Attack of the Lakeshore Lodge

[CastAStone]

Are we thinking this resort will be in the same association as the cabins?

Most people here seem to think yes.

I think it’s unlikely.

But Disney has given us zero bread crumbs so

 

[eticketplease]

Are we thinking this resort will be in the same association as the cabins?

That was what was speculated previously.

That is where I would lean towards as well.
Hopefully it would lower the dues for current CFW owners and should provide more room types to book like studios (that you don't have to haul your laundry on a golf cart to wash) and 1, 2 and 3 bedrooms with laundry inside the unit!!

Then hopefully families of 7 would have somewhere to stay without having to book 2 cabins.

 

[meekey7197]

Someone in one of the FB groups for the fort said a DVC guide mentioned two more campsite loops being converted. If it’s 2000 and 2100, the line becomes a lot more clear as far as how the cabins *could* become part of the new resort.

 

[atthebeachclub]

I tend to agree. If @Sandisw prediction holds true it becomes a big deal in 2042.

What do you think this could effectively mean post 2042, if true?

 

[peder]

The DVC trust has been set up to allow for more than one RTU plan and therefore they can add component sites that are their own resorts.

It doesn’t require them to become one big “home resort”.

So, they could decide to put DLL with CFW in the same RTU plan which makes them one resort for booking purposes or they could still add DLL to the trust but under its own RTU plan which means it’s not the same home resort as CFW.

Until something is added, we have no idea how each future resort that enters…and I do believe they will put the future resorts into the trust…how it will be structured.

Right, I just think they'll also try to fold existing resorts in as well via right of first refusal. Any new points sold at CCV, Grand Flo, etc. would become part of the trust, assuming they can get a critical mass of points via resale market. And yes, the beauty of the trust model for Disney is they can swap resorts in and out. Big advantage for Disney... offers a lot more flexibility if they ever decide to repurpose another resort.

 

[Sandisw]

I had to read this post twice and still don’t understand! Whatever the trust ultimately amounts too, it seems that it’s going to stay a shadowy, somewhat worthless behind the scenes component for the next several years.

It simply means that adding a resort to the trust doesn’t mean it has to be one big resort.

It can basically end up functioning like today, but you don’t get deeded to a unit…you basically buy points to use…DVd remains the owner of it all.

But, this model allows them to do things that they can’t do when a resort is a leasehold condominium.

 

[Sandisw]

Right, I just think they'll also try to fold existing resorts in as well via right of first refusal. Any new points sold at CCV, Grand Flo, etc. would become part of the trust, assuming they can get a critical mass of points via resale market. And yes, the beauty of the trust model for Disney is they can swap resorts in and out. Big advantage for Disney... offers a lot more flexibility if they ever decide to repurpose another resort.

They can’t do that with current resorts. …they have to add full units to the trust and at sold out resorts, they don’t have full ownership of any full unit.

So, the only inventory that can go into this trust are units that DVD completely owns. For example, they could add undeclared PVB tower units if they wanted to…but they can’t RofR a contract and then add that partial ownership interest into the trust because its not a whole unit.

When inventory is added, it has to be defined and then points attached. If DVd doesn’t own it all, they can’t move inventory to the trust to sell RTU plans.

 

[sarahlord]

Most people here seem to think yes.

I think it’s unlikely.

But Disney has given us zero bread crumbs so

So probably not worth buying cabin points direct now while they’re cheap in the hope there’s another resort added

 

[Rochester Disney Fan]

I would visit LL but not the CFW simply because you won't need internal transportation to be near the amenities and bus/boat launch. Plus I mostly stay in a room with laundry equipment. I will definitely visit here for a few days if they have a decent lazy river.

 

[Paul Stupin]

It simply means that adding a resort to the trust doesn’t mean it has to be one big resort.

It can basically end up functioning like today, but you don’t get deeded to a unit…you basically buy points to use…DVd remains the owner of it all.

But, this model allows them to do things that they can’t do when a resort is a leasehold condominium.

Disney clearly wouldn’t have created this trust if it wasn’t to their advantage. And in spite of the fact that, just instinctively, I’d rather own a more tangible deeded interest (as we all do now) than not, it seems like it’s going to be more of a technicality than a sea change for the foreseeable future.

Also, where do you stand on DLL being combined with CFW? I’m not sure the ability to book what amounts to a small, immobile trailer at Fort Wilderness would be a selling point for potential DLL buyers.

 

[Sandisw]

Disney clearly wouldn’t have created this trust if it wasn’t to their advantage. And in spite of the fact that, just instinctively, I’d rather own a more tangible deeded interest (as we all do now) than not, it seems like it’s going to be more of a technicality than a sea change for the foreseeable future.

Also, where do you stand on DLL being combined with CFW? I’m not sure the ability to book what amounts to a small, immobile trailer at Fort Wilderness would be a selling point for potential DLL buyers.

I think the benefit of combining them into the same RTU plan is a benefit in the sense that the points are sold that go with the cabins all under the same bucket.

The way it would work…assuming it’s done…is they simply activate DLL as inventory to the same RTU plan as CFW.

When they sell, one would be buying RTU for both…you don’t chose because it’s no longer a deeded situation. So, those that want DLL get CFW as part of the plan…and vice versa…but the big benefit to DVD would be that the points for both can be sold with no distinction.

And, then point charts can be developed with all and even moved between the two without issue.

My speculation to this being more likely than not, is the lack of incentives they have done for CFW given how dismal the sales are. It won’t matter if they make DLL and CFW function in the same RTU plan.

 

[Paul Stupin]

I think the benefit of combining them into the same RTU plan is a benefit in the sense that the points are sold that go with the cabins all under the same bucket.

The way it would work…assuming it’s done…is they simply activate DLL as inventory to the same RTU plan as CFW.

When they sell, one would be buying RTU for both…you don’t chose because it’s no longer a deeded situation. So, those that want DLL get CFW as part of the plan…and vice versa…but the big benefit to DVD would be that the points for both can be sold with no distinction.

And, then point charts can be developed with all and even moved between the two without issue.

My speculation to this being more likely than not, is the lack of incentives they have done for CFW given how dismal the sales are. It won’t matter if they make DLL and CFW function in the same RTU plan.

So, in a way, combining the two enables DVD to basically write off a failed project by folding it into a property people actually want. And, of course, forcing DLL buyers to foot the bill for the cabins’ high maintenance fees.

We love FW, and kayak there on every trip, but it isn’t a luxury property, and it seems odd to associate it with a considerably higher end resort.

 

[Sandisw]

So, in a way, combining the two enables DVD to basically write off a failed project by folding it into a property people actually want. And, of course, forcing DLL buyers to foot the bill for the cabins’ high maintenance fees.

We love FW, and kayak there on every trip, but it isn’t a luxury property, and it seems odd to associate it with a considerably higher end resort.

That is definitely something possible that DVD might choose to do.

 

[Cfabar1]

I’m not sure the ability to book what amounts to a small, immobile trailer at Fort Wilderness would be a selling point for potential DLL buyers.

Certainly not for me... At least in this phase of life..., and probably ever due to the lack of W&D in the unit...

 

[Cfabar1]

We love FW, and kayak there on every trip, but it isn’t a luxury property, and it seems odd to associate it with a considerably higher end resort.

That is another option - make it nice, but not too nice, and rustic...

Give it an OKW/SSR style points chart...

I am skeptical that DVD will want to go that route - they seem to be recognizing that the middle market is shrinking and they are competing with places like Four Seasons, Evermore, Conrad, Waldorf Astoria for vacation dollars...

Remember Chapek was extremely unimpressed by Grand Floridian and felt it needed to be completely changed to serve as a flagship property... His solutions also included a high priced failed Star Wars hotel...

 

[Steelers0854]

This may not age well, but maybe Disney did CFW in the trust because they knew it would be a limited draw, difficult to sell and the plan may have always been to combine it with reflections? So this may be a one off plan for Disney due to the unique nature of the cabins and other future WDW properties (after lakeside lodge or whatever it’s called) will be in the traditional structure.

 

[peder]

They can’t do that with current resorts. …they have to add full units to the trust and at sold out resorts, they don’t have full ownership of any full unit.

So, the only inventory that can go into this trust are units that DVD completely owns. For example, they could add undeclared PVB tower units if they wanted to…but they can’t RofR a contract and then add that partial ownership interest into the trust because its not a whole unit.

When inventory is added, it has to be defined and then points attached. If DVd doesn’t own it all, they can’t move inventory to the trust to sell RTU plans.

Ah, so then it'll just be the slow crawl toward a trust model with 2042 being a big year for that transition.

 

[Cfabar1]

Ah, so then it'll just be the slow crawl toward a trust model with 2042 being a big year for that transition.

Maybe. But keep in mind DVC is only 30 ish years old.

It is about twenty years until 2042. Leading up to 2042 about. A third to half of the resorts built would be in the trust if they go that way for future resorts.

Then post 2042 they could if they wanted put all the resorts into the trust immediately or as sales dictated.

 

[Brian Noble]

I’m not sure the ability to book what amounts to a small, immobile trailer at Fort Wilderness would be a selling point for potential DLL buyers.

I suspect you are underestimating the addictive nature of pixie dust.

 

[Jlo85]

Probably worth reiterating that Disney already announced they intended to build a hotel and “resort complex” at the Cabins. “Resort Complex” should be synonymous with DVC, they used that terminology previously for the SSR master agreement. So, I think it’s pretty obvious that a portion of lakeshore lodge will be part of the cabins.