Perisher Master Plan

cold wombat

Twitter Contributer
Moderator
Jun 4, 2008
65,014
52,874
2,115
14
Perth
I'm convinced a head lease would be the beginning of the end for club lodges. The lease holder would be far more motivated to drive the clubs out of business than NPWS is to wring a bit more cash out of them. If the leaseholder could force the clubs to the wall and take over their leases they could make a killing by turning all the low cost club beds into high cost commercial beds.
 

Legs Akimbo

Grumblebum
Ski Pass
Mar 3, 1999
72,523
51,311
1,563
Coastal suburban boonies.
I'm convinced a head lease would be the beginning of the end for club lodges. The lease holder would be far more motivated to drive the clubs out of business than NPWS is to wring a bit more cash out of them. If the leaseholder could force the clubs to the wall and take over their leases they could make a killing by turning all the low cost club beds into high cost commercial beds.
Easy fix. Make the term of the existing leases the same as the head lease with rent baked in (minus one day).
 
Remove ads with a
Ski Pass

cold wombat

Twitter Contributer
Moderator
Jun 4, 2008
65,014
52,874
2,115
14
Perth
Easy fix. Make the term of the existing leases the same as the head lease with rent baked in (minus one day).
Why would an operator sign such a head lease that takes away a golden goose? A head lease that allows them to eventually put overwhelming pressure on clubs would be worth much more. NPWS is motivated to get as much for a head lease as they can. Follow the money.
 

Legs Akimbo

Grumblebum
Ski Pass
Mar 3, 1999
72,523
51,311
1,563
Coastal suburban boonies.
Why would an operator sign such a head lease that takes away a golden goose? A head lease that allows them to eventually put overwhelming pressure on clubs would be worth much more. NPWS is motivated to get as much for a head lease as they can. Follow the money.
Probably because the head lessor would insist on it. As they did with the latest renewal. At the same time NPWS offered all clubs a new lease that expired on the same date as Perisher's lease.

I think the existing leases go out to ~2050 if you include options. Before any head lease can be offered the existing leases must be surrendered. That gives the clubs a lot of bargaining power.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Retro2

Telemark Phat

Pass the butter
Ski Pass
Jun 21, 2008
25,833
30,425
1,063
45
Jindabyne
www.telemarkphat.org
Why would an operator sign such a head lease that takes away a golden goose? A head lease that allows them to eventually put overwhelming pressure on clubs would be worth much more. NPWS is motivated to get as much for a head lease as they can. Follow the money.
AHL only pays $8000pa for the Thredbo head lease.
 

SMSkier

One of Us
Ski Pass
Oct 4, 2016
4,545
40,498
363
Parks need to step back. Running the systems they do cannot be core business for that arm of government. Sewerage, garbage, etc FFS when there’s a multitude of key initiatives and challenges that should be better addressed. And nope, dont care who you are I’m not getting into a debate about it. Last time I spoke to one of the key negotiators, a significant hurdle was park entry fees…. That’s a ton of money - annually.
 

Billy_Buttons

Part of the Furniture
Ski Pass
Mar 25, 2011
13,623
14,601
813
Parks need to step back. Running the systems they do cannot be core business for that arm of government. Sewerage, garbage, etc FFS when there’s a multitude of key initiatives and challenges that should be better addressed. And nope, dont care who you are I’m not getting into a debate about it. Last time I spoke to one of the key negotiators, a significant hurdle was park entry fees…. That’s a ton of money - annually.
They just got 2yrs out of us for one car.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SMSkier

Telemark Phat

Pass the butter
Ski Pass
Jun 21, 2008
25,833
30,425
1,063
45
Jindabyne
www.telemarkphat.org
Parks need to step back. Running the systems they do cannot be core business for that arm of government. Sewerage, garbage, etc FFS when there’s a multitude of key initiatives and challenges that should be better addressed. And nope, dont care who you are I’m not getting into a debate about it. Last time I spoke to one of the key negotiators, a significant hurdle was park entry fees…. That’s a ton of money - annually.
That poo works is unique in Australia. There isn't anyone else in the country who could run it better.
 
Remove ads with a
Ski Pass

Telezacski

A Local
Ski Pass
Mar 19, 2010
8,316
16,707
563
I agree with you, but wanted to add for clarity's sake: I'd suggest we differentiate between the ski hill (the "resort") and whatever we want to call the village or settlement that is in the valley.

Perisher Valley shouldn't be seen as a resort, and it shouldn't be managed for corporate profit. If it were, the accommodation would all invaribly end up in private hands to be let out at the highest possible rate.

Instead, Perisher Valley should be seen as a community, and managed for social, environmental, and economic sustainability and regeneration.
I love the sentiment but unfortunately it’s about five years too late. Vale are a money making machine.

But to clarify one point, the only chance of your desired community is the retention of property in private hands, note I see clubs as private (they simply share ownership).

Perisher needs to keep property out of the corporation.
 

Chookfooter

Cranky Curmudgeon
Ski Pass
May 11, 2020
2,441
4,919
363
AHL only pays $8000pa for the Thredbo head lease.
The cost of the actual lease is not the expensive bit, it's the running the poo farm, maintaining the roads, clearing the roads, collecting the garbage, fixing the burst pipes in winter. All that stuff that the taxpayer/pass buyer pays at the moment. And there is no money from club lodges to cover that.
 

Telemark Phat

Pass the butter
Ski Pass
Jun 21, 2008
25,833
30,425
1,063
45
Jindabyne
www.telemarkphat.org
The cost of the actual lease is not the expensive bit, it's the running the poo farm, maintaining the roads, clearing the roads, collecting the garbage, fixing the burst pipes in winter. All that stuff that the taxpayer/pass buyer pays at the moment. And there is no money from club lodges to cover that.
You need to read my post in the context of the post I was replying to.
 
Remove ads with a
Ski Pass

climberman

CloudRide1000 Legend
Ski Pass
Jul 24, 2000
49,208
48,863
1,563
the sunny illawarra
History renewed 2007. Government should have got a much better deal and return for unique public lands on behalf of its tax payers. Friends in high places I suppose!
Kosciuszko National Park Leases
SMH article
Yes, but the renewal option was set in the original agreement. There was a lease option, with signed terms between the co and th government, and the co took it up. The alternative would be the government offering a process (sum of $$) to break the lease. There's no skulduggery. The SMH basically says 'its an agreement and some people now dont like it and want the law changed so the government doesn't have to meet its end of the agreement'.
 

teletripper

One of Us
Aug 4, 2007
409
943
263
Jindabyne
Yes, but the renewal option was set in the original agreement. There was a lease option, with signed terms between the co and th government, and the co took it up. The alternative would be the government offering a process (sum of $$) to break the lease. There's no skulduggery. The SMH basically says 'its an agreement and some people now dont like it and want the law changed so the government doesn't have to meet its end of the agreement'.
'Skulduggery' / 'creative accounting' :rolleyes:???
Pretty sweet deal when a private company with an annual turnover of over $36.6M (2004) can occupy prime real estate and environmentally sensitive public lands and pay $8K/yr for the privilege. Yet the tennant still whinges to the landlord about meeting basic obligations and cries hard done by to the public.

All i'm saying is government/public sector is not very good at negotiating the best outcomes on behalf of tax payers on leasing of public lands / infrastructure. Particularly when the veil of politics/ big business relationships are cast over the top of those negotiations.
 

Legs Akimbo

Grumblebum
Ski Pass
Mar 3, 1999
72,523
51,311
1,563
Coastal suburban boonies.
'Skulduggery' / 'creative accounting' :rolleyes:???
Pretty sweet deal when a private company with an annual turnover of over $36.6M (2004) can occupy prime real estate and environmentally sensitive public lands and pay $8K/yr for the privilege. Yet the tennant still whinges to the landlord about meeting basic obligations and cries hard done by to the public.

All i'm saying is government/public sector is not very good at negotiating the best outcomes on behalf of tax payers on leasing of public lands / infrastructure. Particularly when the veil of politics/ big business relationships are cast over the top of those negotiations.
KT have the head lease. The lease is a proportion of KT's taxable income. KT, I suspect, has service agreements with other associated corporate entities which are paid handsomely for what they provide to KT. Classic transfer pricing. KT has a minimal taxable income (at least as far as the lease is concerned) while associated entities make the profits. All under a single ownership.

The history is that when the lease was first signed the Kosciusko Park Trust was desperate to promote tourism in the region. Their motivation was not revenue so they gave KT a great deal on a very long lease (with an option that has been exercised). When NPWS took over from the trust they inherited a dud deal which has continued.
 

climberman

CloudRide1000 Legend
Ski Pass
Jul 24, 2000
49,208
48,863
1,563
the sunny illawarra
All i'm saying is government/public sector is not very good at negotiating the best outcomes on behalf of tax payers on leasing of public lands / infrastructure. Particularly when the veil of politics/ big business relationships are cast over the top of those negotiations.
There was no option to negotiate. It wasn't a negotiation. There was an option to renew the lease period, contained within the original agreement. The option was taken up. It was essentially AHL ticking a box saying 'yes, we will take up our option to the second term of the lease as per the terms of our legal agreement with the Government. Thank you'. It wasn't a new lease.

AIUI there were some company-side efforts at seeking a new lease (given there's only 40 years to run or something on the current one) but that didn't go anywhere. I assume because AHL didn't like the terms offered by government, or government didn't think it an issue worth worrying about at present for whatever reason.

We can expect a very different outcome at the end of this current option period, when a brand new lease arrangement will be required as the time term of the lease will be over.

It's an interesting question - what will happen with a new lease? Will government scope it to the open market? Will sub-leasees be offered a new sublease and under what terms? Will a new leasee offer all the subleases up for sale?
 
  • Like
Reactions: teletripper

teletripper

One of Us
Aug 4, 2007
409
943
263
Jindabyne
Yep, I can see your points and understand that government / parks had no where to go on this particular historic dud deal for Thredbo, because they never really understood or foresaw the value. I don't think the nominal $8k was 'heaps' even in 1947.

I just always find it funny that many within the community, (particularly locally here in the mountains) and skiing public think that somehow government / parks are making huge sums of money out of the resorts via these leases, which drives up the cost of their skiing holiday, when nothing could be further from the truth. Yes, park gate takings generated from having the resorts there help prop up governments/ parks coffers, but ones gottta ask whether its a reasonable deal and return as far as public lands go. The community need to look a bit more closely as to who is making the money and what are the public costs, financial, environmental and social. Let's hope government are a bit more savvy on any new lease arrangements, which relates to where this current discussions started over future development/leasing arrangements for Perisher and others.
 

Fozzie Bear

Where's my flapping ears gone.....
Ski Pass
Jun 2, 2014
10,416
20,089
813
In the woods
We can expect a very different outcome at the end of this current option period, when a brand new lease arrangement will be required as the time term of the lease will be over.
NPWS certainly played a harder game with Blyton Group in negotiating the new Charlotte Pass lease.
 

climberman

CloudRide1000 Legend
Ski Pass
Jul 24, 2000
49,208
48,863
1,563
the sunny illawarra
Yep, I can see your points and understand that government / parks had no where to go on this particular historic dud deal for Thredbo, because they never really understood or foresaw the value. I don't think the nominal $8k was 'heaps' even in 1947.

I just always find it funny that many within the community, (particularly locally here in the mountains) and skiing public think that somehow government / parks are making huge sums of money out of the resorts via these leases, which drives up the cost of their skiing holiday, when nothing could be further from the truth. Yes, park gate takings generated from having the resorts there help prop up governments/ parks coffers, but ones gottta ask whether its a reasonable deal and return as far as public lands go. The community need to look a bit more closely as to who is making the money and what are the public costs, financial, environmental and social. Let's hope government are a bit more savvy on any new lease arrangements, which relates to where this current discussions started over future development/leasing arrangements for Perisher and others.
Sure - it's a great deal from AHL's perspective in terms of lease costs. As @Telezacski aid, the aim from a government perspective at the time was to get private sector involvement in the tourism industry (moving from the formerly government run places like Sponars, etc). It did really well at that. Of course many such leases failed (eg Main Range tows and lodging).

Community leasing of state lands was also much easier then (eg Perisher / Guthega/ /etc) - 'we're a club of people can you lease us some public land to use for ski/fish/boat club/bowls club/gun club/golf club, showgrounds, etc'. The state and public view on that stuff has changed a lot since the 40's, 50's and 60's.

They'll be very keen to get a better deal on Thredbo, if it's still a good concern in 40 years :)

CP was probably a harder one, it's much much more marginal for profitability and expansion potential (IMO).
 

VSG

Crayon Master
Moderator
Ski Pass
Jan 1, 1998
72,677
9,879
1,525
Port Macquarie NSW
www.tumblr.com
Parks need to step back. Running the systems they do cannot be core business for that arm of government. Sewerage, garbage, etc FFS when there’s a multitude of key initiatives and challenges that should be better addressed. And nope, dont care who you are I’m not getting into a debate about it. Last time I spoke to one of the key negotiators, a significant hurdle was park entry fees…. That’s a ton of money - annually.
Never understood the governance of the various State/Territory Parks and Wildlife Services. Perhaps the remit of some is bigger than managing the flora and fauna. And tracks. And collecting fees. And parking cops.

Managing accommodations is a remit of the Tassie mob, afaict. Ferinstance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SMSkier

teletripper

One of Us
Aug 4, 2007
409
943
263
Jindabyne
NPWS certainly played a harder game with Blyton Group in negotiating the new Charlotte Pass lease.
And so they should. It just always amuses me that they, (government/parks) get criticised by some in the community for often being the perceived barrier, or playing the gate keeper in trying to get the best outcome and return for public assets and not letting private interests just exploit for profit and take us all for a ride.
 

Dropbear

One of Us
Aug 4, 2010
838
843
263
Northern Beaches
I love the sentiment but unfortunately it’s about five years too late. Vale are a money making machine.

What do you mean? Are you suggesting that the NSW Government will announce that they secretly leased Perisher 5 years ago, just to get it off the books, like they did with TAHE? :p

Jokes aside, I should clarify that I have no issue with Vail making money. That's their imperative.

(That said, they do need to charge a reasonable price for reasonable delivery of skiing experiences, but that's more of a recent concern imported here direct from the current US winter...)

But no matter whether it's Vail or KT or whoever else as the Perisher head lessor, it's just not a good fit to put any money making machine in charge of providing local municipal services.

But to clarify one point, the only chance of your desired community is the retention of property in private hands, note I see clubs as private (they simply share ownership).

Perisher needs to keep property out of the corporation.

Remember though that the clubs are not-for-profit cooperatives, not corporations. They are bound by their constitutions to deliver services and amenities to their members, not to deliver profits.

If the head lessor was a not-for-profit cooperative organisation, then it could be charged with delivering services and amenities to everyone - to the clubs, businesses, ski hill, volunteer groups like ski patrol, downhill skiers, cross country and ski tourers, snow players, etc. More importantly, it could also bring all these different groups together to produce a collective vision for Perisher Valley, and a plan for how to achieve it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cornice12

Telezacski

A Local
Ski Pass
Mar 19, 2010
8,316
16,707
563
What do you mean? Are you suggesting that the NSW Government will announce that they secretly leased Perisher 5 years ago, just to get it off the books, like they did with TAHE? :p

Jokes aside, I should clarify that I have no issue with Vail making money. That's their imperative.

(That said, they do need to charge a reasonable price for reasonable delivery of skiing experiences, but that's more of a recent concern imported here direct from the current US winter...)

But no matter whether it's Vail or KT or whoever else as the Perisher head lessor, it's just not a good fit to put any money making machine in charge of providing local municipal services.



Remember though that the clubs are not-for-profit cooperatives, not corporations. They are bound by their constitutions to deliver services and amenities to their members, not to deliver profits.

If the head lessor was a not-for-profit cooperative organisation, then it could be charged with delivering services and amenities to everyone - to the clubs, businesses, ski hill, volunteer groups like ski patrol, downhill skiers, cross country and ski tourers, snow players, etc. More importantly, it could also bring all these different groups together to produce a collective vision for Perisher Valley, and a plan for how to achieve it.

My point was that if was five years to late I.e Perisher was sold to Vail fives years ago.

Whilst I acknowledge your point on not for profits and clubs the reality is they are a head fuck (yes I’m a club member and a private owner) at a club level let alone a resort level.

I can see no way a not for profit could manage or run an organisation the size of a ski field. Just obtaining the funding for upgrades would be mind boggling.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dawooduck

Telezacski

A Local
Ski Pass
Mar 19, 2010
8,316
16,707
563
Yep, I can see your points and understand that government / parks had no where to go on this particular historic dud deal for Thredbo, because they never really understood or foresaw the value. I don't think the nominal $8k was 'heaps' even in 1947.

I just always find it funny that many within the community, (particularly locally here in the mountains) and skiing public think that somehow government / parks are making huge sums of money out of the resorts via these leases, which drives up the cost of their skiing holiday, when nothing could be further from the truth. Yes, park gate takings generated from having the resorts there help prop up governments/ parks coffers, but ones gottta ask whether its a reasonable deal and return as far as public lands go. The community need to look a bit more closely as to who is making the money and what are the public costs, financial, environmental and social. Let's hope government are a bit more savvy on any new lease arrangements, which relates to where this current discussions started over future development/leasing arrangements for Perisher and others.

You understand that as deals go, the KT deal is far better from a government perspective than the Perisher deal.

KT manage everything within their lease boundary where as at Perisher they don’t need to. So everyone traveling to Thredbo and paying park entry, that money goes to managing Perisher (and other NPWS costs).

Is the pricing correct, probably not but it’s not an even playing field
 

teletripper

One of Us
Aug 4, 2007
409
943
263
Jindabyne
You understand that as deals go, the KT deal is far better from a government perspective than the Perisher deal.

KT manage everything within their lease boundary where as at Perisher they don’t need to. So everyone traveling to Thredbo and paying park entry, that money goes to managing Perisher (and other NPWS costs).

Is the pricing correct, probably not but it’s not an even playing field
Whilst I agree the Thredbo head lease model may be a better and appear to be a more convenient option to government than the mish mash of Perisher and provision of expensive municipal services, as others have commented here that model may not be particularly attractive to entities such as club lodges or small business, to be at the behest of a large private company only responsible to share holders and not the wider community as governments are. I agree it is not an even playing field. Not sure I fully agree with your statement that the money collected from those travelling to Thredbo goes to managing Perisher and other NPWS costs is completely accurate. The costs of Thredbo both financial and environmental to the public and hence government/parks do not stop at the boundary of their lease area.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Telezacski

Dropbear

One of Us
Aug 4, 2010
838
843
263
Northern Beaches
My point was that if was five years to late I.e Perisher was sold to Vail fives years ago.

Whilst I acknowledge your point on not for profits and clubs the reality is they are a head fcuk (yes I’m a club member and a private owner) at a club level let alone a resort level.

I can see no way a not for profit could manage or run an organisation the size of a ski field. Just obtaining the funding for upgrades would be mind boggling.

Ahh I see. Yeah, no, I was suggesting that the head lease could be run by a not-for-profit, and that Vail could continue operating the ski field for as long as they are happy and profitable to do so.
 

Legs Akimbo

Grumblebum
Ski Pass
Mar 3, 1999
72,523
51,311
1,563
Coastal suburban boonies.
Ahh I see. Yeah, no, I was suggesting that the head lease could be run by a not-for-profit, and that Vail could continue operating the ski field for as long as they are happy and profitable to do so.
Some of the worst shitfights I have witnessed have been in not for profits running large enterprises. A profit motive gives a measure of effectiveness that swamps petty politicking.
 

Telezacski

A Local
Ski Pass
Mar 19, 2010
8,316
16,707
563
Whilst I agree the Thredbo head lease model may be a better and appear to be a more convenient option to government than the mish mash of Perisher and provision of expensive municipal services, as others have commented here that model may not be particularly attractive to entities such as club lodges or small business, to be at the behest of a large private company only responsible to share holders and not the wider community as governments are.

Remember their are very successful lodges at Thredbo as well,
 
  • Like
Reactions: teletripper

BlueHue

One of Us
Ski Pass
Apr 17, 2003
3,947
4,764
363
47
South of Cooma
My long held theory is that the managers of whoever runs the poo farm should be required to take a drink from downstream of the farm every day. It applies to every resort.
In Sydney yes with millions of people getting into waterways downstream of treatment plants. Perisher is a different beast as what you are most concerned with protecting are aquatic species that live in the waterway. They will be constantly exposed day and night rather than a bit of a dip and swallow now and then over the warmer months. They will have different responses to different substances (and mixtures of), bioaccumulation through the system that humans won't get due to our short sporadic exposures and of course you have the whole ecosystem business so impacts on one will flow on to the rest.

In short, water that's safe to drink, depending on circumstances, may well still have a negative impact on downstream aquatic ecosystems.
 

Legs Akimbo

Grumblebum
Ski Pass
Mar 3, 1999
72,523
51,311
1,563
Coastal suburban boonies.
In Sydney yes with millions of people getting into waterways downstream of treatment plants. Perisher is a different beast as what you are most concerned with protecting are aquatic species that live in the waterway. They will be constantly exposed day and night rather than a bit of a dip and swallow now and then over the warmer months. They will have different responses to different substances (and mixtures of), bioaccumulation through the system that humans won't get due to our short sporadic exposures and of course you have the whole ecosystem business so impacts on one will flow on to the rest.

In short, water that's safe to drink, depending on circumstances, may well still have a negative impact on downstream aquatic ecosystems.
It's more to keep their attention on the issue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BlueHue

teletripper

One of Us
Aug 4, 2007
409
943
263
Jindabyne
The KNP winter surcharge fee was literally and publicly set up for this exact purpose.
I must interprete the IPART recommendations around apportioning winter surcharge and park use fees differently to everyone else:
IPART report
Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal
Recommendation 14
Entry surcharges from ticket sales should be applied to Perisher infrastructure as follows:
• 80 per cent of all tickets sold at the Kosciuszko Road Vehicle Entry Station
• none of the tickets sold at Vehicle Entry Stations other than Kosciuszko Road
• 35 per cent of day passes sold at places other than entry points to the KNP
• 35 per cent of annual passes sold at places other than entry points to the KNP
• 95 per cent of Skitube sales
• 95 per cent of Kosciuszko Road bus sales.


So I’m not sure to say that ‘So everyone traveling to Thredbo and paying park entry, that money goes to managing Perisher (and other NPWS costs).’ As Zacski said Is completely accurate.
Plenty of Park use fee and winter surcharge fee that gets collected on the Alpine Way is spent in the Thredbo valley and Thredbo resort surrounds that the good people of Thredbo and its visitors benefit from.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dropbear

Legs Akimbo

Grumblebum
Ski Pass
Mar 3, 1999
72,523
51,311
1,563
Coastal suburban boonies.
I must interprete the IPART recommendations around apportioning winter surcharge and park use fees differently to everyone else:
IPART report
Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal
Recommendation 14
Entry surcharges from ticket sales should be applied to Perisher infrastructure as follows:
• 80 per cent of all tickets sold at the Kosciuszko Road Vehicle Entry Station
• none of the tickets sold at Vehicle Entry Stations other than Kosciuszko Road
• 35 per cent of day passes sold at places other than entry points to the KNP
• 35 per cent of annual passes sold at places other than entry points to the KNP
• 95 per cent of Skitube sales
• 95 per cent of Kosciuszko Road bus sales.


So I’m not sure to say that ‘So everyone traveling to Thredbo and paying park entry, that money goes to managing Perisher (and other NPWS costs).’ As Zacski said Is completely accurate.
Plenty of Park use fee and winter surcharge fee that gets collected on the Alpine Way is spent in the Thredbo valley and Thredbo resort surrounds that the good people of Thredbo and its visitors benefit from.
Then why is the price on the Summit Rd the same as the price on the Alpine Way?
 
Remove ads with a
Ski Pass
Remove ads with a
Ski Pass

Log in

or Log in using