Butte at a stretch. That seems like a lot of players chasing a pretty limited set of wealthy customers. Which of course is why they've all been supplementing with a good deal of marketing to middle class vacationers/weekenders too.
The big challenge with a KSL/Aspen business model focused on those high-value customers seems to be how to capture additional market share away from the other players. I'm not sure I see a clear path to where a Mammoth/Squalpine/Aspen/Steamboat entity can make significant inroads against the others. Skiers who already have a favorite mountain (or a real estate investment at one) are unlikely to be persuaded to switch allegiance, while skiers who value traveling around trying different areas seem unlikely to be persuaded long-term to limit themselves to just the KSL/Aspen group.
5. Look for both of them to be in on former CNL properties, now owned by Och/Ziff. My hunch is that all are being marketed. No sure what fits for KSL/Aspen. I can think of a couple...on the feeder hill/Vail plan they might have interest in quite a few. Of course either one needs to deal with buying out the operators who hold long leases. Nothing money can't fix.
In the end, my hunch is that we'll see that everything is for sale in this business, and everybody has their price!
Will be great spectating!
At least out west, Crested Butte seems like the only player that might fit the high-end profile described for KSL/Aspen. Brighton might be a good acquisition if paired with another Utah area. The others, I agree, are prime acquisition targets for Vail or another entity that is willing to embrace value-conscious skiers. And if KSL/Aspen really does pursue a high-end-focused strategy, I think it's likely that another conglomerate (Vail 2.0) will arise before too long that's more willing to fight Vail head-on for middle-class customers. Big Bear, June, and Winter Park would be a great kick-start to such a venture.
I have a hunch
