You made some interesting points, Dean, and I was hoping to ask a few clarification questions out of order from your initial statement.
This is the main point I was curious about. Why would they be required to offer the same deal and possibly a rebate? It is my understanding that each resort is an entity in itself.
Let me clarify. Not required in a legal sense but realistically they'd have far too much heat if they did it this way. Think of it like this. Say you went to buy a car and there was a rebate that started that very day of say $1000. You should have gotten it but didn't and when you found out about it, they refused to fix it. In addition it's likely they'd have legal actions which they don't want even if they know they can win.
If this is true, couldn't they offer extension pricing for one and not the another? For instance if they were to offer an SSR extension, wouldn't it likely be priced much lower than BCV due to the popularity and number of base points involved?
They could but I doubt they'll try to micromanage this way. If they were, they would not have included OKW in all likelihood. Regardless, they need numbers to participate, if done now, that means a lower price, even for BCV. Remember you're still buying a pig in a poke for something 30 years away and making a big commitment.
I'm curious as to why. As a devil's advocate, if a low percentage of the membership purchase the extension, then DVD may not be able to move forward with a complete resort renovation should they decide it is the best course of action, which may be desired for resale or re-purposing.
My thinking is this. They will still have the resorts to deal with and already have a large infrastructure. Can you imagine cutting back to 2/3 the size they were previously and keeping the management and maint fees in line, I can't. They make money on the management, more members means more money. Less members, not only means less money but a higher per capital internal cost.
Maint of the resort is separate. It's paid for by the members that own that resort. I'd be afraid if I were an OKW owners near the change over time. Fixing the resort up for life after DVC is another matter and members could not be legally required to do so but there are always ways to skirt the issues somewhat.
This makes a lot of sense for the short term (10+ years), and could be a significant motivator for DVD to recoup additional income from the resale market. It would certain be a powerful motivator in addition to any tiered membership scale.
Thanks.
They have a lot of options. IMO, DVC/DVD has left so much on the table over the years and missed many opportunities to put themselves in a better position. Of course some of that better position would have come at the cost of members in one way or another. For example, the low pressure sales techniques that so many are proud of have cost the membership a min of 3 off property resorts. (NY, CO and CA).
All just my opinion of course.
