4 Seasons Timeshare on Property!

[Buzzro]

I don't know if this has been posted already but WDW has sold the area around Bonnet Creek to the Four Seasons Resorts. Eagle Pines was closed for the development and Osprey Ridge will be turned over to the Four Seasons after 2010 when the resort is expected to be open. This was originally planned for a DVC resort that we all saw the plans for. For some reason this bothers me. It was nice having the only Disney property Timeshare and I was looking forward to the time when DVC would have another resort at those 2 golf courses. I for one have only had high praises for DVC and Disney but this seems like they are selling away what was supposed to be ours. I'm sure this will be a nice resort but it won't be DVC. Again, I don't know why this bothers me but it does. Here is a link to the news.
http://www.pga.com/news/industry/disney030107.cfm

 

[tink4ever]

Yes this was posted months ago and there was a lot of discussion about it. I agree with you. I take great pride in my DVC ownership and I don't like the idea of a nondisney timeshare right next door.

 

[salmoneous]

I think of it the same way I think of Wyndham's Bonnet Creek Resort. Technically, it's not longer "on property" as the land has been de-annexed.

What does bug me is that this will create a ton of traffic along Vista Blvd . I think of that as my personal back door to the Magic Kingdom and my home at VWL. Not only will there be more traffic, but I assume they will put a gate back up. Bummer. And the loss of the golf course is sad too..

 

[CarolA]

Four Seasons does not sell the same type of product as Disney. They sell "fractional" ownerships. From thier website

Four Seasons Residence Clubs
As a fractional owner of a Four Seasons luxury vacation home, you pay only for the time you plan to spend in residence. Your spacious, fully furnished vacation home is set within an exclusive Four Seasons resort – with renowned dining and amenities just steps away. Personalised Owner Services help you make the most of your vacation – from the Concierge who arranges activities prior to your arrival to In-Residence Dining and housekeeping. Family photos and golf clubs can be waiting for you each time you return. Emphasizing flexibility and carefree enjoyment, fractional ownership simply makes sense for many owners.


Fractional is generally several weeks a year. I think the minimum purchase is usually 16 weeks. According to this site http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Benefits-of-Fractional-Ownership-in-Private-Residence-Clubs&id=554 these places sell for between $100,000 and $500,000!!! So it's not like they are "diluting" the product LOL! (The article is fairly interesting if you go check it out!)

IMHO this is very good for Disney overall. Perhaps those folks running the "deluxe" hotels will go learn how it's suppose to be done! Just putting a fancy building up does not make a "Deluxe" hotel!

 

[Dean]

Four Seasons does not sell the same type of product as Disney. They sell "fractional" ownerships. From thier website

Four Seasons Residence Clubs
As a fractional owner of a Four Seasons luxury vacation home, you pay only for the time you plan to spend in residence. Your spacious, fully furnished vacation home is set within an exclusive Four Seasons resort – with renowned dining and amenities just steps away. Personalised Owner Services help you make the most of your vacation – from the Concierge who arranges activities prior to your arrival to In-Residence Dining and housekeeping. Family photos and golf clubs can be waiting for you each time you return. Emphasizing flexibility and carefree enjoyment, fractional ownership simply makes sense for many owners.


Fractional is generally several weeks a year. I think the minimum purchase is usually 16 weeks. According to this site http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Benefits-of-Fractional-Ownership-in-Private-Residence-Clubs&id=554 these places sell for between $100,000 and $500,000!!! So it's not like they are "diluting" the product LOL! (The article is fairly interesting if you go check it out!)

IMHO this is very good for Disney overall. Perhaps those folks running the "deluxe" hotels will go learn how it's suppose to be done! Just putting a fancy building up does not make a "Deluxe" hotel!

Carol, they have sold more traditional timeshare options in the past at least at the CA location. If I recall correctly it was a minimum of 2 weeks though they've since changed the options. I'd be VERY surprised if they sold quarter shares or similar for Disney as a single entity. I'd expect they'd sell some type of fractional but also more traditional options as well maybe 2-4 weeks per year. The only reason they might not is that the agreement with Disney might limit their options.

 

[JimC]

There are two projects the Four Seasons project in the NE corner and the multi-purpose project on the western side. All of the announcements focus on the Four Seasons portion.

1. Is Four Seasons developing both? -- I thought it was only the golf resort project. And if it is not Four Seasons on the other side, who is the developer?

2. Did they sell the land for either or both projects? -- They would likely have de-annexed the properties from RCID if they sold the land. But I got the impression from an article elsewhere that they might have used a long term land lease for the golf project and sold the land on the western side of the property. But I can not find that article any more so I can not confirm that.

 

[ADP]

Not sure about the land being leased or sold to the Four Seasons. It is a huge chunk of land. Eagle Pines is gone as the Four Season hotel, fractional development, and timreshare will occupy the course. Osprey Ridge is being redevloped (course is being partially redesigned) by the Four Seasons. This course will be a Four Seasons course. Whether or not Disney resort guests will be able to play on it is unclear at this time.

My understanding is that the reason Disney is allowing the Four Seasons and other 3rd party franchises on property (resorts, dining, and shopping) is because Disney cannot keep up with the employment demand. By allowing other franchises on property it becomes the responsibility of the franchisee to hire personnel. Currently, Disney employs about 60,000 CMs. Finding and retaining talented personnel in the Orlando area is becoming a difficult task since most of them are already employed.

 

[sjdisneywedding]

I thought I heard they sold the land. If so, I think this about the dumbest move I have EVER seen by Disney. I dont care what the price was----that land is practically priceless.

I hope I am wrong but I really think they will eventually really regret that decision.

 

[sjdisneywedding]

My understanding is that the reason Disney is allowing the Four Seasons and other 3rd party franchises on property (resorts, dining, and shopping) is because Disney cannot keep up with the employment demand. By allowing other franchises on property it becomes the responsibility of the franchisee to hire personnel. Currently, Disney employs about 60,000 CMs. Finding and retaining talented personnel in the Orlando area is becoming a difficult task since most of them are already employed.

Yeah brillant move that would be. Lets bring in competitors, have them overpay the labor at first to lure them away from Disney, creating further shortages. So the land is gone, the Disney name is gone, the labor is gone. Sounds like a great master plan

You can allow other franchises on property without selling the land.

 

[CarolA]

However, the other part of the Four Seasons is RESIDENCES. Yes, you can LIVE there year round. To allow that the land had to be "de annexed" and it was. However, I believe it's a long term lease that Disney can take back.

I think this is a great move for Disney. It's very apparent that they don't want to run a TRUE Deluxe resort and there are guests who want and DEMAND that. One of my friends IL's moved OFF property to the Ritz due to thier disgust over the "service" at Disney. They "expected" (and paid for) Deluxe Service. Disney did not measure up to them (and they would know LOL) They liked the parks, but won't return unless they stay at the Ritz or equal. The Ritz has no relationship with Disney and actually "steers" you towards other parks they do have a relationship with.

Disney needs a true deluxe resort and since they seem unable to be able to provide this service.......(although they are willing to charge for it)

 

[DVCPAT]

However, the other part of the Four Seasons is RESIDENCES. Yes, you can LIVE there year round. To allow that the land had to be "de annexed" and it was. However, I believe it's a long term lease that Disney can take back.

I think this is a great move for Disney. It's very apparent that they don't want to run a TRUE Deluxe resort and there are guests who want and DEMAND that. One of my friends IL's moved OFF property to the Ritz due to thier disgust over the "service" at Disney. They "expected" (and paid for) Deluxe Service. Disney did not measure up to them (and they would know LOL) They liked the parks, but won't return unless they stay at the Ritz or equal. The Ritz has no relationship with Disney and actually "steers" you towards other parks they do have a relationship with.

Disney needs a true deluxe resort and since they seem unable to be able to provide this service.......

I agree, competition from the Four Seasons will only raise the bar. I would much rather see an upscale resort occupy the space, rather than a “Pop” type resort flood the area with buses.

 

[sjdisneywedding]

I agree, competition from the Four Seasons will only raise the bar. I would much rather see an upscale resort occupy the space, rather than a “Pop” type resort flood the area with buses.

Raise the bar for what and whom? Its not going to raise the bar for DVC.

Its not going to raise the bar for deluxe resorts as these 2 are not really comparable? you are not going to decide between a 4 seasons time share forever or a deluxe resort for one stay.

I'd rather see the area left alone before giving to an outside competitor. I think 4 seasons is great-let them go build it down the street a few miles

 

[sjdisneywedding]

However, the other part of the Four Seasons is RESIDENCES. Yes, you can LIVE there year round. To allow that the land had to be "de annexed" and it was. However, I believe it's a long term lease that Disney can take back.

I think this is a great move for Disney. It's very apparent that they don't want to run a TRUE Deluxe resort and there are guests who want and DEMAND that. One of my friends IL's moved OFF property to the Ritz due to thier disgust over the "service" at Disney. They "expected" (and paid for) Deluxe Service. Disney did not measure up to them (and they would know LOL) They liked the parks, but won't return unless they stay at the Ritz or equal. The Ritz has no relationship with Disney and actually "steers" you towards other parks they do have a relationship with.

Disney needs a true deluxe resort and since they seem unable to be able to provide this service.......(although they are willing to charge for it)

I understand the IL's frustration, but I think theres just as many people who dont want to stay at a Ritz or Ritz type place for that money as there are that do.

Also, theres probably just as many out there that say the "value" resorts are not truly a value and they look to stay outside the park for a better value

The point is theres always those who will stay outisde the park. The question is why is Disney allowing the outside the park place (4 Seasons) to have an inside the park location?

Doesnt make sense to me. Let those who want outside the park accomadations deal with an outside the park location.

 

[DVCPAT]

Raise the bar for what and whom? Its not going to raise the bar for DVC.

Its not going to raise the bar for deluxe resorts as these 2 are not really comparable? you are not going to decide between a 4 seasons time share forever or a deluxe resort for one stay.

I'd rather see the area left alone before giving to an outside competitor. I think 4 seasons is great-let them go build it down the street a few miles

Four seasons will provide a customer base that expects good service on Disney property. If they don’t get it, they’ll complain. As Disney has grown over the last decade, I think it’s easy for management to forget what created the success. Four Seasons won’t compete with DVC, but it can provide a model for improving customer service.

 

[pilferk]

I understand the IL's frustration, but I think theres just as many people who dont want to stay at a Ritz or Ritz type place for that money as there are that do.

Also, theres probably just as many out there that say the "value" resorts are not truly a value and they look to stay outside the park for a better value

The point is theres always those who will stay outisde the park. The question is why is Disney allowing the outside the park place (4 Seasons) to have an inside the park location?

Doesnt make sense to me. Let those who want outside the park accomadations deal with an outside the park location.

Because Disney gets to cater to an untapped demographic with little to no risk.

The land wasn't sold to 4 seasons...it's a long term lease. Which means, suceed or fail, Disney gets paid.

Disney ALSO gets the benefit of having those affluent guests, who tend to spend a LOT of money, into their theme parks.....something they obviously want. And they don't have to take on the infrastructure, the support, or the RISK of convincing those guests to stay at their hotels.

4S is a name....a recognized, deluxe name. It's not something Disney has...at least not to the specific demo we're looking at here. And to be able to provide the kind of experience those guests would want....it would mean risking the capital to build that type of resort (you can't simply upgrade an existing resort...won't work...the amenities and service we're talking about here requires infrastructure and facilities to pull off) and then trying to BUILD a brand recognition behind it (a lengthy process). By partnering with 4s, you get an existing property AND someone else to take on the capital risk (though I'd bet it's a lot LESS risky with 4S experience in these types of things).

It's a strategic partnership, and it's pretty much win win for Disney.

 

[ralphd]

Carol, they have sold more traditional timeshare options in the past at least at the CA location. If I recall correctly it was a minimum of 2 weeks though they've since changed the options. I'd be VERY surprised if they sold quarter shares or similar for Disney as a single entity. I'd expect they'd sell some type of fractional but also more traditional options as well maybe 2-4 weeks per year. The only reason they might not is that the agreement with Disney might limit their options.

From what I understand and remember:

A. The land will be leased to Four Seasons on a long term lease similar to the Swan/Dolphin lease.

The terms of the contract were not complete when I talked to my source but:

B. The shares will start with 1/12th (one month) and will go up to something like a quarter share.
C. The starting price will be approx. $250,000 to join.
D. The resort area will be de-annexed by Reedy Creek and set up as a separate entity. This is to maintain Disney control over the WDW property. I don't know if it will fall totally under Orange County or ???.
E. They (Disney) does not consider it to be a competitor to DVC.
F. It will be a very nice resort.

 

[sjdisneywedding]

Because Disney gets to cater to an untapped demographic with little to no risk.

The land wasn't sold to 4 seasons...it's a long term lease. Which means, suceed or fail, Disney gets paid.

Disney ALSO gets the benefit of having those affluent guests, who tend to spend a LOT of money, into their theme parks.....something they obviously want. And they don't have to take on the infrastructure, the support, or the RISK of convincing those guests to stay at their hotels.

4S is a name....a recognized, deluxe name. It's not something Disney has...at least not to the specific demo we're looking at here. And to be able to provide the kind of experience those guests would want....it would mean risking the capital to build that type of resort (you can't simply upgrade an existing resort...won't work...the amenities and service we're talking about here requires infrastructure and facilities to pull off) and then trying to BUILD a brand recognition behind it (a lengthy process). By partnering with 4s, you get an existing property AND someone else to take on the capital risk (though I'd bet it's a lot LESS risky with 4S experience in these types of things).

It's a strategic partnership, and it's pretty much win win for Disney.

As long as the land is leased then I am all for it, no problem. All your pointds are definately very obvious band I agree with them all.

My problem/issue is that I have been hearing that some feel the land was sold which I cant agree with.

SO if it was indeed leased then no problem, I agree.