2023 Point Charts Released

[DaveNan]

Great legal conversation...... For me it comes down to when reallocating, does Disney need to keep the total points associated with the entire resort balanced, or do villa types also need to stay balanced? If I bought primarily to stay in studios, GV, THV, or 2 BR, do those need to individually stay balanced? The POS stated is does. The sales pitch pretty much does too, "Disney may shift, points between seasons, from week nights to weekends, but the total number of points to stay in a "villa" or "at the resort" (I am sure this may shift based on the guide) can't change."
When the THV were added to SSR, they had a different booking category, but the same point charts as SSR 2BR. (at that time there was only 1 category at SSR (not std and pref)) Over time they have increased the point requirements for the THV. There has been the creation of std and pref and associated changes in those chart to keep the overall total number of points consistent. But specifically for the THV, the increase in any specific time period, does not have an associated decrease in another time period. The "reduction" was in a totally different villa type. Within the system, no value was lost, but within "my desired booking category", it increased for the year.

Why was the shift made? Because THV were consistently booking quicker then the 2BR. So in order to "honor" the POS, Disney allocated more points to the THV to "balance" the need and "help" the owners. This may sound nice and actually got enough support it only caused a minor dust up, and the charts stuck.

Now let's talk about a couple of other changes that would fit this exact model. At PVB, bungalows book way slower than studios. Following the same model Disney could increase studios throughout the year and have a corresponding decrease in bungalows throughout the year. Same goes for CCV and the cabins.
Or.... They have defined VGF2 as a separate booking category. The initial charts show std and lake view as the same point chart between the 2 buildings. In 2 years, VGF2 could go down and VGF could go up. Per the arguments here, that OK right? Or now since there are more studios, maybe studios go down across the board and 1BR and 2BR go up across the board. Still OK?

I suspect the torches and pitchforks would come out if any of these happened. @Lorana is setting up the legal argument against this, and other owners are diligently monitoring the point charts to make sure this doesn't happen.

 

[Sandisw]

I actually think I’ve demonstrated the harm. I have a legal deeded real estate contract that requires my points to represent my percentage ownership, and it no longer does.

To put another way: my points - and ANY owners points - should allow you to book a THV for the same points as a 2BR. The only re-allocation allowed per the POS, the terms of my contract, and the master declaration, is within seasons based on demand, so any changes should only reflect that: all total points to book THVs should equal total points for 2BRs. They no longer do. It is more points to book THVs than 2BRs.


That is true in the sense that a unit is part of the larger resort, but legally/contractually, my points are a representation of the percentage ownership of my unit. That is literally what the contract says.

No, it shouldn’t. That is because the way the point value system is structured, the % of points is based on the size of the unit. To present it another way, if my unit is bigger than yours and thus my percentage ownership is smaller, it is like I bought 100 points to use at a 2BR and you bought 100 points to use at a 1BR. The reservation system essentially allows me to “trade out” to use my points at any room in the resort, but if I booked at a 2BR, which I owned, I would be able to book less nights than you could with your 100 points in a 1BR. But if you “traded up” to a 2BR, you’d only be able to book the same number of nights in that 2BR, because your 100 points is still equivalent to the same total size of the resort - and thus a 2BR - as mine is. Does that make sense?

This right here. As I stated, I’m not necessarily arguing we should re-litigate THV so much as show that DVC *did* violate the POS and my contract, and that this is something we should not allow DVC to do. The argument that it’s no big deal because you’ve got 100 points still and can still use it the same as everyone else, ignores the fact that Disney made a change that did have a negative impact on cost to book THVs *and* one that isn’t allowed by the terms of my contract and the POS. @Bing Showei’s point above about Bungalows (or Cabins) is in fact the thing I worry about, and why I’ve said it’s important for people to know this so they don’t do something again, and that owners aren’t so willing to turn a blind eye to it - partly because they benefited from DVC reallocating points to THVs and partly because they didn’t understand what the actual issue is, which is violating the terms of the POS.

Actually, if you’ll note in my other posts, I called out that I was trying to illustrate the point that DVC is not allowed to reallocate across units that would affect the % ownership / total points for those units, and that I was using my ownership of a THV deed at SSR to prove why they legally cannot do what they did.

It’s actually the same issue, because LOs are part of many units, and increasing those total points for a LO would increase the total points in those units for a year, thus making it so the % ownership is no longer accurately reflected by the points you have. Because they did it across the board, it was very easy to illustrate by looking across the entire resort because it cause point inflation. In SSRs case, because they kept total resort points the same, but lowered some units at the expense of others, they were able to hide it / many owners didn’t care, and thus “got away with it.” But that doesn’t mean they’re legally allowed to do it.

The POS only allows them to reallocate points across seasons to handle demand, but does not allow them to reallocate across units. In this very particular case, because units can be just THVs, they also cannot raise the total cost to book THVs in a year because it violates the contract that says 100 points in this unit must represent .3314% of the unit.

Everyone in this case is harmed. THVs cost more for *everyone.* What you’re arguing is not whether or not harm has occurred - the math is very clear in this case that there is harm as I illustrated above - but whether or not owners *care* that they did so.

To be clear, what I don’t agree with is your premise about the shifting of points across the resort for booking..the points chart…as impacting anyones actual ownership interest.

That is not the same as saying that they are or were allowed to shift points between units like they did with the THV when it comes to what it costs to book the unit. A non home resort booking chart would increase that total points assigned to that unit and that is expressly allowed

The THV shift is questionable and there are two clauses of the POS in the membership agreement that seem to contradict each other..one discusses all points and one at the unit level when it comes to adjustments. One would appear to support it and the the other would clearly not..hence my new quest to reach out to FL leaders to seek info to take to DVC.

I absolutely agree that no shifts should happen unless they are legal regardless of impact.

But, the % owned in an actual unit when an owner buys IS based on what was determined for sale for in that unit. It explains why an owners of 100 points can have a different % of deeded interest but will always have the same % ownership of the entire resort.

Now when the new. VGF goes on sale I asked if they can add to a unit so they can readjust to the old building. Your argument in relation to ownership is what would prevent that because then it would change your deeded interest as that unit would now be selling more points.

ETA: Your position on % deeded also supports why a FW owner can never be charged more because they did buy a specific week within a specific room size.


We have strayed way off topic,,guilty as charged so let’s get back to the 2023 point charts and start a new thread about the THV!

For now, we know that the 2023 charts seem ti be matching what they should and as long as DVC keeps the Easter weeks flipping between two seasons on a 7 travel periods chart like they always did with a 5 seasons chart, is should be easier to monitor.

 

[Lorana]

I’ll note this is relevant to the 2023 point charts, because the 2023 point charts demonstrate why the increase in THV violates the POS and the contracts of those who own at SSR.
I’ll address your last points and let it go.

To be clear, what I don’t agree with is your premise about the shifting of points across the resort for booking..the points chart…as impacting anyones actual ownership interest.

I understand you disagree but I confess I don’t understand where your disagreement is, given that I’ve laid out how the changes in points needed to book my unit for a year have increased such that 100 points no longer represents my % ownership.

That is not the same as saying that they are or were allowed to shift points between units like they did with the THV when it comes to what it costs to book the unit. A non home resort booking chart would increase that total points assigned to that unit and that is expressly allowed

Non-home booking chart is irrelevant to the argument because it would not impact an owners ability to book their unit ownership. It impacts those who do not own at the home resort from “trading in.”

the legal arguments are all based on our contracts/deeded units and the POS, as it relates to our deeded unit ownership and our home resort.

But, the % owned in an actual unit when an owner buys IS based on what was determined for sale for in that unit. It explains why an owners of 100 points can have a different % of deeded interest but will always have the same % ownership of the entire resort.

% Ownership of the entire resort isn’t the contractual agreement; % ownership of the unit is, which is important when it comes to adding (or even removing) units to a home resort. The point value is determined at the time of sale by the master declaration, as it will set the total units to be sold and the point value for booking the entire resort for the year. If later additional units are added to the master resort - as THVs were, as VGF2 will be - that will affect the total points of the resort, but it won’t change my % ownership of my actual unit. My unit remains unchanged. DVC cannot change the size of my unit. The points needed to book my unit must remain the same to comply with my % ownership agreement in my contract and the POS.

 

[DVCSunDevil]

To be clear, what I don’t agree with is your premise about the shifting of points across the resort for booking..the points chart…as impacting anyones actual ownership interest.

Thank you. This is my point as well. I get the premise of how reallocating points across different room types can "harm" owners, especially those who primarily stay in the room types that had the points added during the reallocation (I said that in another comment). The point is that the reallocation doesn't impact any owner's ownership interest. When you, Lorana, or any other SS owner walked into DVC to buy a contract you didn't say "I want to buy into THV". Everyone bought into Saratoga Springs. The ownership % in the resort has not changed.

It seems like this point is going to fall under the "we'll agree to disagree" column. We are all on the same team here. Cheers to everyone!

 

[Lorana]

Thank you. This is my point as well. I get the premise of how reallocating points across different room types can "harm" owners, especially those who primarily stay in the room types that had the points added during the reallocation (I said that in another comment). The point is that the reallocation doesn't impact any owner's ownership interest. When you, Lorana, or any other SS owner walked into DVC to buy a contract you didn't say "I want to buy into THV". Everyone bought into Saratoga Springs. The ownership % in the resort has not changed.

It seems like this point is going to fall under the "we'll agree to disagree" column. We are all on the same team here. Cheers to everyone!

% ownership isn’t what is in the contract. And the point I’m making is also to protect against points being reallocated from, say, GVs to studios. In such a move, your % ownership in the resort doesn’t change. Is that okay? It’s not. For one, it’s not legal - it would affect your % ownership in your unit which is the basis of the contract. Whether you pick your unit or not is irrelevant to the terms of the contract both sides agree to.

I agree we’re on the same team here, but the legal terms and definitions matter. You may feel a reallocation across units doesn’t affect you, or don’t see the big deal in THVs costing more points because other units are now cheaper, but that’s not actually the same as violating the terms of the POS - which in this case they’ve done.

 

[DVCSunDevil]

I understand you disagree but I confess I don’t understand where your disagreement is, given that I’ve laid out how the changes in points needed to book my unit for a year have increased such that 100 points no longer represents my % ownership.

I think for me the problem is that you are making it sound like you went into the DVC office and said "I want to buy into THV or a 2BR unit because I want to stay primarily in those units", when you know that is not what happened. You went in (or called) and said I want to buy into Saratoga Springs. Now, your intent to stay in THV or 2BR being "harmed" because of the reallocation of points into those room types is a wholly separate issue...and you are correct that the reallocation across room types negatively impacts everyone who wants to stay in those room types when the points required to do so increased. I understand that and that is a fair point, and one that I am really starting to agree with more and more. But the argument that your specific owner's interest is reduced, IMO, is a paper argument. You bought into Saratoga Springs. That was your intent. And your ownership interest in Saratoga Springs has not reduced...it is exactly what it was before the reallocation. Just like anyone who bought into Saratoga Springs and was contracted into studio units. Everyone in Saratoga Springs ownership interest hasn't changed.

It's fine that you don't see my point. We are just starting to go round and round. We will agree to disagree on this. Have a great rest of your weekend!

 

[Lorana]

We are going round and round. So we’ll just leave it as it stands. People can read the discussion and my points around the legal contract stands.

Intentions are of course different than the “paper” arguments of the legal terms in the contract and POS. But if it helps, my intention was to buy points to use in booking Treehouses and to have the home resort priority to do so during peak times.

So, personally, this actually matters a lot to me, because I don’t want them to continue to reallocate points into that unit type. It affects not only my contract, but my also my personal intended use of my SSR points. If the contract allowed them, though, it would be irrelevant what I personally wanted - just like I can shake my fist at the rising December point charts because I also bought DVC contracts to visit in the holidays. But while I could be personally upset by that, legally DVC absolutely can rebalance point charts that way. Which ultimately is my point: one is a change they CAN make (rebalancing a unit type across seasons) and one is one that per the POS they cannot make (moving points from one unit to another).

Thank you for the discussion! It does help in clarifying and raising awareness. Have a great resort of your weekend as well.

 

[DVCSunDevil]

We are going round and round. So we’ll just leave it as it stands. People can read the discussion and my points around the legal contract stands.

Intentions are of course different than the “paper” arguments of the legal terms in the contract and POS. But if it helps, my intention was to buy points to use in booking Treehouses and to have the home resort priority to do so during peak times.

So, personally, this actually matters a lot to me, because I don’t want them to continue to reallocate points into that unit type. It affects not only my contract, but my also my personal intended use of my SSR points. If the contract allowed them, though, it would be irrelevant what I personally wanted - just like I can shake my fist at the rising December point charts because I also bought DVC contracts to visit in the holidays. But while I could be personally upset by that, legally DVC absolutely can rebalance point charts that way. Which ultimately is my point: one is a change they CAN make (rebalancing a unit type across seasons) and one is one that per the POS they cannot make (moving points from one unit to another).

Thank you for the discussion! It does help in clarifying and raising awareness. Have a great resort of your weekend as well.

I love your passion, though! We need these discussions to make sure everyone understands what is going on. I definitely have a better understanding of this situation because of our discussion.

 

[Sandisw]

% ownership isn’t what is in the contract. And the point I’m making is also to protect against points being reallocated from, say, GVs to studios. In such a move, your % ownership in the resort doesn’t change. Is that okay? It’s not. For one, it’s not legal - it would affect your % ownership in your unit which is the basis of the contract. Whether you pick your unit or not is irrelevant to the terms of the contract both sides agree to.

I agree we’re on the same team here, but the legal terms and definitions matter. You may feel a reallocation across units doesn’t affect you, or don’t see the big deal in THVs costing more points because other units are now cheaper, but that’s not actually the same as violating the terms of the POS - which in this case they’ve done.

Except based on your explanation, those that own in a unit with a 2 bedroom lock off are not getting their % ownership already for that unit. . Those are deeded based on the chart as a 2 bedroom. That is why when total points on the chart are calculated you use the 2 bedroom because the lock off premium amounts are not part of what is sold.

Again, I think it’s best to start a new thread because it is great discussion!!

 

[DVCSunDevil]

Great legal conversation...... For me it comes down to when reallocating, does Disney need to keep the total points associated with the entire resort balanced, or do villa types also need to stay balanced? If I bought primarily to stay in studios, GV, THV, or 2 BR, do those need to individually stay balanced? The POS stated is does. The sales pitch pretty much does too, "Disney may shift, points between seasons, from week nights to weekends, but the total number of points to stay in a "villa" or "at the resort" (I am sure this may shift based on the guide) can't change."
When the THV were added to SSR, they had a different booking category, but the same point charts as SSR 2BR. (at that time there was only 1 category at SSR (not std and pref)) Over time they have increased the point requirements for the THV. There has been the creation of std and pref and associated changes in those chart to keep the overall total number of points consistent. But specifically for the THV, the increase in any specific time period, does not have an associated decrease in another time period. The "reduction" was in a totally different villa type. Within the system, no value was lost, but within "my desired booking category", it increased for the year.

Why was the shift made? Because THV were consistently booking quicker then the 2BR. So in order to "honor" the POS, Disney allocated more points to the THV to "balance" the need and "help" the owners. This may sound nice and actually got enough support it only caused a minor dust up, and the charts stuck.

Now let's talk about a couple of other changes that would fit this exact model. At PVB, bungalows book way slower than studios. Following the same model Disney could increase studios throughout the year and have a corresponding decrease in bungalows throughout the year. Same goes for CCV and the cabins.
Or.... They have defined VGF2 as a separate booking category. The initial charts show std and lake view as the same point chart between the 2 buildings. In 2 years, VGF2 could go down and VGF could go up. Per the arguments here, that OK right? Or now since there are more studios, maybe studios go down across the board and 1BR and 2BR go up across the board. Still OK?

I suspect the torches and pitchforks would come out if any of these happened. @Lorana is setting up the legal argument against this, and other owners are diligently monitoring the point charts to make sure this doesn't happen.

This is a great explanation of how reallocating points across room types can be detrimental, and I agree! And you pose some very interesting questions. In trying to see the flip side, though, couldn't the point be made that the goal is to have a point balance such that every room can be booked every night of the year? And I don't know the answer to that, I am just asking. I mean, if PVB are so expensive that few can stay there (like me...and I really would love to stay in a PVB once) couldn't one goal be to make them affordable enough that they have more occupancy? If that meant spreading those points to rest of the room types (but those other room types still remained "affordable"), would that be OK? It's a tough question because I think the ideal goal would be to do what is best for the collective, but obviously many will be upset if it negatively affects them.

One thing that I was thinking is that DVC did not have a lot of data at their disposal when creating the initial point charts. They didn't know what the demand of each room type would actually be at every time of year. Now they have that data, obviously, since these resorts have been operating for quite some time. So would it be ok for them to now reallocate the points across each resort in a way that made sense based on demand for all room types? Again, I don't know the answer to that. This is a great discussion, though!

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

In essence, everyone is in the same boat because everyone has access to stay in all room types.

This is true - every SSR owner is in the same boat as there likely isn't a single unit at SSR that now requires the same number of points to book during a year as was required in the base year. The thing is that it isn't a boat that any SSR owner should be in and is why it isn't allowed per the POS and as Lorana posted the FL statues also back it up.

Part that seems to be lost if just looking at THV and most likely why it wasn't challenged by most or perhaps any is that it wasn't detrimental to the majority. The THV's were unique units added to the association and a small % of SSR. It doesn't suddenly make it ok though as it still violates the POS. I recall only 1 or 2 here however who brought up the issue and they did not own at SSR. And one consistently suggested that the THV's likely should have been their own association which would eliminated the possibility of DVC doing what they did. In reviewing the issue you need to consider the other way it could have gone. For example the THV units could have been declared in with requirements the same as GV's. DVC would benefit from the greater number of points available for sale and then when the THV's became the last category to book if DVC reallocated to address the lack of popularity they would have pushed more points over to SSR. The important point of the POS not allowing reallocations across units is essentially a consumer protection component as I think it's the only thing preventing such an action.

FWIW also businesses cannot just say whatever they want in marketing. Consistently early on material stated that if the points went up in your unit at one time they would go down another time. Why? Because it matched the conditions outlined in the POS. THV WAS sold that it required the points of a 2BR and marketing could safely state that because it's how it would have had to remain to not violate the POS.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

One would appear to support it and the the other would clearly not..hence my new quest to reach out to FL leaders to seek info to take to DVC.

You would have to share what specifically you are referencing but those things do not necessarily contradict each other and I have not noted a contradiction. You can have both a statement of point totals in the entire resort remaining the same as declared and sold and also that points cannot be reallocated across units and both work together as components of consumer protection.

 

[Sandisw]

You would have to share what specifically you are referencing but those things do not necessarily contradict each other and I have not noted a contradiction. You can have both a statement of point totals in the entire resort remaining the same as declared and sold and also that points cannot be reallocated across units and both work together as components of consumer protection.

That may be true but I don’t read them that way so I want to investigate how both can be true at the same time.

One paragraph does say increase and decrease in a unit. The other just says increase or decrease in Use Day. It may be implied that it’s unit in the 2nd paragraph I am posting here, but it definitely is not clear because that word unit is omitted the second time.

Hence, why I want these specific paragraphs explained to me by someone other than DVC but from FL timeshare people as to what it means and what rights each one gives DVC. We know DVC believes unit points can be shifted, and before I contact them about this specific issue I want to back it up with some info that I can point to specifically of how paragraph 2 I am posting doesn’t override paragraph 1 I am posting because I can see DVCM trying to make that as the reason they could do what they did.

 

[zavandor]

Uh oh, I've just thought of something that could be quite bad.

A question for someone who has better memory than me or historical point charts. When they reallocated points from 2BR to THV, did they lower the cost of only the 2BR or did they decrease the cost of lockoff units?
I think they lowered only the 2BR, because I remember thinking that the change didn't advantage me (I only book studios, so I think studios didn't go down). But I may very well be wrong.
But if they lowered the 2BR without lowering 1BR and studios, they have actually increased the lockoff premium! And that is evil. The main pushback against the 2020 charts was caused by the increase in the lockoff premium, but they might have done it before without us even noticing.
Has someone historical point charts to verify how they reallocated points?

 

[zavandor]

You would have to share what specifically you are referencing but those things do not necessarily contradict each other and I have not noted a contradiction. You can have both a statement of point totals in the entire resort remaining the same as declared and sold and also that points cannot be reallocated across units and both work together as components of consumer protection.

Speaking of consumer protection, I still cannot understand how they could sell Riviera as a "Vacation Club" resort, since it's misleading: it doesn't match the Florida law definition of a Vacation Club (because not all owners have access to the reservation component of the Vacation Club).

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

Speaking of consumer protection, I still cannot understand how they could sell Riviera as a "Vacation Club" resort, since it's misleading: it doesn't match the Florida law definition of a Vacation Club (because not all owners have access to the reservation component of the Vacation Club).

I agree.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

Uh oh, I've just thought of something that could be quite bad.

A question for someone who has better memory than me or historical point charts. When they reallocated points from 2BR to THV, did they lower the cost of only the 2BR or did they decrease the cost of lockoff units?
I think they lowered only the 2BR, because I remember thinking that the change didn't advantage me (I only book studios, so I think studios didn't go down). But I may very well be wrong.
But if they lowered the 2BR without lowering 1BR and studios, they have actually increased the lockoff premium! And that is evil. The main pushback against the 2020 charts was caused by the increase in the lockoff premium, but they might have done it before without us even noticing.
Has someone historical point charts to verify how they reallocated points?

My recollection is that it was just between the THV's and 2BR's but not certain enough to state that it positively did not involve studios, 1BR's and/or GV's.

 

[drusba]

My recollection is that it was just between the THV's and 2BR's but not certain enough to state that it positively did not involve studios, 1BR's and/or GV's.

DVCNews has historical charts and they show the changes made from the 2012 charts to 2013. www.dvcnews.com/resorts/saratoga-springs/points-chart-44135. It is a little more complex than just moving points to Treehouses from other rooms. The Treehouses went up year round. Studios, 1BRs and 2BRs remained the same as 2012 for Magic and Premier seasons; studios and 2BRs went down for Adventure and Dream season; 1BRs went down for Adventure season but remained the same for Dream season; and studios, 1BRs and 2BRs actually went up a little for Choice season. GVs stayed the same for Premier season but went down for all other seasons. The overall effect appears to be that total points for the year went down for GVs, studios, and 2BRs while 1BRs may have stayed close to the same, Treehouses went up significantly, and some seasonal shifts were also done for studios, 1BRs and 2BRs by increasing Choice season somewhat.

 

[Ruttangel]

Long thread but here are my thoughts

• Overall points for each resort are as expected (2022 lessons learned?)
• No surprises on movements between STD/1BR/2BRLO
• VGF new rooms have a shocking theme park premium

The original 2022 chart was trying to dilute our membership, no such issues this year.

I think the issue @Lorana is describing is unique to how the THV were sold as a bolt on to existing SSR.

 

[CarolynFH]

I think the issue @Lorana is describing is unique to how the THV were sold as a bolt on to existing SSR.

I think the THV reallocation was what made DVC think they could get away with the original 2020 reallocations as well as the original 2022 reallocations.