Deer Valley pros: best service, best snowmaking, best food, vastly improved terrain in the last 5 to 10 years, most beautiful (more evergreens as opposed to leafless aspens and gnarled scrub brush).

Deer Valley cons: not “natural” enough due to all the slope side condos and private homes, expense — season ticket pricing says “go away” to many locals; no pricing consideration given to local public school teachers, police officers, firefighters, honor students, etc.

Canyons pros: best terrain, welcomed infrastructure upgrades, reasonable pricing for local teachers, police, firefighters, honor students, etc.

Canyons cons: difficult slope access from the parking lot, staff still perceived as relatively incompetent (fairly or unfairly), clientele perceived as a huge frat party and less family friendly (again, fairly or unfairly), pricing is expensive for locals who don’t fall into one of the groups mentioned above.

PCMR pros: terrain parks and features, family friendly, most convenient to downtown, most convenient slope access from the parking lot, season ticket pricing is by far the most friendly to locals.

PCMR cons: worst terrain (too many ridge-and-gully runs with inconsistent pitch), recent upgrades have been too focused on terrain parks and features as opposed to general infrastructure, certain runs are frequently dangerously crowded.

That list is my own take, based on what I’ve heard during years of being in business here in town and during many, many local social gatherings. Note that nowhere on the list is any mention of PCMR being “small” or “local” as a pro or Canyons/Talisker being “big” or “non-local” as a con. I simply haven’t heard those items. It’s true that many locals were pulling for Vail Resorts to win their effort to acquire The Canyons way back when, due to a preconception that Talisker would prioritize real estate development over the mountain experience, but no one was kidding themselves that Vail is a small enterprise. Similarly, no one kids themselves that PCMR is not owned by POWDR Corp.

So the biggest “aha” that locals have responded to since this thing erupted is, as Phil points out, that the prior lease terms PCMR enjoyed were allegedly a surprisingly small $150,000 per year. When that news came out, the general response was that Talisker is perfectly correct to stand on any technicality, any right, any excuse at all, to renegotiate. They’d be foolish not to. The local populace doesn’t seem too cock-sure about the entities’ behavior behind the scenes, but support for PCMR became distinctly less one-sided once that tidbit surfaced, and it made locals view PCMR’s media blitz surrounding their filing of the lawsuit — as well as the lawsuit itself — with a somewhat more jaundiced eye.

So, to the extent that PCMR’s prior lease terms might never have become a topic of public discussion without the PR blitz, the blitz may have done more harm than good.

If the lease terms were destined to become part of the public dialogue with or without the PR blitz, perhaps the blitz was a positive move after all.

For what it’s worth…

- Troy

Even thought PCMR attempted to rally the town’s population on its side, the early responses would suggest that the resort isn’t getting the expected support. What is true is that Talisker has invested much more in Canyons than PCMR has during the same period, and what used to be Utah’s largest resort has gotten seriously sidetracked by its terrain park and is falling significantly behind its two next door competitors that have led in terms of service and infrastructure.

By taking its plight to the court of public opinion in spite of the confidentiality agreement surrounding its negotiations with Talisker, PCMR doesn’t seem to have much of a legal leg to stand on and at the end of the day will probably have to abide by its landlord’s new terms and conditions.