2027 Points Charts Predictions

[BWV Dreamin]

I believe they based the GW points on the 2023 points chart. They may update it at some point, especially for the September fixed weeks as these are now 111 points per week rather than 104. Until that update, it should still be 114 point for a fixed week.

I think that it is paramount to purchase the GW now! Especially for September. May be a current loophole.

 

[JackosinDIS]

And I agree that the PVB original units are worth someone asking for a more detailed explanation.

But, my point about the GV is that the points that are initially assigned to a single unit…when it’s mixed do not have to stay that way..,

It’s not about seasons at all. If my unit has a GV and 2 bedrooms for let’s say 300 points per Use Day, or 109,500 for the year.

The initial chart might have used 150 for the GV, and 75 for each 2 bedroom.

If the thought is the unit has to stay balanced with the total, then nothing prevents my unit from having its GV at 130 and the 2 bedrooms at 85 each.:.it’s still 300 per night for that unit.

So, in this case, they have balanced a unit, but moved points between room sizes because they are the same unit

Obviously for consistency sake, the charts use a set number for all 2 bedrooms and GV in the travel period, but this illustrates that when units are mixed, it’s not as simple IMO,,,

And why I lean that they have flexibility when setting charts for booking to adjust for situations like this.

I mentioned early but the dedicated makes a difference too because dedicated studios and 1 bedrooms don’t hafe a lock off premium. So they have no cushion to add to help that balance.

If it was like BPK, all resort studios, or the bungalows which are a unit with just one room size, then you won’t run into the situation like above.

It’s the resorts that have mixed units, plus the max allocation chart that have me leaning to movement for booking across more than seasons or travel periods and across room types since they can exist in the same unit is allowed.

I dont know if my interpretation is right or wrong, but there is enough evidence for me right now, to say that as long as the total at the resort balances, even with slight variations across room sizes, then I think it should be permissible.

I hope someone at PVB asks next week for explanation!

I get you.

I agree that it would be very complex where there are mixed Units with varying numbers of rooms - almost impossible to reallocate between room sizes and keep everything in balance without increasing the number of points in a Unit.

Could it be that this difficulty led to DVC changing the wording for the new resorts to allow a more flexible reallocation? There certainly seems to be a difference with RIV onwards.

The old POS documents definitely prohibit an increase or decrease of points allocated to a Unit. In my view they should stick to that.

 

[BWV Dreamin]

I believe they based the GW points on the 2023 points chart. They may update it at some point, especially for the September fixed weeks as these are now 111 points per week rather than 104. Until that update, it should still be 114 point for a fixed week.

Having just purchased a GW , September at PIT last January,I am just amazed that these points chart have changed within 11 months of purchase.

Something I am wondering. If this reallocation of points for September at PIT/PVB could dramatically reduce the number of GW’s offered for sale?

 

[Sandisw]

I get you.

I agree that it would be very complex where there are mixed Units with varying numbers of rooms - almost impossible to reallocate between room sizes and keep everything in balance without increasing the number of points in a Unit.

Could it be that this difficulty led to DVC changing the wording for the new resorts to allow a more flexible reallocation? There certainly seems to be a difference with RIV onwards.

The old POS documents definitely prohibit an increase or decrease of points allocated to a Unit. In my view they should stick to that.

I have landed that it can happen at all resorts but I do think it is also why they may have made the language clearer, especially in the multi site POS.

What I do know is that when DVc gets questioned and they blink, it means they are not as confident in their stance.

In the 2022 charts, after they went to 7 travel periods, and Easter could flop between three vs only two when it was five seasons, it added points.

People questioned it and they tried to say it was just a calendar variant which is allowed..but, in the end, almost 9 months later, they put out new charts, and made sure all the Easter dates are now in travel periods 6 and 7…so it could not happen again

IMO, it was a blink and that they knew the explanation it was just calendar fluctuations wouldn’t stand up if people took it further.

Do you plan on contacting them to get a detailed explanation?

 

[JackosinDIS]

Do you plan on contacting them to get a detailed explanation?

I do indeed.

I am going to see what information comes out of the meeting this week first (if any), and then write to ask them to explain how this fits with the POS.

 

[Tatebeck]

I get you.

I agree that it would be very complex where there are mixed Units with varying numbers of rooms - almost impossible to reallocate between room sizes and keep everything in balance without increasing the number of points in a Unit.

Could it be that this difficulty led to DVC changing the wording for the new resorts to allow a more flexible reallocation? There certainly seems to be a difference with RIV onwards.

The old POS documents definitely prohibit an increase or decrease of points allocated to a Unit. In my view they should stick to that.

The have definitely clarified the wording in the newer documents to explain that they think that they are able to allocate wherever they wish across each whole resort

I have looked. A lot. And there seems to be nothing that I could find in any documents, old or newer, that explicitly requires them to balance point charts between units (other than at maybe first opening/creation possibly if you are looking at the Base Year info in some of the docs) as well as the whole resort like you say. Can you point to anything? The language that was used earlier in this thread was murky, but certainly did not "definitely prohibit" them from changing the point chart without balancing each unit within the whole.

I personally think it was just a case of old "legalese" in the contracts confusing people and making it seem murky when reading certain sections without taking into account the whole of the section itself. The inclusion of maximum reallocation values and certain language that your ownership interest will never change, when taken with the confusing language seems to make it lean towards being allowed to reallocated the point chart across entire resorts IMO. And originally I thought the opposite

 

[Leight19]

The have definitely clarified the wording in the newer documents to explain that they think that they are able to allocate wherever they wish across each whole resort

I have looked. A lot. And there seems to be nothing that I could find in any documents, old or newer, that explicitly requires them to balance point charts between units (other than at maybe first opening/creation possibly if you are looking at the Base Year info in some of the docs) as well as the whole resort like you say. Can you point to anything? The language that was used earlier in this thread was murky, but certainly did not "definitely prohibit" them from changing the point chart without balancing each unit within the whole.

I personally think it was just a case of old "legalese" in the contracts confusing people and making it seem murky when reading certain sections without taking into account the whole of the section itself. The inclusion of maximum reallocation values and certain language that your ownership interest will never change, when taken with the confusing language seems to make it lean towards being allowed to reallocated the point chart across entire resorts IMO. And originally I thought the opposite

So my memory of original documents is that there isn’t language specifically restricting them; I only recall seeing statements that grant them ability to adjust points to increase or decrease a day as long balanced by another change on day elsewhere such that overall points don’t change.

That language as I recall doesn’t directly restrict moves across units but it doesn’t authorize them either. My understanding of contract law is when they enumerate authroites to balance points with specific language saying when they can exercise authority (e.g. seasonal demand or end of concierge) it is presumed those are the limits of when they can. To put another way if they were able to move points beyond just these scenarios there would be no need to call out specific scenarios in the contract. The language is presumed to have been included with purpose and as such indicates it is the limited scenario they can rebalance.

 

[Tatebeck]

So my memory of original documents is that there isn’t language specifically restricting them; I only recall seeing statements that grant them ability to adjust points to increase or decrease a day as long balanced by another change on day elsewhere such that overall points don’t change.

That language as I recall doesn’t directly restrict moves across units but it doesn’t authorize them either. My understanding of contract law is when they enumerate authroites to balance points with specific language saying when they can exercise authority (e.g. seasonal demand or end of concierge) it is presumed those are the limits of when they can. To put another way if they were able to move points beyond just these scenarios there would be no need to call out specific scenarios in the contract. The language is presumed to have been included with purpose and as such indicates it is the limited scenario they can rebalance.

I understand and do agree that it limits them in the reasons why or when they may choose to change the point charts. But that is still very lenient and not really what I think what the question is.

"In order to meet the Club Members' needs and expectations as evidenced by fluctuations in Use Day demand at the Condominium experienced by DVCMC during a given calendar year, DVCMC may, in its sole discretion, increase or decrease the Home Resort Vacation Point requirements..."

That wording is very lenient for Disney. they could use almost anything to show that there is a fluctuation in demand for a certain room type or time and then they can choose to change the charts at their sole discretion. A room type booking up almost instantly , a room just booking faster than others, members walking certain rooms, room types going unbooked for long period of time, just being the last room type at the resort to book up, etc. could all be reasons they use, then they can change those rooms up to 20% per year as long as the total points in the chart don't go up and they don't go above the maximum reallocation values. (And IMO having maximum allocation values at all is one of the clues that they meant to be able to move points charts across the whole resort, otherwise they may not have needed them)

---

It sounds like the question for some members isn't why or when they can choose to change the point charts, but how or in what way can they change the charts.

And in that case the only solid language I have found anywhere is that the entire resort must balance with the point chart, and that they can increase a use day in a vacation home by no more than 20% up or down in any 1 given year. That is it, with almost no (if any at all) mention of the various units, though somehow a lot of members are convinced that they have to balance the points in each unit as well anytime there is a chart change, which IMO is too difficult a thing for Disney to ever want or have wanted to tie themselves up in.

---

I think unless there is evidence to the contrary, in this case the simplest solution is the most likely. I think it is most likely that they meant to be able to reallocate across the entire resort all along (and there is no direct language that prevents it), but legalese and the contracts can be confusing (as seen by members swearing that they have to balance units even though there is no actual language I have seen that says that), so they clarified their position over time and the newer documents better represent what they meant all along.

I find that much more likely than that they originally intended to have to balance each unit every time there was a reallocation with the point charts, but then they left that out of the contracts, then decided to declare some units at some resorts in a way that would make balancing units almost impossible, then chose to try and allocate across units anyway, then decided to change the meaning and wording in the newer documents, then afterwards gaslight all the members about it

 

[Leight19]

I understand and do agree that it limits them in the reasons why or when they may choose to change the point charts. But that is still very lenient and not really what I think what the question is.

"In order to meet the Club Members' needs and expectations as evidenced by fluctuations in Use Day demand at the Condominium experienced by DVCMC during a given calendar year, DVCMC may, in its sole discretion, increase or decrease the Home Resort Vacation Point requirements..."

That wording is very lenient for Disney. they could use almost anything to show that there is a fluctuation in demand for a certain room type or time and then they can choose to change the charts at their sole discretion. A room type booking up almost instantly , a room just booking faster than others, members walking certain rooms, room types going unbooked for long period of time, just being the last room type at the resort to book up, etc. could all be reasons they use, then they can change those rooms up to 20% per year as long as the total points in the chart don't go up and they don't go above the maximum reallocation values. (And IMO having maximum allocation values at all is one of the clues that they meant to be able to move points charts across the whole resort, otherwise they may not have needed them)

---

It sounds like the question for some members isn't why or when they can choose to change the point charts, but how or in what way can they change the charts.

And in that case the only solid language I have found anywhere is that the entire resort must balance with the point chart, and that they can increase a use day in a vacation home by no more than 20% up or down in any 1 given year. That is it, with almost no (if any at all) mention of the various units, though somehow a lot of members are convinced that they have to balance the points in each unit as well anytime there is a chart change, which IMO is too difficult a thing for Disney to ever want or have wanted to tie themselves up in.

---

I think unless there is evidence to the contrary, in this case the simplest solution is the most likely. I think it is most likely that they meant to be able to reallocate across the entire resort all along (and there is no direct language that prevents it), but legalese and the contracts can be confusing (as seen by members swearing that they have to balance units even though there is no actual language I have seen that says that), so they clarified their position over time and the newer documents better represent what they meant all along.

I find that much more likely than that they originally intended to have to balance each unit every time there was a reallocation with the point charts, but then they left that out of the contracts, then decided to declare some units at some resorts in a way that would make balancing units almost impossible, then chose to try and allocate across units anyway, then decided to change the meaning and wording in the newer documents, then afterwards gaslight all the members about it

I guess the issue is depending where you look different language exists. I did a search of exact text you had and found article which linked following language.

“In order to meet the Club Members' needs and expectations as evidenced by fluctuations in Use Day demand at the Condominium experienced by DVCMC during a given calendar year, DVCMC may, in its sole, absolute and unfettered discretion, increase or decrease the Home Resort Vacation Point requirements for reservation of a given Use Day within a given Vacation Home...however, that the total number of Home Resort Vacation Points existing within a given Unit (i.e., the amount of Home Resort Vacation Points representing 100% of the Ownership Interests in a given Unit) at any time may not be increased or decreased because of any such reallocation."”

I highlighted in bold the statement that explicitly forbids the moves made here. Now I didn’t go to original source but seems to be pulled directly from pos. Did your source language have this additional info cut or was it missed there?

 

[Leight19]

I guess the issue is depending where you look different language exists. I did a search of exact text you had and found article which linked following language.

“In order to meet the Club Members' needs and expectations as evidenced by fluctuations in Use Day demand at the Condominium experienced by DVCMC during a given calendar year, DVCMC may, in its sole, absolute and unfettered discretion, increase or decrease the Home Resort Vacation Point requirements for reservation of a given Use Day within a given Vacation Home...however, that the total number of Home Resort Vacation Points existing within a given Unit (i.e., the amount of Home Resort Vacation Points representing 100% of the Ownership Interests in a given Unit) at any time may not be increased or decreased because of any such reallocation."”

I highlighted in bold the statement that explicitly forbids the moves made here. Now I didn’t go to original source but seems to be pulled directly from pos. Did your source language have this additional info cut or was it missed there?

So I was able to pull the akv pos and found the exact relevant language directly forbiding changes that impact total points of unit (please excuse my shoddy highlighting skills).

 

[Tatebeck]

I guess the issue is depending where you look different language exists. I did a search of exact text you had and found article which linked following language.

“In order to meet the Club Members' needs and expectations as evidenced by fluctuations in Use Day demand at the Condominium experienced by DVCMC during a given calendar year, DVCMC may, in its sole, absolute and unfettered discretion, increase or decrease the Home Resort Vacation Point requirements for reservation of a given Use Day within a given Vacation Home...however, that the total number of Home Resort Vacation Points existing within a given Unit (i.e., the amount of Home Resort Vacation Points representing 100% of the Ownership Interests in a given Unit) at any time may not be increased or decreased because of any such reallocation."”

I highlighted in bold the statement that explicitly forbids the moves made here. Now I didn’t go to original source but seems to be pulled directly from pos. Did your source language have this additional info cut or was it missed there?

Yes, I have seen that language earlier in the thread and in the documents, but I don't think it mean what some members think it does. I at first also thought that that meant that they weren't able to allocate across units, but that isn't what it is actually saying if you read the whole section and not just that one paragraph.

That small part is just meant IMO to basically point out and reiterate that point chart changes do not change ownership

If you want I can explain more but it may be long winded lol

 

[Cfabar1]

So, what I am reading is that the VGF Resort Studios can be redone however they want - in essence - because they were all declared at once.

But, for the other resorts, they don't have the same flexibility according to the contract.

Still am confused about the lock-off premium - and how that can be adjusted at DVCs discretion - isn't there a maximum number of points they cannot exceed even in that instance? Both in terms of the allocation number in the contract - and in the number of available points in an ownership interest.

I wish they had adjusted some of the seasonality around early December and to a lesser extent early May, and they had lowered some of the summer pricing. But, they seem interested in doing this.

I am still confused how Poly can add point costs and have no reductions elsewhere. I understand maybe they are adding more rooms to other views, but you would think DVC would have wanted to share that no later than when points charts were revealed.

 

[Leight19]

Yes, I have seen that language earlier in the thread and in the documents, but I don't think it mean what some members think it does. I at first also thought that that meant that they weren't able to allocate across units, but that isn't what it is actually saying if you read the whole section and not just that one paragraph.

That section is just meant IMO to basically that point chart changes do not change ownership

I read the whole section and saw nothing to change interpretation of a very explicit statement they can’t change points in a unit (if copy/paste full text but it’s an image not text I can copy). Please clarify what language you see that changes the interpretation as it appears black and white forbidden.

 

[Tatebeck]

So, what I am reading is that the VGF Resort Studios can be redone however they want - in essence - because they were all declared at once.

But, for the other resorts, they don't have the same flexibility according to the contract.

Still am confused about the lock-off premium - and how that can be adjusted at DVCs discretion - isn't there a maximum number of points they cannot exceed even in that instance? Both in terms of the allocation number in the contract - and in the number of available points in an ownership interest.

I wish they had adjusted some of the seasonality around early December and to a lesser extent early May, and they had lowered some of the summer pricing. But, they seem interested in doing this.

I am still confused how Poly can add point costs and have no reductions elsewhere. I understand maybe they are adding more rooms to other views, but you would think DVC would have wanted to share that no later than when points charts were revealed.

No there are 2 camps. One one side they would agree with you and that Unit declarations matter and they must balance point chart changes across each unit every time. The other side (now including me) would say that they can probably reallocate whatever they want, as long as the whole resort balances.

 

[Leight19]

So, what I am reading is that the VGF Resort Studios can be redone however they want - in essence - because they were all declared at once.

But, for the other resorts, they don't have the same flexibility according to the contract.

Still am confused about the lock-off premium - and how that can be adjusted at DVCs discretion - isn't there a maximum number of points they cannot exceed even in that instance? Both in terms of the allocation number in the contract - and in the number of available points in an ownership interest.

I wish they had adjusted some of the seasonality around early December and to a lesser extent early May, and they had lowered some of the summer pricing. But, they seem interested in doing this.

I am still confused how Poly can add point costs and have no reductions elsewhere. I understand maybe they are adding more rooms to other views, but you would think DVC would have wanted to share that no later than when points charts were revealed.

2br lockoff are declared as 2 bedroom so the points for lock off premium are not involved in math for the unit. The only time it would come up is if they have dedicated studios/1br that share point charts as then the values are explicitly tied to specific units.