NY Times Article re: Mad River Glen

[bumpcrasher]

Looks like the Valley is getting a lot of press lately. Check this article out from the NY Times on Feb. 9.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/09/tr...ed=1&8dpc&_r=1

[MntMan4Bush]

I can't get that link to work, but I also had found one from Jan 9th in the NY Times that I posted on the history page.

http://travel.nytimes.com/2007/01/12/travel/escapes/12ski.html?em&ex=1168750800&en=d3016746090516a8&ei=5087%0A

[MntMan4Bush]

Here's the full link for the 9th. of Feb. I think yours didn't work because it was abbr.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/09/travel/escapes/09ski.ready.html?pagewanted=1&8dpc&_r=1

[win]

Yes, nice to have 2 great mountains in the same Valley.

[BushMogulMaster]

Yes, nice to have 2 great mountains in the same Valley.

Definitely. Or perhaps it should read, 2 great ski areas, 3 great mountains!

[smootharc]

....but the article mentions an ANNUAL shareholder cost of $1,800. That is the initial, one-time buy in price of one share, not an annual cost.

[sugarboarder]

Yes, nice to have 2 great mountains in the same Valley.

Definitely. Or perhaps it should read, 2 great ski areas, 3 great mountains!

OR...one great ski area...one elitist exclusionary great mountain living in the past. :wink:

[BushMogulMaster]

Yes, nice to have 2 great mountains in the same Valley.

Definitely. Or perhaps it should read, 2 great ski areas, 3 great mountains!

OR...one great ski area...one elitist exclusionary great mountain living in the past. :wink:

:roll:

[Mike_451]

Here we go again.

[sugarboarder]

Yes, nice to have 2 great mountains in the same Valley.

Definitely. Or perhaps it should read, 2 great ski areas, 3 great mountains!

OR...one great ski area...one elitist exclusionary great mountain living in the past. :wink:

:roll:

http://www.bomberonline.com/VBulletin/images/smilies/tongue.gif