Does DVC reserve the right to allow booking only at home resorts?

[dvc-NE]

A few posts here have eluded to the possibility that DVC reserves the right to allow us (at least in part) to only book at home resorts in the future. That seems to go against the flexible nature of DVC. Is there some fine print I missed or is the glass just half empty for some? Thanks Matt

 

[DebbieB]

DVC can sell off a resort, therefore the owners would not be part of DVC but only part of the resort they own. I doubt it would happen, at least at the WDW resorts.

 

[Caskbill]

When DVC was originally developed, I'm sure they had no clear idea of how it would work to allow members to book at non-home resorts. My guess is it's just in the legal documents in case there's a major problem of some kind.

There's other things for 'emergency purposes' in case things get out of hand. For example they can also suspend banking and borrowing.

They can change the 11/7 month rules, etc.

I wouldn't worry about it.

Probably the only 'condition' that has a remote chance of occurring is if one of the off-site resorts (HH or VB) gets totally wiped out by a hurricane, they could not allow those owners to exchange into the WDW resorts since the WDW owners wouldn't have a VB or HH to exchange back into. This would be similar in nature to if they sold a resort as mentioned in the previous post.

 

[Disney Doll]

I'm sure they probably could, but I doubt it would happen unless there was an extreme cicumstance.

That's why when DH & I bought at OKW, we asked ourselves "if we were told we could never stay anywhere but here, could we be happy here?". The answer was yes, so we bought.

Buy where you want to stay.

 

[tjkraz]

A few posts here have eluded to the possibility that DVC reserves the right to allow us (at least in part) to only book at home resorts in the future. That seems to go against the flexible nature of DVC. Is there some fine print I missed or is the glass just half empty for some? Thanks Matt

The POS states that DVC has the right to increase OR decrease the resort booking windows. It does explicitly state that owners will never have less than one month to book their Home (effectively making for a 11/10 scenario under today's framework.) However, it seems that it would be "legal" for DVC to make it a 11/0 window if they so chose.

But the real question is WHY would they ever want to do this. As long as DVC sells points, it is very much in their interest to give new members access to the variety of resorts in the program. Why pigeonhole someone with Saratoga Springs when you can promise them BCV, BWV, VWL, OKW, HHI and VB atthe same time.

Even after sales have ended (if they ever end), I still don't see any great incentive to end multi-resort bookings. The only thing it creates is some additional administrative overhead, and our dues pay all of the operating costs for Member Services.

As others have pointed out, if DVC ever sold a resort, it would cease to be part of DVC and subject to the rules of the new management company. Technically, the owners of a resort could vote to remove DVC as the manager of their resort. But, they would have to replace DVC with some other management company and would lose access to any discount programs or resort trades arranged by DVC. I wouldn't worry too much about that happening.

 

[dvc-NE]

Thanks, very well worded. I'm just wondering if you add members like crazy into SSR, Eagle Pines, Contemporary, what is that going to do to resorts like BCV or BWV? Seems to me that DVC can advertise flexabilty all they want, but the availability at some resorts might be minute unless you own there, that is part of my question. Thanks, Matt

 

[mydogdrew]

Thanks, very well worded. I'm just wondering if you add members like crazy into SSR, Eagle Pines, Contemporary, what is that going to do to resorts like BCV or BWV? Seems to me that DVC can advertise flexabilty all they want, but the availability at some resorts might be minute unless you own there, that is part of my question. Thanks, Matt

Some think there will be no impact right at the 7 month mark. I think that home resort owners will be more inclined to book ahead of 7 months more than they do now. In any event, there is no disputing that it will become much more difficult to book the smaller resorts inside 7 months. Wait lists will be longer, etc. The flip side is that it should be easier to get a room somewhere on short notice (SSR/OKW). I think as long as you book exactly at 7 seven months you'll get what you want often - just keep in mind that there will be others doing the same.

One other factor to consider is with all the members adding on at SSR with the recent promotions, it is much more likely that these members will use their SSR points (rather than BCV, BWV, VWL) to deposit for off-site stays. This could result in more owners using their BCV/BWV/VWL points for stays at their home reosrts than we have seen in the past.

 

[tjkraz]

I'm just wondering if you add members like crazy into SSR, Eagle Pines, Contemporary, what is that going to do to resorts like BCV or BWV? Seems to me that DVC can advertise flexabilty all they want, but the availability at some resorts might be minute unless you own there, that is part of my question.

I think most would agree that EP would hurt the current situation at BCV, BWV and VWL, while the Contemporary as an 8th resort would probably help the situation--particularly if the CR is somewhere upward of 400-500 rooms.

Regarding ability to book non-Home resorts, I think situations where availability is "minute" right at 7 months will be rare, regardless of how many members are in the program. If you really think about it, for those first four months (months 11 to 8) the only people who can book a resort are the owners of that resort. And the number of owners at a resort can never change. The only thing that could change would be the owners' booking patterns.

But, generally speaking, if BCV averages being at 60% occupancy for the night of June 1st when the 7 month window arrives, that trend will probably continue into the future. What WILL change is the number of non-BCV owners who will compete for that remaining 40% of available rooms. As DVC continues to add members, more people may want to try BCV, thus more people are competing for that 40%, meaning that the resort will reach 100% capacity much quicker.

As has always been the case, different times of year will yield different results. For periods during the Food & Wine fest, BCV may have been at 100% capacity for many nights before the 7 month window even arrived. Other times you may be able to get a room on a month's notice. We recently booked a Standard View room at the Boardwalk on a little more than 4 months' notice.

Demand is a fluid thing, and the next resort that DVC announces will say a lot about whether the situation will improve or worsen as we near the end of the decade.

 

[dvc-NE]

I agree, the Contemporary site may improve the situation, but I think few would disagree that BCV has such an advantage over SSR location wise. You can walk to Epcot vs having to take a bus which may become more cumbersome as SSR goes to capacity. I'm just thinking that new members might get a let down when they can't get what they want (ie, BCV during Food & Wine). There is already discussion on this board that it's iffy now at 6 months to get that. I'm just thinking that you can't put 10 lbs of you know what in a 5 lb bag, and I use that analogy quite a bit. I have been a member only 2 years, and own 400 pts which I think is sufficient. Fortunately I have a 300 and a 100 pt contract. I'm starting to think I need to sell the smaller one in favor of a BCV so that I will be able to book there. I would have sufficient equity to do that if SSR was selling for more like it was earlier. I have my wife and 9 year old who will inherit the ownership which is what I like about SSR's longer contract. But I am now thinking I should have bought into BCV as well with the same use year. I guess I think I shouldn't have to feel that way, like I probably made the wrong choice. Matt

 

[CarolMN]

I agree, the Contemporary site may improve the situation, but I think few would disagree that BCV has such an advantage over SSR location wise. You can walk to Epcot vs having to take a bus which may become more cumbersome as SSR goes to capacity. I'm just thinking that new members might get a let down when they can't get what they want (ie, BCV during Food & Wine). There is already discussion on this board that it's iffy now at 6 months to get that. I'm just thinking that you can't put 10 lbs of you know what in a 5 lb bag, and I use that analogy quite a bit. I have been a member only 2 years, and own 400 pts which I think is sufficient. Fortunately I have a 300 and a 100 pt contract. I'm starting to think I need to sell the smaller one in favor of a BCV so that I will be able to book there. I would have sufficient equity to do that if SSR was selling for more like it was earlier. I have my wife and 9 year old who will inherit the ownership which is what I like about SSR's longer contract. But I am now thinking I should have bought into BCV as well with the same use year. I guess I think I shouldn't have to feel that way, like I probably made the wrong choice. Matt

In your situation, I don't think I would sell and buy BCV until/unless the following stategy no longer works on a consistent basis:

For those times where I really wantd to stay at BCV, I would arrange to call day by day at the 7 month mark for the reservation I wanted. I'd call as soon as MS opens for each day. I'd waitlist (individually) for any day I couldn't get.

If you do that, there is a very good chance you will get your BCV reservation - lots of others may also be calling, but if you call as soon as it's legal, you'll probably be one of the lucky ones!

Anyone who has tried calling for breakfast at CRT, will know what it is like to enter the "Dialing Derby" - getting a DVC reservation at 7 months is still easier than that, IMHO.

Best wishes -

 

[drusba]

Not sure where the rumors started that DVC can just end everyone's right to reserve at another resort or sell a resort if it feels like it and end your rights. Any such rights of Disney would have to be reserved in the official documents that come with your sale, and here are the rights it actually reserves:

Disney can end your rights to reserve through the DVC system either at other resorts or the one you own upon the happening of any one of the following:

1. A resort is taken over by the government via a forced sale through eminent domain proceedings. If you are an owner at that resort you lose all DVC rights; if you are an owner at a different resort, you can no longer reserve at the resort taken over by the goverment.

2. The Disney companies go bankrupt or insolvent. What happens to any rights you have will then be subject to whatever happens in the bankruptcy or insolvency proceedings,

3. The owners of any resort (meaning us) vote by a 60% majority to fire Disney as the manager of the property, which can result in that resort being removed from the DVC system (although Disney could choose to keep it in the system).

4. The owners by a 100% vote decide to end the resort's status as a condomium/timeshare entity. That resort is removed from the DVC system and its owners lose all DVC rights.

5. The resort is partially destroyed, in which case reserving at it can be temporarily suspended during repair, or the property is totally destroyed and cannot reasonably be rebuilt, in which case the owners at that resort lose all rights but any insurance proceeds recovered are divided among the members.

6. The resort is not maintained up to Disney standards (this one really can apply only in conjunction with 3 above or when so many members at a resort default on their dues that there is no money to do maintenance and upkeep).

7. The resort's term runs out (January 2042 for all but SSR).

Not among the permitted reasons for Disney to suspend DVC members' rights to reserve at any DVC resort is its selling control of a resort to a non-Disney company or ending your rights when it just feels like doing so. Effectively, Disney failed (intentionally) to reserve the right to sell a resort without your agreeing to give up DVC rights when it does so. It can adjust the reservation windows but it cannot take away your right to reserve at another resort absent one of the above events.

Whether you will be able to reserve at another resort because of demand is a different issue and the documents provide that you have no guarantee that you will be able to successfully reserve what you want at another resort (or even your own). Disney also reserves the right to create special seasons to meet excessive demand for different times of year. They used to have that with Christmas time, where anyone who wanted to reserve at any WDW resort put their name in up to two years before and then everyone on the list would later be informed if they got their reservation (which were doled out in the order names were received).

 

[tjkraz]

It can adjust the reservation windows but it cannot take away your right to reserve at another resort absent one of the above events.

From the multi-site POS:

"DVMC may increase or decrease the length of the Home Resort Priority Period; however, the Home Resort Priority Period will never be shorter than one (1) month."

We are therefore guaranteed that our booking window at our Home resort is at least one month (currently four months), but there is no stated entitlement to booking at non-Home resorts.

Using the current 11 month system as a basis, the Home Resort Priority Period could be extended to 11 months, and we would all have zero months to book outside of our Home. This effectively eliminates any non-Home bookings and does fall within the guidelines of the POS.

As far as selling off a resort, while I don't think it's very likely to happen, I wouldn't put anything past Disney if they set their minds to it. The POS does state "A DVC resort may also be removed if the DVC resort is not maintained or managed at the level of quality that is required of all DVC resorts..." That sounds like the chicken guarding the hen house if you ask me.

As stated, I don't think that DVC has any incentive to remove Home resort priority, but it seems they have the ability to do it if they wanted. As for resorts being eliminated, only VB or HHI would appear to even be worthy of discussion in this realm, and there's probably a greater chance of either being destroyed by hurricane and falling under the "condemnation" provision.

 

[cobbler]

I always find it very funny (to me anyway) that a lot of people think all of us buying into SSR (or any future site) are all desperate to reserve at BCV and BWV. Sure I would like to try them because I have a quirk where I want to try ALL Disney owned properties.

I may be the minority (well at least that is the impression I get) but I like SSR and don't give much of a rip about taking the bus during F/W or anywhere for that matter.

Not to flame, and this is pure curiosity but why do most people think that is all SSR owners want to do, buy there only to always stay at BC or BWV?

 

[dvc-NE]

No offense taken here, Cobbler, I do own 400 pts at SSR.
My curiosity is that while I know DVC likes you to believe it's extremely flexible, I think there are limitations. You listed your history, but I noticed you have yet tried either resort. I'm pretty sure you would prefer the convenience that BCV and BWV have to offer, that's all. Matt

 

[Dumbo]

Not to flame, and this is pure curiosity but why do most people think that is all SSR owners want to do, buy there only to always stay at BC or BWV?

Because that is the only DVC resort that Disney is selling and these people are being told that is the only way they can stay at Boardwalk Villas and Beach Club Villas.


Dumbo

 

[Dumbo]

Speaking of the home resort priority, DVC can easily change it to 11/4. In fact I think the home resort priority was differant years ago.


Dumbo

 

[mydogdrew]

I always find it very funny (to me anyway) that a lot of people think all of us buying into SSR (or any future site) are all desperate to reserve at BCV and BWV. Sure I would like to try them because I have a quirk where I want to try ALL Disney owned properties.

I may be the minority (well at least that is the impression I get) but I like SSR and don't give much of a rip about taking the bus during F/W or anywhere for that matter.

Not to flame, and this is pure curiosity but why do most people think that is all SSR owners want to do, buy there only to always stay at BC or BWV?

The bottom line is that any DVC member can stay at SSR at any time while SSR owners will be subject to some limitations (depending on time of year) at any of the other resorts. By most accounts, this problem is anticipated to get worse over time. There simply is no "home court advantage" at SSR. Perhaps they will eventually give you a preferred view booking advantage? Also keep in mind that the value of the 12 extra years in current years dollars is about equal to one years banked points - you could make a case that a DVCI contract resale with full banked 2004 points offsets this SSR benefit. However, they seem to sell lots of contracts based on this marketing. I have nothing against SSR but it will always suffer in terms of resale value (and rental value) due to this.

 

[cobbler]

Because that is the only DVC resort that Disney is selling and these people are being told that is the only way they can stay at Boardwalk Villas and Beach Club Villas.


Dumbo

Hmm, interesting. However I bought SSR for 4 reasons.
1 - Newer resort
2 - Longer contract
3 - Less cost per point in initial purchase - ok to me this was a no brainer. 83/point and 12 more years or 92 and 12 less years.
4 - Near DTD. Of course this was before the rumors of PI demolition. I figured as the kids became older how nice it would be for hubby and I to pop over to DTD for a few drinks, couple clubs and walk "home".

Maybe I am the minority

 

[athenna]

I always find it very funny (to me anyway) that a lot of people think all of us buying into SSR (or any future site) are all desperate to reserve at BCV and BWV. Sure I would like to try them because I have a quirk where I want to try ALL Disney owned properties.

I may be the minority (well at least that is the impression I get) but I like SSR and don't give much of a rip about taking the bus during F/W or anywhere for that matter.

Not to flame, and this is pure curiosity but why do most people think that is all SSR owners want to do, buy there only to always stay at BC or BWV?

I am of the same thought. I am not dying to stay anywhere else. Sure I'd like to some time, but if I had to always stay at SSR, fine

 

[Beca]

Not to flame, and this is pure curiosity but why do most people think that is all SSR owners want to do, buy there only to always stay at BC or BWV?

Cobbler...I can only speak for myself, but I get the impression that people do not think that all SSR owners are buying there just to get in. I do realize that many people are buying SSR because they love it. However, there is an appx. percentage of people who purchased EVERY resort because it was the one DVC was selling, not because it was the one they really wanted. I looked into buying SSR before I found the dis, and the resales....and, I certainly would've fit into that category. That is why I stopped the purchase.

I think the concern is that, with a larger resort there will be MORE people who purchase into SSR "just to get in" than there would be from a smaller resort. With VWL (114 accomodations), BCV (208 accomodations), and BWV (383 accomodations) the logic seems to be that those who want to transfer in/out will create a state of equilibrium...a balance, so to speak. However, SSR is larger than those 3 combined (at over 800 accomodations). Using the same statistics, that would mean an AWFUL lot of people who want out of SSR and into the smaller resorts. So, unless more people are buying into SSR because they desperately want to stay there than were buying into BWV, BCV, VWL for the same reasons.....the smaller resorts will become more "congested" (i.e....difficult to get into).

Once again, I am not implying that everyone has to want to trade out of SSR....just the same percentage that want to trade out of the smaller resorts. That's really all it will take to make trouble for the smaller resorts.

One of my issues with this is that owning at these smaller resorts will become more and more expensive because 1) the cost of resources is spread over fewer owners, and 2) wear and tear of these locations is going to raise the cost of the upkeep. I think it will be safe to say, that if there are any DVC rooms open, they will most likely be at SSR instead of BCV (as I have read on the boards so many times, "I was going to stay at SSR, but (fill in the blank here) was open, so I thought I would take it. I don't know how often I will get a chance to stay there").



Beca