Any thoughts on point charts for Lakeshore Lodge

[Hubalorian]

Which specific document are you referencing gives them that specific power?

@Sandisw do you know the name of the CFW thread that details all of the differences when the cabins first launched? I know there were several dis boarders who detailed all the differences in a thread?

 

[Girlstar30]

@Sandisw do you know the name of the CFW thread that details all of the differences when the cabins first launched? I know there were several dis boarders who detailed all the differences in a thread?

I would be curious to know what are the stricter rental requirements

 

[Tatebeck]

That's what I thought but wasn't sure, good to know!

Yeah Riviera and Disneyland Hotel were the first to add resale restrictions but the trust was made just before CFW.

Keep in mind It is still unknown as to what the true purpose of the trust is.

Some think Disney had to make it a trust since there are no permanent structures with CFW, just basically trailers so they couldn't do the deeded real estate way that the other resorts have always worked.

Others think that it will be the start of a new separate group of resorts with added flexibility between resorts that are added in the trust. But there has been no official word from Disney regarding it that I am aware of.

 

[Girlstar30]

Yeah Riviera and Disneyland Hotel were the first to add resale restrictions but the trust was made just before CFW.

Keep in mind It is still unknown as to what the true purpose of the trust is.

Some think Disney had to make it a trust since there are no permanent structures with CFW, just basically trailers so they couldn't do the deeded real estate way that the other resorts have always worked.

Others think that it will be the start of a new separate group of resorts with added flexibility between resorts that are added in the trust. But there has been no official word from Disney regarding it that I am aware of.

Very suspicious why is everything a mystery with them lol

 

[Hubalorian]

I would be curious to know what are the stricter rental requirements

If I am remembering correctly, Disney gets to determine what is commercial renting (at their discretion) and only their opinion matters basically. I know it’s more legal jargony then that but allowed themselves more leeway if they ever decide to crack down on commercial renting

 

[WinterSolider]

No. Currently only the cabins are trust based

Literally the only point of the trust is that the cabins are trailers. Trailers are not real property, they are personal property, and you can't sell a deeded real estate interest to personal property.

That's it. Every other conspiracy theory about the trust is bullcrap.

 

[WinterSolider]

Keep in mind It is still unknown as to what the true purpose of the trust is.

No it isn't.

 

[Tatebeck]

@WinterSolider is in the first camp I see lol

 

[sethschroeder]

@Sandisw do you know the name of the CFW thread that details all of the differences when the cabins first launched? I know there were several dis boarders who detailed all the differences in a thread?

I suspect its similar to people who think Disney can outright remove benefits from Magical Extras (when contract explicitly states something of like quality needs to replace it) when AP tickets were temporarily on hold (the contract explicitly also stated they could temporarily pause based on things outside their control like a pandemic restricting capacity).

I did a cursory review of a deed that was posted to OC Comp and didn't come across anything but happy to take a look at the language.

I am highly doubtful though that it allows them to jump dumb tons of extra points in to the existing rooms. If someone has the thread tag me or send me a note as I dont want to be telling people incorrectly and want to call out the contention.

 

[Sandisw]

@Sandisw do you know the name of the CFW thread that details all of the differences when the cabins first launched? I know there were several dis boarders who detailed all the differences in a thread?

All the documents for the trust are now part of the CFW POS

I am on the Sisney Dream but will see if I can find the thread.

 

[Sandisw]

I would question that being allowed.

Disney has moved points to the NEW rooms when Treehouse was added at SSR however this was to the detriment of the developer so likely is allowed to occur. However Disney selling point allotment for a set number of rooms then increasing that total later I think would not be allowed and Disney would either not do it or would be challenged and lose.



The only thing the new trust allows them to do is change how the exchange works not how people that own at the resort as a home resort use their points and allotted their points.

Disney can move points between the seasons but they are very unlikely able to redistribute points and they absolutely can't just be adding points. Otherwise they in theory could add 1 room and 1b points to the system devaluing it all.

The trust model allows for them to adjust points across component sites which is completely different than the leasehold model.

And, when they add new inventory to the trust, they activate into the RTU plan sayings it’s going to add X points.

Now, since the cabins are all the same, it’s more straightforward…but I believe the second declaration was not exactly the same number of points per cabin as the first.

But, in terms of charts, I expect them to be higher the CCV and BRV because I think Disney will be able to get a higher cash rate for that resort.

So, if you read that document, there is nothing stopping them from adding new units to the trust, with their own point structure and the reallocate amongst units.

And, since you brought up membership extras the word they use is “may” replace, not “will”…but it also says benefits can be removed at any time but that language is something you don’t ever acknowledge.

Off topic so let’s get back to the trust documents. You can find them in the CFW POS and then explain a lot of how that set up can work.

 

[Patmcpsu]

If the trust exists because the cabins are temporary, I wonder if it complicates rolling them into LL (a permanent structure).

Even if you can do some arrangement where some owners own the cabins and others include the structure (but both get access to the other at 11 months), it makes sharing the maintenance fees harder to follow.

I guess anything is possible with enough lawyers, but I still see it as a risk for the cabins ever getting relief on maintenance fees.

 

[WinterSolider]

If the trust exists because the cabins are temporary, I wonder if it complicates rolling them into LL (a permanent structure).

Even if you can do some arrangement where some owners own the cabins and others include the structure (but both get access to the other at 11 months), it makes sharing the maintenance fees harder to follow.

I guess anything is possible with enough lawyers, but I still see it as a risk for the cabins ever getting relief on maintenance fees.

Wait where are people coming up with this stuff?

The Cabins at Fort Wilderness and Disney Lakeshore Lodge are two different resorts. Why are people talking like they're going to be combined?

 

[Cyberc1978]

Wait where are people coming up with this stuff?

The Cabins at Fort Wilderness and Disney Lakeshore Lodge are two different resorts. Why are people talking like they're going to be combined?

Its because CFW is in a trust, other DVC resorts are leaseholds. Assumption is that LSL will also be part of the same trust as CFW. In case they do, its a different animal all together than other resorts. However if its not part of the same trust then its a different story.

 

[WinterSolider]

Its because CFW is in a trust, other DVC resorts are leaseholds. Assumption is that LSL will also be part of the same trust as CFW. In case they do, its a different animal all together than other resorts. However if its not part of the same trust then its a different story.

Source: Trust me bro.
See also: I made it up.

That is such an enormous leap with absolutely no evidence whatsoever beyond what the Kriegers speculated on a podcast one time (and they said AT THAT TIME, that what they were doing was pure speculation).

Disney tells us what they're doing with their naming conventions. When they announced Poly2, they announced it as an expansion to "Polynesian Villas & Bungalows." There has been absolutely no reference to "The Cabins at Fort Wilderness" in the announcements for Lakeshore Lodge.

 

[kilik64]

Source: Trust me bro.
See also: I made it up.

That is such an enormous leap with absolutely no evidence whatsoever beyond what the Kriegers speculated on a podcast one time (and they said AT THAT TIME, that what they were doing was pure speculation).

Disney tells us what they're doing with their naming conventions. When they announced Poly2, they announced it as an expansion to "Polynesian Villas & Bungalows." There has been absolutely no reference to "The Cabins at Fort Wilderness" in the announcements for Lakeshore Lodge.

I tend to agree with you regarding the trust and all the conspiracy theory regarding it, but I don't think it's a forgone conclusion that there is zero chance that LL will be a part of the trust. The way I understand it, is the entities in the trust are still their own thing but operate together like they are combined when it comes to points. So DVC not mentioning CFW at all in related to LL would still make sense.

Its not like poly2 or bpk where it was a leasehold and they were adding on to an already existing association.

I think that the trust was created specifically due to the issue of CFW being trailers, but I could see them using it to add LL in as well. I don't think anything but LL will ever be added to it if it is. CFW is just so odd that it very well could be a one off and LL is a regular ole dvc leasehold association and has nothing to do with the trust they had to use.

What pushes me to think LL might get rolled into the trust is the fact that CFW is not selling and the dues are so high. Could be Disney doesn't care, they will just keep renting them out and they will just continue to sit and not sell. But current state, I don't see them ever selling out.

 

[Hubalorian]

Source: Trust me bro.
See also: I made it up.

That is such an enormous leap with absolutely no evidence whatsoever beyond what the Kriegers speculated on a podcast one time (and they said AT THAT TIME, that what they were doing was pure speculation).

Disney tells us what they're doing with their naming conventions. When they announced Poly2, they announced it as an expansion to "Polynesian Villas & Bungalows." There has been absolutely no reference to "The Cabins at Fort Wilderness" in the announcements for Lakeshore Lodge.

Source: It’s always been leasehold
See also: it’ll continue to be that way

It’s purely speculative that LSL will be leasehold because as you mentioned, Disney has not given us any information on the matter

 

[Hubalorian]

What pushes me to think LL might get rolled into the trust is the fact that CFW is not selling and the dues are so high. Could be Disney doesn't care, they will just keep renting them out and they will just continue to sit and not sell. But current state, I don't see them ever selling out.

I agree, Disney wanted these to be DVC for one reason or another. I don’t think they want these to be a much worse version of Alunai and rent them out. If they were fine renting them and selling basically no points, why make them DVC? Especially if it meant the added loops of establishing the trust to sell the points.

 

[Brian Noble]

I tend to be in the "The Trust Doesn't Matter" camp.

The CFW documents are written so that the user experience of owning them is the same as any of the other (restricted) resorts. There are lots of reasons why the trust might exist vs. something else. The "it's personal property" explanation is a compelling one, though I admit I don't know the underlying legal constraints. The other reason that strikes me as likely: it is much easier to regain control of a trust contract in default than a deed in default, even with Florida's non-judicial option.

On the other hand, I do not think it is a foregone conclusion that Lakeshore and the Cabins will be separate "home resorts". Without Lakeshore's inventory, the Cabins remain a niche product that is harder to sell. Maybe that's fine with DVD, but it doesn't seem like the path to least-sales-resistance to me.

 

[kilik64]

I agree, Disney wanted these to be DVC for one reason or another. I don’t think they want these to be a much worse version of Alunai and rent them out. If they were fine renting them and selling basically no points, why make them DVC? Especially if it meant the added loops of establishing the trust to sell the points.

I assume its because everything that's "new" build is now DVC in some shape or form. DVC honestly might have thought with the avid camper crowd they had already that it would sell. They could have just vastly underestimated what the demand would be like.

Or they could have done it planning to add another resort they had in the pipeline to add in the trust to make it sell and bring down the dues somehow.

Will find out eventually.