Interesting quote in the second newspaper article: "Now that it has an agreement with Somerset Trust, Seven Springs has to obtain a long-term lease from the state Department of Conservation and Natural Resources to operate the ski area".
A "LONG TERM LEASE" should offer stability, especially if there is not an easy out clause! Hopefully Seven Springs op of this area will not negate their eventual development of there on "western territory", behind the top of the new six pack.
The Colonel

These are my final comments on the situation at hand (of course, when more official info becomes available, I'll chime in):
1) Had Buncher not become interested in operating Laurel as a "community service" last winter, Seven Springs wouldn't have even bothered knocking at Somerset Trust's or the DCNR's door. This stuff happens every day in business, but it still makes me feel uneasy about their TRUE intentions.
2) I know a little more than I can divulge, but Buncher did have a long term interest in Laurel. Given their short and stellar track record at Hidden Valley, there probably wouldn't have been a better caretaker at Laurel. And as Leo pointed out in a previous post, Buncher can't create terrain, which Laurel has.
3) Bob Nutting is an avid skier. I hope that IF he reopens Laurel, he will realize what a gem he has and decides it is worth his money and his staff's time and energy.
4) I agree with The Colonel that the eventual lease Seven Springs sign with the DCNR should have a heavy financial penalty for lease termination.
5) An investment by Seven Springs in the adjacent Laurel Mountain Village would definitely help allay my concerns for their long term interest in Laurel.

The opening paragraph in this 8/21/08 article from Firsttracks.com is the most optimistic public statement I've seen yet that Laurel Mtn will be open for ski business this winter: http://www.firsttracksonline.com/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=4764

PS: just read the new DCSki article published today on this same topic. Not to pick favorites, but believe Scott has done a better job at recapping a very volatile story and probably was wise not to imply immediate ski operations likely.

I would like to personally thank Scott for the outstanding article on LM. He even got a quote from Somerset Trust. Way to go! It is no wonder why DCSki is where I always go to get the latest skiing news for the Mid Atlantic.

Scott, Thanks again!

Thanks for the story, Scott. It is the best article yet on the current situation at Laurel.

JimK, don't read too much into the First Tracks article. There is no word from the DCNR about a lease agreement, no word from the Governor's office on a funding time line. I hope that if Laurel is to open this year it would be with all improvements in place.

I agree with Dave's opinion that if not for Buncher's interest we would not be here today but as he said, this type of thing goes on in business all the time. My concern is that Laurel be done right this time. It will be up to us to ensure that happens.

First and foremost is we must open or wallets and support with our dollars. Next we must insists that the State provides oversight so that a realist business plan guided by an expertly crafted master plan is in place. If $6.5M of tax payer money is in play this must be done right with a full commitment to success.

Laurel can be much more then a local ski area. If the scope is only to refurbish what is already there then Laurel will be doomed again. I hope the DCNR take a strong hand in planning for success and holds the eventual leaser's feet to the fire with strict time commitments and stiff financial penalties. If the State is to own all the asset's then there should be no debt to retire. The DCNR should not tolerate any half hearted attempt to operate Laurel and should not be complicit in limiting competition in the local winter sport industry.

If Seven Springs and Bob Nutting is serious about Laurel then I will lend my wholehearted support. If this is a transparent move to blunt competition and ultimately ruin Laurel then it is incumbent on all of us that have lobbied on Laurel's behalf to hold them accountable. Do not fall into the false mind set that this is private enterprise. It will be a publicly funded State Park facility and as such we will have the right to be heard.

Here's a link to an article by A.J.Panian from the tribune-Review:

Laurel may get $6.5M

I agree with the last statment - if the Nuttings are serious about the future of the laurel Mountain Ski Resort they would need to invest their money today and start preparing the facility to open this winter. If they are only positioning themselves to keep out the competition, it may never open. We have seen what they did to the Pittsburgh Pirates - not a winning team. They just don't spend the money needed to support the team, why think anything differant when it comes to LM.

In my opinion the Nutting Family are acting in the best interest for the LM resort, its guest, and the community. You mentioned the Pirates – The family just took majority control of the Pirates a couple of years ago. For any successful outcome the planning process takes time. We all want a great LM ski resort. Breeding and feeding takes time. Destructive business practices can take the air out of it very quickly but to build quality takes time. Just look at Seven Springs Mountain Resort - improvements all over the mountain and lodge. We are not even talking about new projects. The Nuttings fixing what should have been done the last few years. They are for real guys. I life at the bottom of LM and never did ski the mountain – I would like to.

Also, let's not confuse the issue. The Pittsburgh Pirates are a successful business. They make money losing, thanks to revenue sharing.

Fortunately, the ski industry does not work that way. You can only lose money somewhere for so long before operating the resort is no longer viable.

I guess the reason I have some suspicions about their intentions with Laurel Mt is that I ask my self, what do they have to gain? And I don't have a great answer. I guess keeping a competitor from leveraging the resort to their own advantage is technically a "gain" for 7S. But I really cannot believe that they are sitting there looking at LM as a stand alone entity with enough (business) potential to make it worth their while. (I am not arguing the skiing potential, just the business). In other words, if no one else was interested in LM, Nuttings would not be. As an isolated business decision, it doesn't make sense.

I think that with the 6.5 mil from the state, they have some repair and startup money. The last time they tried it, it was their money and a bad winter. I don't know if the agreement is like the Buncher proposal, where they buy the equipment from the bank and give it back to the State. In that case, the State would own all the property and Nutting would manage it. Hidden Valley is nice but doesn't have the long steep slopes. That's why I expected to see them take the money and start Laurel back up. From all that I have seen, without a large bank payment, there is a profit to be made. I can't wait to see it open again, especially if its for the long haul.
Does anyone know if they are buying the Village also? I haven't been up for a year and wondered if the water tower has been built. Again, does anyone know?

I did not say that the ski industry and a professional baseball business operation are the same. You are missing the picture - They are not only increasing their business they are also building relationship FOR THE LONG RUN. A Seven Springs/LM ticket is the way to go. As long as LM breaks even no one would be upset.