2027 Points Charts Predictions

[Brian Noble]

Because to make all of one room size the same points, then wouldn’t it mean that it had to be that way from the start?

Not if I understand your question.

For example, imagine the Max Reallocation value for a room is 10 points. That means that you could book the entire year's worth of days in that room during the Base Year for 3,560 points. You can dvide that 3,560 however you want across the available nights of the Base Year, as long as the total for the entire year is 3,560. So, half the year could be 15 points, the other half could be 5, and so on.

 

[Sandisw]

Not if I understand your question.

For example, imagine the Max Reallocation value for a room is 10 points. That means that you could book the entire year's worth of days in that room during the Base Year for 3,560 points. You can dvide that 3,560 however you want across the available nights of the Base Year, as long as the total for the entire year is 3,560. So, half the year could be 15 points, the other half could be 5, and so on.

Value may not be a good example because it seems all value rooms are in the same configuration of units.

But at RIV, there are units with different room sizes…might be two bedrooms with a GV, or some dedicated rooms with lock offs, and such.

In order to balance room size and unit, wouldn’t it mean they had to start that way when sold?

Example, if a Unit has 10k points, and it’s a 2 bedroom and a GV, those 10K can be moved between them.

But say another 2 bedroom is with two studios and 2 1 bedrooms in a unit…that point total might be different. Once you max, it has to balance…but how does it if it didn’t start that way?

 

[Sandisw]

Here is an example…I own 175 points at RIV in unit 2C which is comprised of three tower rooms and two two bedroom lock offs. Based on my %, that unit has 58903 points…

Which means, they can shift that around any way they want between those 5 rooms, based on demand, because it would meet the unit neutral requirements. And all tower rooms appear declared that way.

But not all two bedrooms are with tower rooms. So, does that mean that the initial points that were added to each unit have to be the points in the max chart?

Which is why I just think there is more to it and that use for booking and unit neutral may not be worded well enough for what is allowed.

ETA. This means they can definitely lower or raise the towers and offset by shifting to the two bedrooms, which would be across room types.

 

[Brian Noble]

Value may not be a good example because it seems all value rooms are in the same configuration of units.

I don't mean "value category", I mean "the Maximum Reallocation value for any particular room."

Which means, they can shift that around any way they want between those 5 rooms, based on demand, because it would meet the unit neutral requirements. And all tower rooms appear declared that way.

They can for that Residential Unit. The problem is that not all Residential Units at Riviera have exactly the same configuration of Vacation Homes in the same ratios. Without that, you can't make resort-wide changes that are Unit-neutral. In other words, if they reduced the points for the Tower Duos and added them to the 2BRs, they'd be adding them to all of the 2BRs---even those in Residential Units that do not also have Duos, of which there are many. And the Residential Units with 2BRs but no Duos now have more Home Resort Vacation Points allocated to them. In the words of Ted Lasso: "That's a violation."



But, even if each Residential Unit had the same ratios of room types, you still couldn't just e.g. move points from all the 1BRs to all of the Studios, becaues that would violate the Studio Maximum Reallocation number.

Ultimately, the problem is that there are several different constraints that all have to be met, and there is no way for the math to work out without violating one or the other. The one exception to this: reallocating within the same Vacation Home type but across different days/seasons. That doesn't run afoul of either the Residential Unit requiement or the Maximum Reallocation limit.

 

[Brian Noble]

Now, all of that said: Disney absolutely has reallocated across Residential Units before---the most notable examples being the Treehouse increase, and the Standard/Preferred split, both at Saratoga. So either my understanding of the rules is wrong, or Disney doesn't much care what the rules are so long as no one complains too much.

 

[Cfabar1]

Doesn't the language indicate there just has to be 1 Day within a period of time? (hard for me to tell if it is 11 months or 12 months)

So, could they not, especially if a cap is not defined for lock-off, add as many additional lockoff points as they would like, so long as 1 day is available at the minimum outlined in the contract. And that one day is "subject to availability, of course".

 

[Tatebeck]

Doesn't the language indicate there just has to be 1 Day within a period of time? (hard for me to tell if it is 11 months or 12 months)

So, could they not, especially if a cap is not defined for lock-off, add as many additional lockoff points as they would like, so long as 1 day is available at the minimum outlined in the contract. And that one day is "subject to availability, of course".

I don't think so because most of them read like "at least 1 day in a studio for every X points" so it's the average of the entire category that matters.

Here is the start of BWVs section for example
"each Club Member will always be eligible to reserve at the Condominium, subject to availability: at least one (1) Use Day in a Studio Vacation Home with a Standard View for every fifteen (15) Home Resort Vacation Points; at least one (1) Use Day in a Studio Vacation Home with a Preferred View for every eighteen
(18) Home Resort Vacation Points;"

 

[Sandisw]

I don't mean "value category", I mean "the Maximum Reallocation value for any particular room."


They can for that Residential Unit. The problem is that not all Residential Units at Riviera have exactly the same configuration of Vacation Homes in the same ratios. Without that, you can't make resort-wide changes that are Unit-neutral. In other words, if they reduced the points for the Tower Duos and added them to the 2BRs, they'd be adding them to all of the 2BRs---even those in Residential Units that do not also have Duos, of which there are many. And the Residential Units with 2BRs but no Duos now have more Home Resort Vacation Points allocated to them. In the words of Ted Lasso: "That's a violation."

View attachment 1030701

But, even if each Residential Unit had the same ratios of room types, you still couldn't just e.g. move points from all the 1BRs to all of the Studios, becaues that would violate the Studio Maximum Reallocation number.

Ultimately, the problem is that there are several different constraints that all have to be met, and there is no way for the math to work out without violating one or the other. The one exception to this: reallocating within the same Vacation Home type but across different days/seasons. That doesn't run afoul of either the Residential Unit requiement or the Maximum Reallocation limit.

It may or may not be a violation depending on what is actually in those other units with the 2 bedrooms. I know some are with GV…because that is the other unit I own.

Which is my point…you really have to analyze every change by unit, if the premise is it must be point neutral..

Because you can’t adjust the tower studios to be the max unless that is how they determined the points to begin with.

But, as long as there are mixed units in resort, and they have the lock off premium to play with, then it might be possible to reallocate across room types.

Again, why I said it’s not as simple for me…too much language seems inconsistent…and the set up of my unit provides the ability to move across room types, if they can make it work against all other units with 2 bedrooms…again, assuming that point neutral at the declared unit level is required.

 

[Sandisw]

Now, all of that said: Disney absolutely has reallocated across Residential Units before---the most notable examples being the Treehouse increase, and the Standard/Preferred split, both at Saratoga. So either my understanding of the rules is wrong, or Disney doesn't much care what the rules are so long as no one complains too much.

People did question it..I know that for sure…and the answer was it was allowed.

Now, it didn’t go farther than that…but they obviously believe they can, and updated the multi site POS to be more clear of their “belief”.

My opinion…I think there is enough language that DVD or DVC can say “no that’s not what we meant and here is how you know that”

I don’t know if you can achieve the max chart and stay RU neutral…and I don’t think we have anyone who has ever done that deep of an analysis to show it can.

 

[zavandor]

It absolutely changes the outcome of where they need to reallocate points to balance out changes.

I think it's safe to say that DVC's lawyers understand the rules as they wrote them with specific intention, and if the likelihood of this move being "illegal" hinges on a bunch of people on a message board thinking they are reading the legalese properly, I'm leaning DVC's way here...

And yet those very knowledgeable lawyers validated the 2020 point charts that were rolled back because a bunch of people on this board thought they were reading the legalese properly.

 

[zavandor]

It absolutely changes the outcome of where they need to reallocate points to balance out changes.

I think it's safe to say that DVC's lawyers understand the rules as they wrote them with specific intention, and if the likelihood of this move being "illegal" hinges on a bunch of people on a message board thinking they are reading the legalese properly, I'm leaning DVC's way here...

I will add something to my previous post.

The lawyers who wrote the initial POS (which were mostly copied and pasted later) are long retired, as well as the DVCMC leadership who presided over DVC first years.

At OKW and BWV they faced a lot of requests for staying at buildings near HH and for boardwalk view rooms, with complaints when those requests weren't met.
To resolve the problem they created two new booking categories, which cost the same as the standard/preferred rooms at both resorts. Those give the option for owners at the resorts to book those highly coveted rooms first, almost year around not being available at 7 months. Everyone else book the remaining rooms with no expectation of being able to stay at the coveted rooms.
Which shows that the early leadership were aware they couldn't reallocate points across units. That was their intention/understanding of the law when writing the POS.
Additionally, standard rooms proved immediately very popular and gone almost immediately at 11 months, especially during the fall. And yet, they didn't increase their cost.

Fast forward a few years, it's safe to assume leadership changed and lawyers retired and the same problem presented itself at SSR and requests for Springs and Congress Park, complaints about BLT theme park rooms at the lower floors and for some savannah rooms at AKV. I don't remember which one was done first, but it wasn't until around 20 years after DVC opened that they did the first reallocation across unit types.
The people who are doing those reallocation now didn't have any intention at all writing the OKW POS, they probably weren't even out college at the time.

 

[zavandor]

People did question it..I know that for sure…and the answer was it was allowed.

That was the official reply about the 2020 point charts as well. Their statement was that the point charts were legal but they would roll them back because of members feedback.
They're not going to admit they violated the contract, probably not even after a court decision.

Sure, the company willing to go to war with the community of people living with disabilities over the DAS change, which gathered a lot of press attention, rolled back a change that could have earned them hundred of millions because 24 people complained and wasn't even reported by Disney bloggers. Do you believe that?

 

[Sandisw]

That was the official reply about the 2020 point charts as well. Their statement was that the point charts were legal but they would roll them back because of members feedback.
They're not going to admit they violated the contract, probably not even after a court decision.

Sure, the company willing to go to war with the community of people living with disabilities over the DAS change, which gathered a lot of press attention, rolled back a change that could have earned them hundred of millions because 24 people complained and wasn't even reported by Disney bloggers. Do you believe that?

What I believe is that DVCMC will push limits at times when they think they can come up with a plausible explanation based on enough language to supoet it.

In 2020, they reverted back because they knew they were on shaky, if not, violating grounds.

We already know VGF can have its lock off premium increased and it doesn’t have to be decreased. Which, isn’t that what one of the issues with those charts was?

In this case, I am just of the opinion that there is enough conflicting information to give me reasonable doubt that I can say with 100% they can’t do what they have done.

Now, if this gets pushed higher and eventually things get reversed, then my thoughts will definitely shift.

That’s why I am hoping someone still has the chart with all the max reallocation numbers. I might do some analysis of my home resorts and that might swing my opinion.

As I said, it’s why I lean that there is some more flexibility across room types and units because of all the mixed units.

But, I would not take that bet either…I hope those that really are 100% sure that what happened at PVB originals chooses to fight it and we will see what happens.

 

[Sandisw]

Bus stop math this morning. Unit 2 C at Riviera is three tower studios plus two 2 bedrooms.

Total points based on my deed% is 58903. Max chart would result in 54885 if those 2 bedrooms are RV, which I believe they are.

If they were PV, then it’s 62185. Neither will balance exact if they go to a max chart.

I will do my other unit later! Off to MK! But there seems to be more to this and how it works.

ETA: another option that brings us closer is one RV and on PV which would be 58900…but still not exact.

 

[Brian Noble]

Doesn't the language indicate there just has to be 1 Day within a period of time? (hard for me to tell if it is 11 months or 12 months)

I don't think so because most of them read like "at least 1 day in a studio for every X points" so it's the average of the entire category that matters.

I also think the explanatory text after the published point values is important. It states that a maximum reallocation "could result in a 'leveling'..." of all seasons and days of week. Here's a link back to the text I posted a few pages ago.

So, if a maximum reallocation could do that, then it must be the case that if you did perform such a leveling, that each night would be no more than the published values of points, because a Member is gauranteed to be able to book at least one night in that Vacation Home type for that number of points. If every night of the year costs the same X points, X can be no more than the published value.

In other words, I believe this paragraph articulates an upper limit on the average points-per-night of each Vacation Home type for which a number is published.

 

[zavandor]

I also think the explanatory text after the published point values is important. It states that a maximum reallocation "could result in a 'leveling'..." of all seasons and days of week. Here's a link back to the text I posted a few pages ago.

So, if a maximum reallocation could do that, then it must be the case that if you did perform such a leveling, that each night would be no more than the published values of points, because a Member is gauranteed to be able to book at least one night in that Vacacion Home type for that number of points. In other words, I believe this paragraph publishes figures that amount to a limit on the average points-per-night of each articulated Vacation Home type.

I think you're right, as you know.
But doing devil's advocate (where DVC is the Devil), it's still a reallocation, it doesn't say "average points for all nights in a year". So they could create a point chart for a year where they increase for example points for studios and decrease 1BR*, because if they were to do a "max reallocation", they could reallocate the points where they were and still meet the stated values. They could even produce a point chart increasing the lockoff premium, because if they were to do the "max reallocation" they can later remove them.

I know, it's bonkers. The intent of the paragraph looks clear to me.
But if "exist" can be interpreted "no more points are declared for the unit" in the context of "such reallocation", then the max reallocation values can be considered useless.

* as long there is one night bookable with the stated minimum

 

[Brian Noble]

doing devil's advocate

I can imagine someone trying the argument. But I am glad that someone is not me.

Every so often, I serve as a testifying expert in intellectual property disputes. When I'm having the pre-retention conversations, I always tell the firm considering me that I am a very annoying expert, because I will have strong opinions about the arguments. They always say "Well, of course! That's what we want!"

But sometimes, someone in the firm (usually a senior partner) is passionate about some dubious argument. I can usually talk them out of it from first principles. But, if that doesn't work, I pull out the big gun:

I don't think you want your expert to look like an idiot on the stand during cross examination.

 

[Brian Noble]

I've said this before, but I think one of the reasons that the Stupid Point Charts were rolled back so quickly and with so little resistance is that Disney really did not want to adjudicate some of this language. Becuse, once there is a court order that defines what these paragraphs mean, that's what they mean.

And, I'm not sure I blame them. Some of the past cross-unit reallocations do make sense, and seem to serve the owners overall. And that's true even though the POS seem to forbid them on its face.

I think the interesting test case is if they'd ever be wiling to rebalance across 1BRs and studios. I'm 99% sure they can't, but the system also suffers because they don't. Of course, in that case, a huge fraction of the owners would be positively apoplectic, so it would be hard to pull off without having to go to court. The fact that they haven't ever tried suggests to me that they really don't think they can, becuse it is so obvious a thing to do.

 

[zavandor]

Bus stop math this morning. Unit 2 C at Riviera is three tower studios plus two 2 bedrooms.

Total points based on my deed% is 58903. Max chart would result in 54885 if those 2 bedrooms are RV, which I believe they are.

If they were PV, then it’s 62185. Neither will balance exact if they go to a max chart.

I will do my other unit later! Off to MK! But there seems to be more to this and how it works.

ETA: another option that brings us closer is one RV and on PV which would be 58900…but still not exact.

Against which base year are you calculating that? It should be a year with the minimum number of weekends. That could explain a small discrepancy.

 

[zavandor]

And, I'm not sure I blame them. Some of the past cross-unit reallocations do make sense, and seem to serve the owners overall. And that's true even though the POS seem to forbid them on its face.

Agreed again.
There are three generations of DVC leaderships.
1st generation: we need to create a system that people can trust.
2nd generation: we can massage a bit the rules to do things that make sense for the membership (BLT and AKV reclassifications, SSR THV and premium and standard split)
3rd generation: let's find ways to extract more money from the members!

I think the interesting test case is if they'd ever be wiling to rebalance across 1BRs and studios. I'm 99% sure they can't, but the system also suffers because they don't. Of course, in that case, a huge fraction of the owners would be positively apoplectic, so it would be hard to pull off without having to go to court. The fact that they haven't ever tried suggests to me that they really don't think they can, becuse it is so obvious a thing to do.

Here I don't agree. The POS states that the point cost of the rooms is proportional to the square footage. People have purchased because the studios cost a certain amount. Personally, as someone who book studios, I'm happy to fight for availability than to pay more every time a book a studio.
Everyone who complains about how difficult is to book Values and Standards, would they be happy if they cost just 1 point less that the upper categories, so that instead of being difficult to book them they just don't exist anymore?