DVC resale changes coming!?!

[JimMIA]

"DVC Operator reserves the right to amend these Rules and Regulations, in its sole, absolute and unfettered discretion. These changes may affect a Club Member's right to use, exchange and rent the Club Member's Ownership Interest and impose obligations upon the use and enjoyment of his or her Ownership Interest and the appurtenant Club Membership. Club Members will be notified of any such changes through Member Services publications. Current publications supersede prior publications with respect to the terms and conditions of these Rules and Regulations."

All sorts of "rights" are asserted in documents like this. Whether they stand legal scruitiny is another matter.

In particular, I think there is some question whether a resale buyer -- who had no access to the POS -- would be held to the letter of the POS to this degree by a court. Obviously, both sides in a business transaction have an obligation to understand what they are buying, but whether some arbitrary action by a timeshare developer long after the fact would be upheld seems questionable to me. (As I said earlier, I'm not a lawyer...)

And -- from a business perspective, there are better ways for DVC to achieve their goals without such heavy-handed techniques.

 

[JimMIA]

Except again, it looks a lot better to add something of value to direct purchase customers (like giving them an extra month booking window) than to take something away from resale customers ( like drop their window to 5 months, making the entire trip harder to plan). Even if it has the same effect, it is a worse way to do it.

I agree. I think if they were going to make a change of this type, they'd be much more likely to keep everything the same, but offer an enhancement as a benefit -- like 7 months for everyone, as it is now; 8 months for "VIP" owners.

 

[sweetdana]

Here is 1 huge flaw.

Let's say I own a resale SSR and cannot get BC .. oh well I stay at home. This is fair.. I paid for a place to stay.. bummer not allowed to stay else where.. this is fair.
However if I own a resale BC, WL, BLT and 4 months out I want a room and can only book my home resort... chances are I cannot use these points.
(Allowing an owner of another resort to basicly use my optional of a room without the option to use theres... (solely cause they bought direct) Now this option is not actually fair. (Meaning the smallest resorts are nearly worthless past about 6- 7 months out.. as they will fill up with both owners of there resort.. and direct of other resorts) The largest resorts would be worth more, as you might be able to get a room 1 month ahead. .. In fact if I was an SSR/OKW/AK owner.. there is potential to get a room a day out as my only competition is direct owners and resale at my resort owners...

I would think there is legal ground that it must be fair across the board.. If I can use your points then you can use mine.. and If I cannot use your points you cannot use mine. A I can use yours, but you cannot use mine.. is not equal. If I cannot use my resale points, due to a direct purchaser of a different resort "took" my spot. .. DVC will lose in court.. as this is not fair.

I do not believe this rumor would be true.. others changes SURE! An extra day/week for priority/early ADR, premuim passes for all APs, things like this maybe.. Something surly to end up in court.. and possibly lose.. nope.

 

[disneynutz]

All sorts of "rights" are asserted in documents like this. Whether they stand legal scruitiny is another matter.

In particular, I think there is some question whether a resale buyer -- who had no access to the POS -- would be held to the letter of the POS to this degree by a court. Obviously, both sides in a business transaction have an obligation to understand what they are buying, but whether some arbitrary action by a timeshare developer long after the fact would be upheld seems questionable to me. (As I said earlier, I'm not a lawyer...)

And -- from a business perspective, there are better ways for DVC to achieve their goals without such heavy-handed techniques.

As I previously posted, Disney's team of lawyers, compliance people, auditors, analysts, accountants and marketing team have already worked out the details of rule changes and how it could and will affect Disney's profitability. That is the only thing that they care about as do most businesses.

The March rule change pretty much showed their hand, if they do make changes, prior owners will be grandfathered in and the new resale buyers would face the restrictions the same as the after March resale buyers do.

Disney has to do what ever they can to increase direct buyers. If their actions cause the resale market to tumble, I see them exercising ROFR when the prices get low enough. You need to remember that the restrictions and size of contract do not affect them and they can re-package the points as a new contract with a earlier termination date.

Bill

 

[Sammie]

Of course we did. So if Disney decided that the new rules were that your points expired last week, you'd be cool with that? Because, hey, we agreed that they have the right to change the rules anytime. ;-) Of course not, I'm only joking.

Most people would probably be pretty steamed. Just like most people would care if their $10,000 asset were turned into $1 overnight by a rule change. The point is that the question of what Disney can do legally is not the same as what they should do. And they know this. They are a very customer-oriented brand. They may not be legally bound, but peeing on their most devoted customers isn't necessarily in their best interest long term.

I have faith that DVC will act in the best interest of the membership. Will that please everyone, of course not.

 

[ELMC]

I think one mistake that some posters here are making is that they think that all owners think like they do. What they are forgetting is that for 99% of DVC owners, any changes they make will be a non issue. DVD will send owners a letter outlining the changes, the majority will read it (or not read it) and not give it a second thought. There is only a very small minority of owners on here that would become upset by any changes. If you were a business and could do something that benefits you and have it not bother 99% of your customer base, wouldn't you do it?

 

[Rochester Disney Fan]

Here's something else to consider as a direct owner trying to book a non home resort. As more and more contracts become resale over time, these contracts cannot trade out, therefore a resale BCV contract has to book there making it more difficult for a direct non BCV buyer being able to book at BCV. So it's a lose lose.

 

[rusafee1183]

Here's something else to consider as a direct owner trying to book a non home resort. As more and more contracts become resale over time, these contracts cannot trade out, therefore a resale BCV contract has to book there making it more difficult for a direct non BCV buyer being able to book at BCV. So it's a lose lose.

This is what I am the most concerned with. I bought direct, and part of the reason we bought at all was because of the flexibility. I want to stay at any and all resorts.

I bought where I would be happy to stay, but at this point if I don't book more than 7 months in advance I'M NOT GOING AT ALL.... ANYWHERE???

So, now if they restrict resale in this way - it will punish everyone not just resale buyers.

I know this makes me sound like a petulant child, but... How is that fair?

 

[Sammie]

Here's something else to consider as a direct owner trying to book a non home resort. As more and more contracts become resale over time, these contracts cannot trade out, therefore a resale BCV contract has to book there making it more difficult for a direct non BCV buyer being able to book at BCV. So it's a lose lose.

If they make these changes based on what the OP shared nothing will change for everyone that bought before the set date. They would be Grandfathered in.

It will be business as usual. The only thing it would affect, if this does happen that going forward if you want to stay at the Grand Floridian and any other future projects you are going to have to buy direct or already be a direct buyer to try and stay there at 7 months.

I can assure you if this change does happen it is all about limiting access to the GF and any future resorts to direct buyers only.

 

[rusafee1183]

If they make these changes based on what the OP shared nothing will change for everyone that bought before the set date. They would be Grandfathered in.

It will be business as usual. The only thing it would affect, if this does happen that going forward if you want to stay at the Grand Floridian and any other future projects you are going to have to buy direct or already be a direct buyer to try and stay there at 7 months.

I can assure you if this change does happen it is all about limiting access to the GF and any future resorts to direct buyers only.

But, if new resale buyers are restiricted to stay only where they buy - wouldn't that mean that there will be no/limited availability for non-owning direct or grandfathered owners to stay at a non-home resort? Since they will not have the 11 month booking window.

Does that make sense? I mean, I have a hard enough time booking at 7 months NOW, let alone trying at say...5 months or less at a resort that can ONLY be booked by owners.

This will make the "flexibility" that Disney preaches almost non existant IMO

I mean, don't get me wrong - I HOPE I am wrong on this one. But, it feels like it will be more and more difficult and the hopes of a "Hey, Southwest is having a great sale for travel next month" trips less and less likely. And that is disappointing to me if that ends up happening.

 

[bighoo93]

I can assure you if this change does happen it is all about limiting access to the GF and any future resorts to direct buyers only.

Exactly. So why not make the change I proposed earlier in this thread that restricted resale points for use only at resorts pre-GF?

 

[Sammie]

But, if new resale buyers are restiricted to stay only where they buy - wouldn't that mean that there will be no/limited availability for non-owning direct or grandfathered owners to stay at a non-home resort? Since they will not have the 11 month booking window.

Does that make sense? I mean, I have a hard enough time booking at 7 months NOW, let alone trying at say...5 months or less at a resort that can ONLY be booked by owners.

This will make the "flexibility" that Disney preaches almost non existant IMO

I mean, don't get me wrong - I HOPE I am wrong on this one. But, it feels like it will be more and more difficult and the hopes of a "Hey, Southwest is having a great sale for travel next month" trips less and less likely. And that is disappointing to me if that ends up happening.

There are only so many points sold to each resort. Whether you are now competing with an owner that bought direct or resale does not make any difference there are only so many points for each resort.

So if they grandfather you in, nothing changes to the current resorts. It could however affect future resorts based on how it is set up.

Where are you trying to book at 7 months and having problems, did you wait list. Certainly certain specific room categories such as Club Level, that are so few in number that even those booking at 11 months have problems, but for most of the rooms booking at 7 months and using wait list, is usually successful.

 

[Sammie]

Exactly. So why not make the change I proposed earlier in this thread that restricted resale points for use only at resorts pre-GF?

That would cover the problem of sales at new resorts. It is possible there is another problem they are trying to tweak and that could be cash reservations at other DVC resorts.

Doug mentioned it first.

So what is the problem that Disney wants to solve?
(1) Hitting their direct sales targets?
(2) Rentals taking away from their rack rate bookings?

If and this is still a big if, if they make changes, there is something they are trying to fix. Whether everyone agrees it needs fixing, maybe not. As someone else said they don't have to please all of us, there are a lot of members out there that won't care.

 

[DebbieB]

That would cover the problem of sales at new resorts. It is possible there is another problem they are trying to tweak and that could be cash reservations at other DVC resorts.

Doug mentioned it first.

If and this is still a big if, if they make changes, there is something they are trying to fix. Whether everyone agrees it needs fixing, maybe not. As someone else said they don't have to please all of us, there are a lot of members out there that won't care.

I saw over on the resorts board that CRO is offering free upgrades from values to OKW and SSR for this coming week. This seems to be happening more often, they figure at least it will open up a value room they can sell.

 

[tjkraz]

I think if they were going to make a change of this type, they'd be much more likely to keep everything the same, but offer an enhancement as a benefit -- like 7 months for everyone, as it is now; 8 months for "VIP" owners.

Agree. In many ways I'm surprised that hasn't happened yet. Wouldn't even have to amend the POS since it only guarantees a one month Home resort advantage. They could easily allow some group (presumably direct buyers) to book non-Home resorts at 10 months. Or they could take resale buyers to 11/6 or 11/5. Lots of wiggle room there.

Grand Floridian could conceivably have a different set of rules. I've been around long enough to follow similar discussions on every resort opening since AKV. There were people reporting / predicting / speculating that AKV, BLT, VGC and others would somehow be subject to different program rules or booking windows.

While I acknowledge there is much DVC could do, I'll believe it when I see it.

Disney's legal team can offer opinions based upon their interpretation of law. Accountants and actuaries can estimate the financial result of certain business decisions. But it's a little silly to put these groups on a pedestal and act as if everything they touch turns to gold. We really don't have to look far to find examples of Disney mis-reading it's customers.

These sorts of Guide-sourced rumors seem to pop up every few months. To date, none have really panned out.

 

[joeyrose]

Agree. In many ways I'm surprised that hasn't happened yet. Wouldn't even have to amend the POS since it only guarantees a one month Home resort advantage. They could easily allow some group (presumably direct buyers) to book non-Home resorts at 10 months. Or they could take resale buyers to 11/6 or 11/5. Lots of wiggle room there.

Grand Floridian could conceivably have a different set of rules. I've been around long enough to follow similar discussions on every resort opening since AKV. There were people reporting / predicting / speculating that AKV, BLT, VGC and others would somehow be subject to different program rules or booking windows.

While I acknowledge there is much DVC could do, I'll believe it when I see it.

Disney's legal team can offer opinions based upon their interpretation of law. Accountants and actuaries can estimate the financial result of certain business decisions. But it's a little silly to put these groups on a pedestal and act as if everything they touch turns to gold. We really don't have to look far to find examples of Disney mis-reading it's customers.

These sorts of Guide-sourced rumors seem to pop up every few months. To date, none have really panned out.

i heard that!

i'm saving my energy/time for something that is actually happening, not the closing-oriented pitches of dvc guides (abc...always be closing). too, i have never assumed that i'll always have the same booking perks that i have now...i bought where i want to stay and at multiple resorts.

 

[bighoo93]

i heard that!

i'm saving my energy/time for something that is actually happening, not the closing-oriented pitches of dvc guides (abc...always be closing).

Coffee is for closers...

 

[joeyrose]

Coffee is for closers...

 

[Jousey]

no~ anyone can see why changes are needed. there are
many other issues where dvc can protect their markets.

why grandfather the previous resales. it is within their
means. the current playing field has been out of balance
for us since we joined. like ssr owners, they don't need
to book @ 11mos when they are trying to move
during the 7mos.. and if their points go into a holding
account @ ssr, no problem getting your home resort.
but if you're a blt owner, you have no chance getting
your home resort. blt points are not the same as
ssr points. clearly blt owners are @ a disadvantage. so the
only question about "grandfathering" current resales depend
on if they are legally bound which they are not.
disney cares about their image, but the trend lately
are those taking advantage of disney instead of the
other way around. ( my observation was based on
how many posts about buying @ the lowest costs,
no matter what)

going down--how? what can resales people, already
paying less than half to 2/3, have any leverage on
buying direct ? now that there will be differences, will
they suddenly buy direct? i think not. they want the
cheapest but all the "perks".

legally, are owners shown why blt owners being
charge the biggest dues jump? i am questioning
this because blt was vandalized and the mangers let
the guilty get by with it. now if dvc making me pay
for others wrong doings, then i feel this is a tort.
to me, this has legal implications vs. "limiting" a resales
owner to the resort that they only paid 1/3 that
we did for blt.

if dvc asking me as a direct owner, i think this isn't the
best choice for changing. again, if i was a dvc official
with power, i would consider the possible effects
toward my company future. put all the issues on the
table and then do problem solving with those with
the higher priority (effecting incoming incomes) &
then look @ all the changes that can give the
greatest returns. in this situation, there are other
options that would be better for both groups. but
i am just observer & no dvc connections. either way,
i am for the changes.

i don't see any concerns with those only buying for the cheapest.
they will always be there & are predictable no matter the
changes. liked buying hh for $30 a point, compared to
what we paid for our 3 direct blt contacts? where should they
fall in comparison? just like renters and rci trade ins. there
isn't a big gain to consider the changes "effect" on these
groups because they are out to take advantage of direct
owners. however, where will the new owners buying
direct will come from ( what group)? even with all the
current problems, we only "see" direct being right for
us because money isn't the top priority. we feel paying
more to get what we want is. however, we are not
comfortable to recommend our friends from all current
problems where owners are being taken advantage.
( liked a 30 $ resale point getting a better room than
a blt point--and dvc know the difference but do nothing. )
with these issues finally getting some "needed" attentions,
does make us feel better in recommending new
customers toward dvc. and we only consider direct over
resales or rci, because we believe getting what you pay
for.

i remember a previous thread about why others brought
dvc. ours were not mentioned so i thought we were
off tract. but that was when i first started reading the
dvc posts, & then realizing the differences came from
our backgrounds being direct vs resales , resales &
rci owners.

i too , will be waiting to hear mr. dean's input. he has
demonstrated great accuracy & insights. but i also think
mr. sammie is on the right tract too. ( i give their
observations high merits. )

Well writen, I agree. I think the grandfathering should hapen but limit future resales. I too am direct and will most likely buy my next contract direct to get "what I want".

I would certainly trigger a legal challenge since that is a core component of the "club" and would be require a change to everyones "plan" which would clearly not be in the best interest of the majority of memebers (resale value damage). They certainly could initiate it with GF, but I think that would hurt its saleability significantly.

If they grandfather I see no issue with restricting future resales. The new owners must sign the paper work accepting the resale and Disney can restrict the sale if new owners fail to sign an areement to stay at thier home resort. Altimatly Disney owns and operates the resorts nad if they wanted to be real nasty they could requrie you to stay at you home resort in the room(s) you bought. This constitues a change in the way they want to do buisness and I am sure as you said it is not imposible to leagaly shut new resales out of the "club".

 

[Paula Sedley-Burke]

If this happens I think a lot of people will book their home resort at 11 months then try at 7 months elsewhere. If there is no availability you still have the original booking. There may be lots of switching around chaos at 7 months!