BOULDER RIDGE VILLAS & COPPER CREEK VILLAS & CABINS: Wilderness Lodge DVC Expansion Thread

[danc18]

Hi All, I was offered a great discount to stay club level at WL. Is it worth it with all the construction? Also, I heard the old faithful club was actually under renovation and it was more of a temporary location with less offerings? Does anyone have any infromation on this? thanks so much!

For what month was this discount offered? Did you just call or was this a pin code. I want to stay CL in November but haven't found any discounts.

 

[viper17d]

Ok, so I'm curious for your thoughts:

I know the broad consensus here is that "Copper Creek" will essentially be a VWL II - completely separate. I can see the rationale for that, but I kind of wanted to get the hypothetical conversation going of "what would DVD need to do to make it an expansion?" As unlikely as it is, what crazy un-Disney steps would DVD need to take to make this possible?

- Clearly the 2042 expiry is no good, and based on everything I've read, there's little to no chance they do an OKW extension deal
- If DVD did a "free" extension on the VWL, would that address this key issue?

The reality is, I'm not sure "free" is in Disney's vocabulary. With that being said, if they get most of the VWL owners to agree to a "free" extension, but there are a couple of ways this could make financial sense for Disney:

- The newer rooms/cabins will almost certainly drive up the points/night at WL
- The new VWL interests sold post announcement would inherently be saddled with the already elevated WL dues

As per the press release, it cites the 14th "development" - not the 14th "location" or "resort". It also includes "expansion". Looking back at the Poly press release, this kind of grey area was no where to be found.

 

[twinklebug]

Viper, I'm not sure I understand your questions. Bear with me while I type out my understanding:

The 'expansion' VWL II aka Copper Creek Cabins and Villas (CCC) is entirely separate from VWL. It will have a separate association, dues, rooms and reservations. Disney will not be offering extensions free or otherwise unless they are playing around with the idea again for some unrelated reason.

VWL's dues will not be saddled with any WL dues. In theory those costs related to the converted rooms will be absorbed by the new CCC.

As for the terminology being used, I think Disney itself was playing around with several options on how to treat the new units (stand alone or combined with with the old) and as such we may have seen several different wordings. With the web forums we have all been analyzing every word from Disney probably more than they wanted us to, and before they were ready to commit to anything, hence the confusion.

 

[viper17d]

Viper, I'm not sure I understand your questions. Bear with me while I type out my understanding:

The 'expansion' VWL II aka Copper Creek Cabins and Villas (CCC) is entirely separate from VWL. It will have a separate association, dues, rooms and reservations. Disney will not be offering extensions free or otherwise unless they are playing around with the idea again for some unrelated reason.

VWL's dues will not be saddled with any WL dues. In theory those costs related to the converted rooms will be absorbed by the new CCC.

As for the terminology being used, I think disney themselves has been playing with several options and as such we may have seen several different wordings, we all research too much before Disney wants us to learn anything, find the terms being used and hence the confusion.

So I guess my question, then, is - how do you know it will be separate? Is there an official announcement out there I haven't seen? Do you know someone with inside information?

Essentially, what is this based on outside of conjecture on these boards? If it's set in stone, then you're right, my post makes no sense - I just didn't realize it was determined...

 

[twinklebug]

So I guess my question, then, is - how do you know it will be separate? Is there an official announcement out there I haven't seen? Do you know someone with inside information?

Essentially, what is this based on outside of conjecture on these boards? If it's set in stone, then you're right, my post makes no sense - I just didn't realize it was determined...

There was a comment made (by Disney? I may be wrong...) not too far back here that gave us the name Copper Creek Cabins and Villas. The old units are not being renamed, they're the Villas at Disney's Wilderness Lodge per the owner's contracts.

Now I'm curious and need to dig.

Edit: Found it, it was not Disney, but rather WDWNT: http://wdwnt.com/blog/2016/04/name-...new-vacation-club-resort-at-wilderness-lodge/
So... that was not official, but the author (Tom C.) seems to feel confident in the info. Take it as you will

 

[viper17d]

There was a comment made by Disney not too far back here that gave us the name Copper Creek Cabins and Villas. The old units are not being renamed, they're the Villas at Disney's Wilderness Lodge per the owner's contracts.

Where did the comment on the names come from? Again, I didn't see an actual press release to that effect. I saw the news story written based on the name - I believe the name to be accurate (it sounds Disney and makes sense), but without official word, how could you possibly be so certain?

It is equally likely that someone overheard the name and ran with the story to get it out there. The name, rather than the name of the "new DVC property" could be the re-branding and re-engineering of the existing DVC property in light of the massive renovation.

Let's put it this way, if you're Disney and you pour $100 million into renovating Wilderness Lodge adding a ton of DVC capacity, you're not going to leave the name of the place "Villas at Wilderness Lodge" - you're going to re-brand and re-launch.

With regard to the name on the old owners contracts, if Disney offers a "free" extension, they can also amend the contracts to reflect the new name. Owners still have to opt-in, Disney can't unilaterally change the contracts, but a "free" extension is incentive enough for existing owners to say yes. Also, isn't VWL the smallest DVC property with the least inventory? The hit to the bottom line by doing this would be marginal in the grand scheme of things. Additionally, being able to subsequently execute the ROFR on all of the resales and re-brand and re-sell that inventory as Copper Creek is far more valuable than the pittance they'd get if they did a paid extension.

I'm not saying this is the most likely outcome - I'm just asking what concrete evidence from Disney do we have that goes against this possible eventuality? Please, play along here - I know this entire message board is staunchly against this possibility...

 

[_auroraborealis_]

With regard to the name on the old owners contracts, if Disney offers a "free" extension, they can also amend the contracts to reflect the new name. Owners still have to opt-in, Disney can't unilaterally change the contracts, but a "free" extension is incentive enough for existing owners to say yes.

Doubtful. Sufficient owners also know what points-per-unit have looked like at the last 3 new properties, and know that if the new owners at C3V can book "their" property at 11 months, they will never be able to book VWL again. And if Disney have some owners say yes but more say no, it creates a huge issue for the old association and how to break it up.

And if they did dump all the new C3V points into VWL 11-month, the VWL owners would have a stellar lawsuit they could win.

 

[viper17d]

Doubtful. Sufficient owners also know what points-per-unit have looked like at the last 3 new properties, and know that if the new owners at C3V can book "their" property at 11 months, they will never be able to book VWL again. And if Disney have some owners say yes but more say no, it creates a huge issue for the old association and how to break it up.

And if they did dump all the new C3V points into VWL 11-month, the VWL owners would have a stellar lawsuit they could win.

Sweet, I can work with doubtful! So the primary issue here is that most VWL owners would say no to a free extension?

I agree that some will see the pending points/night inflation and be scared away. Others will be scared away by the thought of another 20 years of dues.

Most, however, would probably view this as an opportunity to renew the value of their contract and boost resale prices if for no other reason than to sell them.

Again, all of my conjecture is hypothetical with no basis in fact other than business logic operating within the little grey area we have.

Thoughts?

Edit: to quickly add about the lawsuit - there is no grounds for lawsuit if they keep the same expiry (adding capacity and selling more interests is 100% legal - when you add rooms, you add contract capacity).

So essentially we are back to: "Option A" offering a free extension with a rename to the point where we can disagree on the likely acceptance and "Option B" creating a completely separate property at the same resort in close vicinity using the same amenities that will undoubtedly destroy value for existing VWL owners.

If I were Disney, I'd be far more worried about a lawsuit from Option B. Whether VWL owners would have sufficient grounds is debatable, but I think that is a far more questionable choice by DVD.

 

[_auroraborealis_]

Do you genuinely not understand that flooring VWL with the points sold for the cabins reduces ownership access for VWL owners? Because current VWL points per night are some of the lowest in the DVC system. So the new points would go further booking old rooms.

If they merge associations, total point balance would allow rapid inflation of points per night there.

 

[viper17d]

Do you genuinely not understand that flooring VWL with the points sold for the cabins reduces ownership access for VWL owners? Because current VWL points per night are some of the lowest in the DVC system. So the new points would go further booking old rooms.

If they merge associations, total point balance would allow rapid inflation of points per night there.

So I'm trying to have a dialogue here about a potential alternative to the overwhelmingly accepted theory on these boards - not to make personal attacks.

At any point in time, Disney is free to renovate a property with thought to DVC members' feelings as to the points per night concept. If Disney renovates a resort, the cost of a night in points goes up.

It is still governed by the aggregate points which is tied to overall capacity such that they can increase the cost of a studio to 50 pts per night, but resorts are renovated on occasion.

So the flooding of points here is not a flooding of points. You are expanding capacity at a famed WDW resort while renovating all of the amenities. Owners are protected by timeshare laws to keep Disney for selling more points than the capacity they create - it must remain eatable. The points per night will go up regardless of whether the resorts are integrated or separate.

 

[Lisa P.]

Having been out of the loop on much of this discussion, could someone please explain...

Why is this so different from SSR & Treehouse Villas... or AKL-Jambo & AKL-Kidani... or OKW (early 2042 expiry) and OKW (later expiry)... sales of two distinctive entities which offer accommodations on a shared campus with shared amenities and (except for OKW), offer different booking categories. SSR and Treehouse Villas have different names. But the Members who own are able to reserve early throughout, share in maintenance and amenities for all of SSR/Treehouse Villas, etc.

Studio/1BR/2BR points charts for AKLV, BWV, and VWL are all quite similar (considering the range of rates for different booking categories) even though BWV (and not VWL), like most of the Hotel-connected DVCs, is within walking distance of a theme park. OKW and SSR both offer consistently lower points costs in most Studio/1BR/2BR seasons. The small BCV, BLT, PVB, and VGF resort room costs are similar or higher for the same room sizes and categories. It seems that the points chart for VWL lands right in the middle of the range for all WDW DVC resorts, when just comparing Studio/1BR/2BR units. It's really not among the lowest.

I don't know exactly what they will offer at CCCV, but there's at least some potential to offer cabins, 3BR GVs, Lodge-Courtyard View, and Club Level rooms - all at a premium points cost, of course. But if the points chart is configured correctly, the higher points charge for the convenient Lodge location or the waterfront privacy of the cabins will balance out demand for the lower points Villas units. Existing Members would want to reserve the new rooms at a similar rate as the new Members would want to save points by reserving Villas. Is the lack of confidence in a fair new points chart for the new rooms at the heart of a fear that it will become difficult to reserve Villas?

DVD's prior experience with restructuring points charts and handling different contract expiry dates could support their decision-making on how to address it here. Their legal department will be all over any new contract offerings. But why do so many people seem to think that there will be NO crossover in reservation availability between owners who bought 10 years ago and those who will buy in 2 years from now? It's just a different name. What am I missing?

 

[viper17d]

That makes a ton of sense and addresses a lot of the issues. Thanks for bringing in that comparison.

I've never claimed to be an expert or correct - just wanted the conversation! That seems like the most likely outcome, but I guess we will find out some time later this year!

Thanks Lisa P. for clearing it up!

Any other thoughts out there?

 

[_auroraborealis_]

If Disney renovates a resort, the cost of a night in points goes up.

This is not the case. By association rules total points to book all rooms at the resort for 365 days is set within the condo association declaration, and dictates total number of points sold. So the points to book the resort as a whole for the year stay stable for the 50-year association. Any shifts to make one room more expensive requires that other room(s) become less expensive. This is, in fact, what just happened at Saratoga -- the two new "preferred" categories gained points; other categories are now cheaper to book. New points are not created in renovation, and they cannot blanket start raising booking values at a resort.

So to merge with a resort with millions of new points suddenly changes the playing field of the value of the existing points.

Why is this so different from SSR & Treehouse Villas... or AKL-Jambo & AKL-Kidani... or OKW (early 2042 expiry) and OKW (later expiry)... sales of two distinctive entities which offer accommodations on a shared campus with shared amenities and (except for OKW), offer different booking categories. SSR and Treehouse Villas have different names. But the Members who own are able to reserve early throughout, share in maintenance and amenities for all of SSR/Treehouse Villas, etc.

THV and Saratoga share a RTU date and were built fairly close together. Akl-Jambi and AKL-Kidani are, and have always been, a single project, with a single pool of points, single condo association and single RTU date. OKW is a special case. All originally sold points for OKW were 2042. When they offered the 15-year extension, only about 1/3 of owners took it. When Disney do a ROFR for OKW 2042 points in the resale market, they do designate them for direct sale as 2057 points. No one is entirely sure how they'll handle things in 2042, with probably 50% of points at OKW expiring because owners didn't take the extension.

Saratoga was always a multi-phase project, so the addition of THV as a 4th phase didn't necessarily blow anything up in terms of points flooding the system. THV had their own pools built, and are comparable in points-per-night to a 2BR most of the year (5-8 points/night more than a 2BR). At C3V, the expectation is that cabin pricing will be a lot more in line with Bungalow pricing. The cheapest a Poly Bungalow runs all year is 115 points a night. So, figure that across 25 units, and all of a sudden, even if you hold the refurbished lodge rooms in line with VWL I, it is a massive flood of points in proportionality completely unprecedented.

 

[_auroraborealis_]

But why do so many people seem to think that there will be NO crossover in reservation availability between owners who bought 10 years ago and those who will buy in 2 years from now? It's just a different name. What am I missing?

Because under DVD rules, if they are different associations, there is no real difference between someone who buys C3V and someone who buys, say, Aulani in booking VWL. They get 7-month availability. Only those who buy an interest in the VWL association get 11-month availability. If C3V is a separate association, as is highly likely from a management, profit, pricing and legal perspective, those who buy interests in C3V are not members of the VWL association, and only have access to VWL at 7 months, similar to purchasers of Poly, BLT or etc.

 

[viper17d]

So, figure that across 25 units, and all of a sudden, even if you hold the refurbished lodge rooms in line with VWL I, it is a massive flood of points in proportionality completely unprecedented.

Valid points. I'll still contend that having two separate resorts with vastly different expiry dates on the same property, sharing renovated amenities is equally unprecedented.

If Disney goes the route of combining the properties, the conclusion I'm drawing from the points you raise is that there will need to be a number of changes to the VWL contracts. The only way they accomplish that, in my opinion, is to offer a free extension.

But I still think Lisa's point on a detailed points chart with share booking windows makes sense.

 

[_auroraborealis_]

I'll still contend that having two separate resorts with vastly different expiry dates on the same property, sharing renovated amenities is equally unprecedented.

It's unprecedented, but it's more like a scenario like several older resorts and the shared amenities with the hotel side, ranging from BLT to Poly and VGF than it's not. It's more that the amenities are now being carried by dues 3 ways rather than 2. At least from a legal/accounting standpoint, it's similar, the entities in question are simply different.

Florida condo association law is pretty well-defined, so Disney can't just make up new rules and apply them into fully-sold associations without a lot of expensive heavy lifting, and I just don't see it working out well. The announcements of the developments at Wilderness Lodge called this a "new" DVC. And that's likely what it will be, contractually. Disney generally don't do a lot of ROFR and aren't going to start taking every $90pp VWL contract at resale to keep cheap points out of a likely expensive new property, thereby also forcing them to sell greater numbers of total points. It's taking them longer to sell Aulani than any prior resort, if I'm not mistaken, and Poly sales haven't been amazing; several recent months have had point sales of under 100,000 points, which is low and flat.

 

[denisekayt]

I believe it will be 2 entirely separate DVCs. Yes, amenities will be shared, but that is not really different from the hotel side sharing the amenities with VWL all these years, now there will just be a 3 way split.

I guess my question would be, what incentive does Disney have to NOT make them separate entities. By having them separate they don't shake up existing owners (they essentially have what they've always had plus some upgraded amenities), they get to have a full 50 year contract for the new portion, and they can charge more money per point plus more points per night for all the new rooms, again without affecting the points per room for the original owners. Keeping things separate wouldn't be that hard, the original VWL is in a different building from all the new rooms. What benefit would they have to combine?

 

[Lisa P.]

I appreciate your responses so thank you. I guess I still don't see it though. Many of the DVC resorts have incorporated "unprecedented" changes... being the first DVC to offer booking categories, Club Level rooms, a fireworks-viewing lounge, etc. New sections added-on to a Hotel or Resort (such as BLT or THV) have always added their own pools. But they still share in maintenance costs for the entire pre-existing property and share in all amenities as well. CCCV will clearly share both pools, along with VWL and WL (hotel). Given the wide variety of booking categories at AKV, it seems logical to me that DVD could possibly do the same with CCCV and VWL.

It just doesn't seem impossible to me, as it seems like DVD would benefit from marketing CCCV as a new section of the larger, combined WL property rather CCCV having a small, isolated reservation inventory. This would be a selling feature for CCCV. Likewise, existing VWL DVC Members will gain access to new room categories. It's all dependent on how they spin it. I can't see a major downside for DVD Sales in doing this.

 

[denisekayt]

I appreciate your responses so thank you. I guess I still don't see it though. Many of the DVC resorts have incorporated "unprecedented" changes... being the first DVC to offer booking categories, Club Level rooms, a fireworks-viewing lounge, etc. New sections added-on to a Hotel or Resort (such as BLT or THV) have always added their own pools. But they still share in maintenance costs for the entire pre-existing property and share in all amenities as well. CCCV will clearly share both pools, along with VWL and WL (hotel). Given the wide variety of booking categories at AKV, it seems logical to me that DVD could possibly do the same with CCCV and VWL.

It just doesn't seem impossible to me, as it seems like DVD would benefit from marketing CCCV as a new section of the larger, combined WL property rather CCCV having a small, isolated reservation inventory. This would be a selling feature for CCCV. Likewise, existing VWL DVC Members will gain access to new room categories. It's all dependent on how they spin it. I can't see a major downside for DVD Sales in doing this.

I believe the major downside is that 16 years have already ticked away on the existing VWL, and resetting that back to 50 is no small feat no matter how you do it. And they would definitely not want to sell a shortened timeframe on the new part.

Keep in mind that the new CCCV will have just as much inventory of rooms (I believe), as the original VWL, maybe more when you include the cabins. There isn't anything small or isolated about it, and they don't need the selling point of existing VWL inventory. Certainly, the value of that as a selling point is no where near the cost of giving existing owners additional years "for free" or the legal hassle of trying to get owners to pay for an extention. They still have the selling point of everything but that inventory, all the amenities will be shared.

 

[viper17d]

This is some good conversation. I wouldn't be surprised if the new capacity is greater than what's currently available at VWL based on the WL conversion and new cabins. I tend to agree that they don't NEED the selling point of the existing inventory, but if they have different point categories for the older rooms, it may help the sale of the new points.

Again, if they can find a way to extend VWL and merge the interests, they can execute ROFRs up to $120/pt and still make 50% profit on re-selling those as new when demand is highest. VWL is currently selling at $85/pt. An uptick may be warranted when this is announced, but they can pick up a lot of points if they decide to go this route. The obvious caveats here are that: a) DVD hasn't been executing ROFRs on VWL so they either definitely are not doing this or have not decided and b) it'd still be dependent on getting VWL owners to sign up for changes - free or not, it's a hassle.

Point being - there could be value in combining them. I'm not in a position to quantify it and they clearly aren't acting like they are taking this tact, but who knows.