View Full Version : SSR - 2054???
07-21-2003, 08:01 AM
The US DVC board has rumours of a 2054 end date for SSR. Any thoughts anyone?
If true, that would tempt me more. I have been toying with DVC for a couple of years, if not more, but haven't gone ahead primarily because our kids are one of each and sleeping arrangements are a potential issue, even in a one bedroom. We have taked the villa option on the last two vacations and thus avoided the problem.
With an extended life, that would give more years after the children are grown up, thus more appealing.
07-21-2003, 10:40 AM
Well, I must say that SSR as a resort does appeal to me, especially if the points requirements are lower that BWV, VWL or BCV (as has been rumoured), and I hope we'll be able to stay there some time with our VWL points.
BUT, I'm not tempted by the extended expiry date as it stands - I think our own vacationing days may be long gone before then, and DDs can buy a different 'time share' option to replace DVC after 2042 if that's what they want!
I think the desirability (or not) of an extended date is all going to come down to the age of DVC members and whether they are likely to benefit from those years between 2042 and 2054.
07-21-2003, 11:03 AM
From a financial point view it could make SSR a better deal. It's a 6% increase in price for a 20% increase in use. Although you're paying the extra up front for use in 40 years time. I'd have to run the numbers through to be sure which made more sense if I was looking to add on, but I'm not :) . I would still tend to stick to the resort that I prefered. With the exception of BCV ( and they will be available in a short time IMHO) the availability of a lower price for a resale (over 39 years) compared to Disney's price over 50 is likely to mean the financial "benefit" is likely to be minimal.
John, an inflatable mattress could be the answer to your one of each problems ( although you're bound to get arguments over who gets the airbed lol). It is a short term answer to a problem that is unlikely to go on for that many years.
There are a number of solutions to the short term problem of the kids not being willing to share, it could be renting a two bed DVC for a shorter time ( as the highlight )and filling in the balance of time with a low cost villa or appartment style hotel on I-Drive. Maybe, as they get older, two studios would work so everyone gets a bed, certainly at Vero two Inn rooms could be a workable option. Banking and borrowing points to make use of a larger unit everyother year. It's hard to swallow the high cost of a two bedroom unit for 4 of you,but arriving on a Saturday and staying off site, then 5 nights in a 2 bed, visit I drive for a couple of nights and finish off with another 5 nights on DVC. It's a bit of a bind moving, but it does maximise your points use and it doesn't feel quite so bad getting a 2 bedroom that way :)
07-22-2003, 07:03 AM
Hilary, I think you hit the nail on the head regarding age. DW and I will (hopefully!!) be in our early seventies in 2042 so I "intend" to still be vacationing in WDW at that time. So, all things being equal, an extra 12 years holds some potential value to me.
Vernon, as usual, good points!!! I think you are right from a financial point of view, the value of the discounted cash flow savings over the extra twelve years, starting in 39 years time, is not going to make any difference when comparing a resale to buying SSR.
In terms of buying at your preferred resort, I think SSR MAY offer the best of both worlds. It sounds like OKW but within walking distance of DTD (I know you can walk from OKW but I think it's further?). BCV and BWV appeal to me given their proximity to the Boardwalk and Epcot but DTD is obviously also a good location for food and entertainment.
I recognised a long time ago that, if you are going to visit WDW on a regular basis over the rest of your life, DVC offers the best return for your money, except possibly buying a villa. This is something else I have been pondering (it's nice to ponder when you don't have the cash!!!) for a couple of years but with 9/11 and spending time researching, the rental option is a lot more hard work than I perceive it might be worth. (You have first hand experience, I know).
07-25-2003, 02:11 PM
JohnW, you hit it on the head. We just passed into the "early seventies" mode, and have three trips planned for the next 17 months. I guess that the 2042 date will not be a factor for us, but I find it hard to believe that Disney would let thousands of owners, or families of current owners, leave without some opportunity to stay as members.
The question is what would be fair and affordable by current owners, and still be a money maker for the company? Would we, as a group, pay a fee now to have our current contract extended. I think that I would. Good cash flow for Disney every 10 years or so, with a minimum acquistion cost.
This is not a big deal for us. It has always been known that our contract will expire. It was a minor issue when we bought in 1995, but we were convinced that a 50 year contract with Disney is more advantageous than a lifetime contract with many of the other TS sellers.
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.