Disney's access to rooms beyond the home resort advantage and obligations to owners.

[zavandor]

Can anyone quote the paragraph in the POS where they say how they can reserve rooms with the points they own or for exchanges? Is there a specific paragraph?

 

[Greg36]

I don't necessarily agree with this. The Disney Corporation is certainly not angelic, but I don't think they intentionally break and bend contracts just because they're big and powerful. In a company this size it could be that the right hand has no clue what the left hand is doing.

I think your comment about the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing could very well explain this situation...

 

[crvetter]

Can anyone quote the paragraph in the POS where they say how they can reserve rooms with the points they own or for exchanges? Is there a specific paragraph?

Looking at CCV POS I found that language in Exhibit F, paragraph 3.6. This paragraph describes they will own at minimum 2% of the resort and what they own will be governed by the same rules and regulations.

 

[_auroraborealis_]

Key point is "minimum." There is no maximum ownership.

 

[crvetter]

Key point is "minimum." There is no maximum ownership.

I don’t think that really is what was asked, so not sure the point being made in the greater context perhaps I missed something. I thought the question asked would be my second point that the points they own are subject to the same restrictions as everyone else. Which rooms disappearing before 8 am and then showing up in CRO are 100% not following that rule.

 

[_auroraborealis_]

I don’t think that really is what was asked, so not sure the point being made in the greater context perhaps I missed something.

I mostly mention it because elsewhere I have seen a belief that it limits the percentage Disney can rent for cash and that it does them no good to control more than 2%. Which is not the case. Because there are no explicit caps on trades to Disney Collection or concierge, and no cap on what they own, a lot of cash availability is not weirdly illegal.

How they get it may be sketchy. But having it isn't de facto wrong.

 

[crvetter]

I mostly mention it because elsewhere I have seen a belief that it limits the percentage Disney can rent for cash and that it does them no good to control more than 2%. Which is not the case. Because there are no explicit caps on trades to Disney Collection or concierge, and no cap on what they own, a lot of cash availability is not weirdly illegal.

How they get it may be sketchy. But having it isn't de facto wrong.

Got it. I was confused thought I missed something. Yeah agreed Disney can have much more for many reasons at any given time.

In fact I bet for some of the “nicer” DVC resorts they held back more than 2% of ownership knowing cash rates there would be super high.

 

[twinklebug]

Question:

Has anyone discussed this issue with one of the guides (sales rep, an experienced one)? They may have access to some material, or folk who know more within the company that spells out the answers to all the above and explains what we're seeing.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

Question:

Has anyone discussed this issue with one of the guides (sales rep, an experienced one)? They may have access to some material, or folk who know more within the company that spells out the answers to all the above and explains what we're seeing.

Twice in the past I've talked to them about them renting out DVC concierge rooms. What was indicated to me is that they will pull from all room types more or less proportionately. Unless they've decided to change that it would not be the issue. My input was that they should leave the two smallest categories for members like they have done for BWV in not renting Boardwalk view rooms. They of course said they had the right to any villas just like any other member which is true even if I think they should elect to do otherwise at AKV.

 

[twinklebug]

Twice in the past I've talked to them about them renting out DVC concierge rooms. What was indicated to me is that they will pull from all room types more or less proportionately. Unless they've decided to change that it would not be the issue. My input was that they should leave the two smallest categories for members like they have done for BWV in not renting Boardwalk view rooms. They of course said they had the right to any villas just like any other member which is true even if I think they should elect to do otherwise at AKV.

Oh! That is interesting that (in the past) they would take from across all room types proportionately.

I agree that the smallest categories should have protections against Disney taking and profiting off them, after all they were used as selling tools to entice folk to buy in. (Not the reason I bought in, btw.)

Even if they were to take 1/6th of the rooms we would have seen some openings, so that's not the case. It was a full on block out before any members had a chance at them.

 

[zavandor]

Looking at CCV POS I found that language in Exhibit F, paragraph 3.6. This paragraph describes they will own at minimum 2% of the resort and what they own will be governed by the same rules and regulations.

Thanks but in the SSR POS that paragraph is about something else. Can you please scan that page and attach it here? I would like to write to the head of regulatory affairs and I would like to be able to quote the paragraph from the POS. Thanks!

 

[crvetter]

Thanks but in the SSR POS that paragraph is about something else. Can you please scan that page and attach it here? I would like to write to the head of regulatory affairs and I would like to be able to quote the paragraph from the POS. Thanks!

Hopefully that’s what you need. I would look in the Disney Vacation Club membership Agreement section. That was exhibit F for CCV.