I've got Cabin Fever, Copper Creek that is
- Jul 4, 2001
I think that anyone purchasing direct (including the Riviera Resort) will be able to stay at any DVC Resorts, only resale buyers will be limited.This would make me not want to purchase any new resort. The best ones already exist. The product is becoming diluted, if it hasn’t been already.
Saving lots of money will still make sense to plenty of people. If the resale prices are substantially lower than direct prices buyers will still have interest. Sellers will probably take a hit though.I think this will change the resale market dramatically and really tank any resale value in new resorts. Unless you want to exclusively stay at a new resort with no other option besides RCI, it will make no sense to buy resale of the new resorts.
When you buy direct, you have to sign a document that includes language that you are not buying in anticipation of future resorts, and that Disney has no obligation to build future resorts. I think their case for this is stronger than the case for the 20% point increase for lockoffs.As I understand it this hasn't really been confirmed yet. But I've seen multiple sources report that it's a done deal. I'm very curious as to how the actual wording of this will be.
It's understood that DVC could take away additional "privileges" from resale owners. And we all know they have done this to varying degrees over time (concierge, discounts). But this seems to potentially be treading on one of the basic rights - the right to book at any DVC owned timeshare based on the home resort/non home resort rules - that are promised in the contracts. I think they are arguing since Riviera (or any other future resort) didn't exist at the time of the resale purchase, these new resorts do not have to be considered a basic right?? That feels like a very grey area.
Somebody talk me through where I'm wrong.
I'd agree from my understanding.When you buy direct, you have to sign a document that includes language that you are not buying in anticipation of future resorts, and that Disney has no obligation to build future resorts. I think their case for this is stronger than the case for the 20% point increase for lockoffs.
They may need more 'exchange points' in DVC 1 as this DVC 2 grows, to create a buffer. That will cost them, unless of course they could create points out of thin air, but they can't do that!I'd agree from my understanding.
The only thing I might find questionable is the exchange - there ought to be an offset for points going out and points coming in or at least I would hope so. How they are going to really balance that? I've got an idea of how they can make our points less valuable at Riviera or any new resort but if nobody in the current resorts exchanges out to them? Of course they will but again, I'd hope there has to be some balance.