Attack of the Lakeshore Lodge

[airjay75]

I just want to quickly chime in. We took the MK bus from WL yesterday for the first time - boats were down on account of the wind. That bus is shared with Ft. Wilderness, so on the way to MK, got a real close-up drive behind LSL to the bus stop for Ft. Wilderness. Two things stuck out to me. One, yes LSL is massive - gives off way more AKL vibes than say, WL or RIV or vibes. Two, the bus stop for Ft. Wilderness is literally right next to construction fences surrounding LSL - I have a new found appreciation for just how close these two resorts are going to be.

Just my gut - but makes me even more convinced that LSL and CFW will be combined. And, yeah, why on earth would they not put it into the trust to give them more flexibility than they already have. Those of us on these boards will wax and wane about the legal intricacies . . . meanwhile, DVD will continue to sell those points.

 

[mkatsy]

I just want to quickly chime in. We took the MK bus from WL yesterday for the first time - boats were down on account of the wind. That bus is shared with Ft. Wilderness, so on the way to MK, got a real close-up drive behind LSL to the bus stop for Ft. Wilderness. Two things stuck out to me. One, yes LSL is massive - gives off way more AKL vibes than say, WL or RIV or vibes. Two, the bus stop for Ft. Wilderness is literally right next to construction fences surrounding LSL - I have a new found appreciation for just how close these two resorts are going to be.

Just my gut - but makes me even more convinced that LSL and CFW will be combined. And, yeah, why on earth would they not put it into the trust to give them more flexibility than they already have. Those of us on these boards will wax and wane about the legal intricacies . . . meanwhile, DVD will continue to sell those points.

One of my biggest concerns with a trust model is that their flexibility becomes exposure to risk for us, most notably in the dues. One of the hotels consistently underperforming? … dump it in the trust! … stuck with half of a property from a failed contract extension (OKW ) … dump it in the trust! … if they don’t write some type of language in the contract addressing potential volatility in the dues, it’s a hard no for me. I’ll have to be content with what’s available at 7 months or rent from someone else.

 

[patm95]

One of my biggest concerns with a trust model is that their flexibility becomes exposure to risk for us, most notably in the dues. One of the hotels consistently underperforming? … dump it in the trust! … stuck with half of a property from a failed contract extension (OKW ) … dump it in the trust! … if they don’t write some type of language in the contract addressing potential volatility in the dues, it’s a hard no for me. I’ll have to be content with what’s available at 7 months or rent from someone else.

I agree. This would have to be done carefully to be done right. I do see some benefit of adding something like VB or HHI into a trust to combine it with another popular resort. I'd love to have the option to continue to stay at these resorts. Even at the expense of slightly higher dues. But if you start lumping everything together, that could be a problem too.

 

[tidefan]

Not exactly. They can reallocate points among any of the component sites that are put into the same RTU plan.

The trust was created so it can contain mulple RTU plans.

So, in order to reallocate LSL points to the cabins, they have to be in the same RTU plan.

They can put LSL into the trust and sell it as part of its own RTU plan. But selling under a trust gives DVD the ability to do things that it can’t via leasehold.

If I read it correctly, and we have seen it already a small bit with the cabins, because DVD remains owners of all units, new activation of inventory into the plan would allow them to add them at different point levels.

If they decide to sell LSL under the trust model but keep it out of the CFW RTU plan, it would function as its own home resort.

But, what is a big difference is that nothing prevents them from ever adding different component sites into an already established RTU plan.

Sandi, you think the A-Frame cabins (that is what I was referring to) will be in a separate RTU plan?

 

[Tatebeck]

Sandi, you think the A-Frame cabins (that is what I was referring to) will be in a separate RTU plan?

Almost certainly not. They are being built into the LSL resort in multiple locations and are very limited in quantity. It would be way too small to sell and stand on it's own as a separate RTU. They are most likely building them as a point sink (to allow a larger number of LSL points to be sold) and for a premium option for those trading in at 7 months or those with tons of points at LSL. Very similar to the CCV cabins in that way. And they make the resort cooler without raising the dues that much


The CFW are on such a large area and large enough in number that they are able to stand alone if DVC wishes to keep those cabins in a separate RTU. And they are large enough in number and low enough in points that they have a high MF (which scares many buyers off) and would raise the MF of any other resorts/RTUs that they are combined with, which may worsen sales of LSL or any other resort that it is merged into

 

[tidefan]

Almost certainly not. They are being built into the LSL resort in multiple locations and are very limited in quantity. It would be way too small to sell and stand on it's own as a separate RTU. They are most likely building them as a point sink (to allow a larger number of LSL points to be sold) and for a premium option for those trading in at 7 months or those with tons of points at LSL. Very similar to the CCV cabins in that way. And they make the resort cooler without raising the dues that much


The CFW are on such a large area and large enough in number that they are able to stand alone if DVC wishes to keep those cabins in a separate RTU. And they are large enough in number and low enough in points that they have a high MF (which scares many buyers off) and would raise the MF of any other resorts/RTUs that they are combined with, which may worsen sales of LSL or any other resort that it is merged into

Yes, that was my initial point. They can way over-inflate the point cost of the A-frames initially, then reallocate those points later to make studios, etc. higher points in the future. This is specifically allowed by the trust language. I am NOT referring to the CFW cabins, FYI.

 

[mkatsy]

Yes, that was my initial point. They can way over-inflate the point cost of the A-frames initially, then reallocate those points later to make studios, etc. higher points in the future. This is specifically allowed by the trust language. I am NOT referring to the CFW cabins, FYI.

Oh boy … that’s not good.

 

[maui22]

I forget. Did someone come up with an estimate for the number of points LSL will have? Also, when do people think it goes on sale?

 

[bama_ed]

I just want to quickly chime in. We took the MK bus from WL yesterday for the first time - boats were down on account of the wind. That bus is shared with Ft. Wilderness, so on the way to MK, got a real close-up drive behind LSL to the bus stop for Ft. Wilderness. Two things stuck out to me. One, yes LSL is massive - gives off way more AKL vibes than say, WL or RIV or vibes. Two, the bus stop for Ft. Wilderness is literally right next to construction fences surrounding LSL - I have a new found appreciation for just how close these two resorts are going to be.

ANOTHER believer!

 

[Tatebeck]

Yes, that was my initial point. They can way over-inflate the point cost of the A-frames initially, then reallocate those points later to make studios, etc. higher points in the future. This is specifically allowed by the trust language. I am NOT referring to the CFW cabins, FYI.

Yes, I realize that. I only mentioned CFW to show the differences between those cabins and the cabins being built at LSL. The CFW are (at least for now) in their own RTU plan. They almost certainly wouldn't split such a small amount of cabins within the footprint of the new LSL into their own plan as they would be harder to sell.

I don't think it is serious as you think it is. The trust language lets them reallocate across units, yes (and some think that the older resorts allow them to as well, as it seems they have done it before). But it doesn't let them make points out of thin air. Unless the point cost of those cabins is absolutely astronomical when the resorts open, even if they do what you fear it would have minimal impact on the rest of the resort.

There are I think going to be 20 or less cabins across the entire resort? And it's a 900 room resort. If half of that is DVC, so 450 rooms, the difference factor is around 22.5x between DVC cabins and other DVC rooms. For every 22.5 points they lower the cost of the cabins, they could raise all the other rooms by 1 single point. If they decreased the cost of the cabins by 45 points, they could increase the average of the other rooms by 2 points lol.

With the most expensive rooms in DVC being around 100-150 points typically, I don't see a scenario where they are able to take enough points to actually make much of a difference. And if they make the a frame cabins that cheap then I guess that is where I will be staying! Unless the point chart is astronomical like 200-300 points for a cabin at open, I don't think it's a big deal. They won't have points to siphon to the rest of the resort

 

[VGCgroupie]

I just want to quickly chime in. We took the MK bus from WL yesterday for the first time - boats were down on account of the wind. That bus is shared with Ft. Wilderness, so on the way to MK, got a real close-up drive behind LSL to the bus stop for Ft. Wilderness. Two things stuck out to me. One, yes LSL is massive - gives off way more AKL vibes than say, WL or RIV or vibes. Two, the bus stop for Ft. Wilderness is literally right next to construction fences surrounding LSL - I have a new found appreciation for just how close these two resorts are going to be.

Just my gut - but makes me even more convinced that LSL and CFW will be combined. And, yeah, why on earth would they not put it into the trust to give them more flexibility than they already have. Those of us on these boards will wax and wane about the legal intricacies . . . meanwhile, DVD will continue to sell those points.

Darn, the boats are so amazing. Sorry you missed those. Kind of cool to seeing things from a different perspective taking the bus though.

 

[JackosinDIS]

Yes, that was my initial point. They can way over-inflate the point cost of the A-frames initially, then reallocate those points later to make studios, etc. higher points in the future. This is specifically allowed by the trust language. I am NOT referring to the CFW cabins, FYI.

They already do that….. I’m looking at you Poly Tower theme park view rooms!

 

[Brian Noble]

They can way over-inflate the point cost of the A-frames initially, then reallocate those points later to make studios, etc. higher points in the future.

DVC evidently does not believe it needs a trust to do that. Something similar was done at the Treehouse Villas, though in reverse---after THV was complete, they raised the points required for THV, and lowered them elsewhere in the resort. The 2027 charts at AKV did something similar as well, allocating away from Savanna rooms and to Value rooms---and this, despite the fact that Kidani does not have any Value rooms.

And that's in addition to @JackosinDIS's example at the Poly.

 

[tidefan]

DVC evidently does not believe it needs a trust to do that. Something similar was done at the Treehouse Villas, though in reverse---after THV was complete, they raised the points required for THV, and lowered them elsewhere in the resort. The 2027 charts at AKV did something similar as well, allocating away from Savanna rooms and to Value rooms---and this, despite the fact that Kidani does not have any Value rooms.

And that's in addition to @JackosinDIS's example at the Poly.

Perhaps so, but they did relent on the 2020 point chart controversy, which involved, i believe this very issue.

 

[Sandisw]

Sandi, you think the A-Frame cabins (that is what I was referring to) will be in a separate RTU plan?

No. I think those will be part of LSL. The question is how are they going to sell LSL

Pretty much there choices from where I sit:

1. Sell as a leasehold condo like all the other DVc resorts prior to CFW, which includes all rooms and the A frames.

2. Add it to the Palmetto Trust association and then activate it all into its own RTU plan…functions pretty much just like #1 when it comes to use, but alllows for things #1 does not.

3: Add to the Pametto Trust association and activate it into the same RTU plan as the cabins, so both CFW and LSL are seen as one “home resort”

I lean that it will be #2 or #3 because it’s better for DVD to sell that way.

However, until more is shared…and I bet we get no info until end of 2026 when they file official paperwork, all remain possibilities.

 

[VGCgroupie]

No. I think those will be part of LSL. The question is how are they going to sell LSL

Pretty much there choices from where I sit:

1. Sell as a leasehold condo like all the other DVc resorts prior to CFW, which includes all rooms and the A frames.

2. Add it to the Palmetto Trust association and then activate it all into its own RTU plan…functions pretty much just like #1 when it comes to use, but alllows for things #1 does not.

3: Add to the Pametto Trust association and activate it into the same RTU plan as the cabins, so both CFW and LSL are seen as one “home resort”

I lean that it will be #2 or #3 because it’s better for DVD to sell that way.

However, until more is shared…and I bet we get no info until end of 2026 when they file official paperwork, all remain possibilities.

I’m putting my bet on #2.

If they go the #2 route can they change it to #3 after sales or do they have to stick with it being #2?

 

[Sandisw]

Yes, I realize that. I only mentioned CFW to show the differences between those cabins and the cabins being built at LSL. The CFW are (at least for now) in their own RTU plan. They almost certainly wouldn't split such a small amount of cabins within the footprint of the new LSL into their own plan as they would be harder to sell.

I don't think it is serious as you think it is. The trust language lets them reallocate across units, yes (and some think that the older resorts allow them to as well, as it seems they have done it before). But it doesn't let them make points out of thin air. Unless the point cost of those cabins is absolutely astronomical when the resorts open, even if they do what you fear it would have minimal impact on the rest of the resort.

There are I think going to be 20 or less cabins across the entire resort? And it's a 900 room resort. If half of that is DVC, so 450 rooms, the difference factor is around 22.5x between DVC cabins and other DVC rooms. For every 22.5 points they lower the cost of the cabins, they could raise all the other rooms by 1 single point. If they decreased the cost of the cabins by 45 points, they could increase the average of the other rooms by 2 points lol.

With the most expensive rooms in DVC being around 100-150 points typically, I don't see a scenario where they are able to take enough points to actually make much of a difference. And if they make the a frame cabins that cheap then I guess that is where I will be staying! Unless the point chart is astronomical like 200-300 points for a cabin at open, I don't think it's a big deal. They won't have points to siphon to the rest of the resort

Remember, they don’t have to activate the inventory into the trust with the same point values. They don’t attach to units at all in that way.

They simply say we are adding X rooms for Y points.

For example, they can say we are adding 3 A frames and 10 2 bedrooms. Thst is 200 k points.

The next time they can say we are adding 2 A frames and 10 2 bedrooms and that is going to be 250K points

That RTU plan now has 450K points which can be allocated to any of those rooms in any way they choose

As more is added and activated, the total shifts and applies to total rooms.

So, nothing prevents them from changing the cost of the cabins from say 100 a night to 50 a night and shift all to the 2 bedrooms. How it was initially activated doesn’t matter like it does with a leasehold conco.

The trust has some language that says the initial point chart must be valid for 3 years but after that, it can go up.

The balance only has to be for total points against all activated inventory.

That’s why they can add new inventory at another component site down the road and then reallocate across them all.

So, it’s not like the way the leasehold condo is done.

ETA: I am not saying we will see DVD go crazy but if you look at the figures for the CFW cabins that are activated right now, the yearly cost is different for the 2nd declaration per cabin then the 1st one.

 

[Sandisw]

Perhaps so, but they did relent on the 2020 point chart controversy, which involved, i believe this very issue.

Yes, but I recently found language in VGF that does allow them to increase lock off premium without having to decrease it.

My speculation was that in 2020, they tried to use that to justify what they did for all resorts and realized because the other POS documents weren’t written that way that maybe it wouldn’t withstand a legal challenge and backed down because they got called on it.

Same with moves from bungalows to studios.

But, they have since updated the multi site POS to state they can reallocate across all homes, which means they at least BELIEVE they have the legal right to do it. Only a court challenge would know for sure.

But, the trust documents definitely take away any ambiguity because DVD remains owner of all the units and points are not assigned and sold to any one unit…which is why they can do this across an entire resort or more than one resort if all under the same RTU plan.

 

[Sandisw]

I’m putting my bet on #2.

If they go the #2 route can they change it to #3 after sales or do they have to stick with it being #2?

The trust document allows them to move inventory in and out of a RTU plan.

But, they can’t sell more points then go with the inventory in that plan so it’s not as simple as that.

The way it works is DVD placed all of the inventory into the trust.

Then, they activate rooms into a RTU plan to sell.

For example, all 320 cabins are part of the trust. DVD added them all.

But only 63 have been activated into the CFW RTU plan and that is where the points for sale come from.

So, yes, they could decide at any time to not add all the rooms at LSL to the same RTU plan if they sell with the trust model.

Also, being in the trust doesn’t mean it has to function for use differently.

Its just the behind the scenes things that could happen that can’t when you sell deeded interests via a leasehold condo situation

 

[Brian Noble]

Perhaps so, but they did relent on the 2020 point chart controversy, which involved, i believe this very issue.

They either weren't the same, or Disney doesn't think they are bound by any decisions about that chart, because they absolutely re-allocated across units, room types, and entire bulidings with AKV in 2027.