Ft. Wilderness Cabins becoming DVC?

[DonMacGregor]

Also, if you were going to jump through all these hoops to separate out bookable inventory, why not just make it a separate association in the first place…

Thank you.

 

[Sandisw]

So again, if that’s the case, why not just make it a separate association?

I am starting to believe that it leaves an out to get current PVB owners to potentially add-on whereas if it were two separate booking avenues, it would make no sense for a PVB1 owner to buy points.

Maybe they are trying to have their cake and eat it too?

I am thinking aobut this…when the meeting happened, the whole trust idea and documents had not yet been filed…so, when the question was asked about whether it would be new or part of PVB, they couldn’t answer “Well, we are doing this trust thing so it’s going to be part of that.

So, the best answer was “Our plan right now is….” because they won’t be making it a new association but a part of the trust.

And, if it is selling at the same time with CFW, and both end up with booking at both…which seems to be in the document language that can happen…it should sell just fine. Maybe they lose PVB 1 owners, but I’d venture they’d gain just as many as part of a trust.

I’d definitely consider it as a trust vs part of PVB only.

 

[BeachClub2014]

So again, if that’s the case, why not just make it a separate association?

No clue, other than for the reason that was previously shared that the Trust mechanism allows DVD to claw back points instead of the bankruptcy route. I think @Brian Noble spoke to that.

I am starting to believe that it leaves an out to get current PVB owners to potentially add-on whereas if it were two separate booking avenues, it would make no sense for a PVB1 owner to buy points.

I'm not sure that DVD is all that concerned about selling to legacy DVC members, whether they be PVB or other resorts. If I'm DVD, I'm making the Trust look as awesome as possible to help direct sales.

Maybe they are trying to have their cake and eat it too?

Lol, of course, they are!

 

[tidefan]

And, if it is selling at the same time with CFW, and both end up with booking at both…which seems to be in the document language that can happen…it should sell just fine. Maybe they lose PVB 1 owners, but I’d venture they’d gain just as many as part of a trust.

I’d definitely consider it as a trust vs part of PVB only.

I am not so sure about that. Can you imagine if they sell all of these people on the Polynesian tower, but yet have twice as many people that could book it that could actually get into the Polynesian tower? Oh, the popcorn we would all need to be enjoying as we read the threads here about how “I was promised I could get into the Poly, but I am stuck at Fort Wilderness”…

 

[tidefan]

I'm not sure that DVD is all that concerned about selling to legacy DVC members, whether they be PVB or other resorts. If I'm DVD, I'm making the Trust look as awesome as possible to help direct sales.

I think they should be very concerned about selling the current DVC members. Someone did an excellent analysis on VDH that showed that at least 40% of the total sales, based on them being sold during the member preview period are to existing members.

Seems to me that’s a large chunk of business to be ignoring…

 

[Jlo85]

I posted the contract language from PVB. They can add new units to the same assocation under a different vacation plan…so any booking rights would not be guaranteed to any PVB owners since their rights to book units only apply to those declared as part of the original ownership plan.

And, all Chang said was “the plan right now is it would be part of PVB…she never said that it would be sold the same way, or sold with the same rules.

I know some have thought that “right now” language was meaningless,,,,I am not convinced it was.

Isn't that boilerplate language in all of the contracts? I think it's a stretch to infer they'll do something weird now with this.

I think they can implement a trust and resale restrictions on trust points. But trying to limit the Poly Tower to direct-only, personally is a stretch for me. Might be hard to access with all those points tied up in the trust that resale owners won't have access to. But outright prohibiting resale owners, to me, would not be in the spirit of Cheng's statement.

 

[Sandisw]

I think they should be very concerned about selling the current DVC members. Someone did an excellent analysis on VDH that showed that at least 40% of the total sales, based on them being sold during the member preview period are to existing members.

Seems to me that’s a large chunk of business to be ignoring…

Except there was some data I read years ago that the bulk of sales is to new buyers and not current owners,

And, you are considering only those current owners at PVB who might not buy the tower if it doesn’t give them 11 month booking rights.

But, there are a lot more owners out there who don’t own at PVB and want it and will buy the tower regardless. Plus, you make it part of the trust and someone buying it gets the 11 month booking there and as an added bonus at CFW too?

That is why I keep leaning toward maybe we are in for a surprise for the tower. People have said they didn’t think CFW would sell that great, but if it’s packaged with Poly tower?

Let’s hope we get the answer with filed documents in the next 6 months!

 

[BeachClub2014]

I think they should be very concerned about selling the current DVC members. Someone did an excellent analysis on VDH that showed that at least 40% of the total sales, based on them being sold during the member preview period are to existing members.

Seems to me that’s a large chunk of business to be ignoring…

I hear you and I don't think they are ignoring us completely. I just think they aren't going to make major policy decisions based on what some legacy owners may want to see. I can understand that PVB1 owners may want it one way, but Riviera owners may want it the exact opposite way. Given the diversity of opinion on how any policy should work, the safe bet for DVD is to determine which route sells the most direct points, and they've got a pretty good track record in doing so.

 

[Sandisw]

Isn't that boilerplate language in all of the contracts? I think it's a stretch to infer they'll do something weird now with this.

I think they can implement a trust and resale restrictions on trust points. But trying to limit the Poly Tower to direct-only, personally is a stretch for me. Might be hard to access with all those points tied up in the trust that resale owners won't have access to. But outright prohibiting resale owners, to me, would not be in the spirit of Cheng's statement.

I didn’t say direct only…if I did I misspoke, I meant they can add the tower via PVB to the trust under a new vacation plan…meaning Changs statement remains technically true.

But, the new vacation plan for the tower could then be activated into the trust and the PVB owners don’t have access to those units until 7 months like everyone else…

And why now? Because it’s being built now and the trust is being created…so yes, I think there is a lot that has happened since the DVC meeting that could end up seeing things not as clear cut regarding the tower.

Obviously, we won’t know, but you do have to wonder why DVC won’t answer questions about it or even confirm that Chang said what she said.

I know this is speculation but the point is that language does exist that seems to make it possible…where I once didn’t think there was.

 

[BeachClub2014]

I didn’t say direct only…if I did I misspoke, I meant they can add the tower via PVB to the trust under a new vacation plan…meaning Changs statement remains technically true.

But, the new vacation plan for the tower could then be activated into the trust and the PVB owners don’t have access to those units until 7 months like everyone else…

And why now? Because it’s being built now and the trust is being created…so yes, I think there is a lot that has happened since the DVC meeting that could end up seeing things not as clear cut regarding the tower.

Obviously, we won’t know, but you do have to wonder why DVC won’t answer questions about it or even confirm that Chang said what she said.

I know this is speculation but the point is that language does exist that seems to make it possible…where I once didn’t think there was.

I would also add, that if the Tower plan all along has been to just add it to the existing association, with all the same legacy rules and no restrictions, why not just say so from day one? Like they did with the VGF expansion. They didn't and the now famous non-answer, answer given by Yvonne Chang didn't exactly settle the issue.

 

[Jlo85]

But, the new vacation plan for the tower could then be activated into the trust and the PVB owners don’t have access to those units until 7 months like everyone else…

I would think BOTH PVB and Trust-buyers get 11-Months to all of Poly. Just each is limited based on the points declared to PVB vs the Trust. So, basically, PVB will be limited by the 4M points already declared into PVB. Would the agreement not support that arrangement?

 

[tidefan]

I hear you and I don't think they are ignoring us completely. I just think they aren't going to make major policy decisions based on what some legacy owners may want to see. I can understand that PVB1 owners may want it one way, but Riviera owners may want it the exact opposite way. Given the diversity of opinion on how any policy should work, the safe bet for DVD is to determine which route sells the most direct points, and they've got a pretty good track record in doing so.

I guess as a PVB1 owner, my concern has nothing to do with access to the Tower (I’d rather be in the larger Longhouse studios). My concern is if they have it set up as one association to stick the original PVB1 owners with dues increases that are incurred by the tower…

 

[BeachClub2014]

I guess as a PVB1 owner, my concern has nothing to do with access to the Tower (I’d rather be in the larger Longhouse studios). My concern is if they have it set up as one association to stick the original PVB1 owners with dues increases that are incurred by the tower…

I think we will continue to have a lot of really interesting discussions until DVD shows their next card, and then we'll have a whole new round of debates! That's what makes it fun.

 

[New Mouse]

I am not so sure about that. Can you imagine if they sell all of these people on the Polynesian tower, but yet have twice as many people that could book it that could actually get into the Polynesian tower? Oh, the popcorn we would all need to be enjoying as we read the threads here about how “I was promised I could get into the Poly, but I am stuck at Fort Wilderness”…

While there is certainly a crowd for FW I couldn't imagine it will be an easy sell at current DVC prices. It lacks way too much compared to a Deluxe

 

[KimMcGowan]

All I really want to know is how does all of this affect my ability at 11 months to book a longhouse?

 

[Sandisw]

I would think BOTH PVB and Trust-buyers get 11-Months to all of Poly. Just each is limited based on the points declared to PVB vs the Trust. So, basically, PVB will be limited by the 4M points already declared into PVB. Would the agreement not support that arrangement?

I do not think the trust owners can be given 11 month booking at PVB because they are not owners of PVB.

Current PVB owners who have a deeded interest in the actual property are guaranteed the the only ones who can book those rooms declared now are actual owners. So, thst leaves trust beneficiaries out.

The only way PVB owners would have a guaranteed right to the Poly tower rooms is if they are declared as new to PVB via the same vacation plan that currently exists.

Any units activated into the trust are subject to the trust POS and that resort properties RTU plan.

So, that’s where it gets tricky. As I continue to read, I am leaning more now. The reason is that if trust beneficiaries can’t book PVB rooms since they are not owners, then allowing PVB owners booking access during home resort creates a greater than 1:1 point to inventory ratio for the trust owned property.

Thst is why IF they decide to surprise everyone and incorporate the Poly tower units under the trust, I have to believe they will keep it as clean as possible.

As I have said, let’s really hope we get some documents for the tower in the next few months!

 

[Sandisw]

All I really want to know is how does all of this affect my ability at 11 months to book a longhouse?

If you own direct points or resale prior to 2019x you have “good to go” days!!!! Lol

 

[CarolynFH]

Let me try to add something to the discussion of whether Poly Tower Trust owners could book PVB bungalows or studios at 11 months and vice versa. I know that some Club Wyndham resorts are a mixture of Select (deeded) and Access (trust) timeshare units and that the proportion of Select to Access units varies across those resorts. On TUG I've seen repeated comments from those I consider Wyndham experts (longtime owners) in response to someone asking about booking a given resort that if they're trying to book with Access points (trust points), it will be difficult because only a very small percentage of units at that resort are in the Access trust, most are still in the Select deeded ownership, and those Select deeded units are booked by those owners before the Access owners can get them. So it seems that inventory is sequestered, and Access points can't book Select units until a later date than Select owners. I don't know that DVC will structure their trust vs. deeded that way, but if they do, then Poly Tower Trust owners might not have access to PVB bungalows or studios until 7 months, and PVB owners might not have access to Poly Tower units until 7 months. But at the same time, owners of Trust points from CFW might have access to Poly Tower at 11 months - which is consistent with the question posed in the survey way back in late November/early December.

 

[CarolynFH]

Not having read the documents . . . are all 30 cabins going to be available as pet-friendly? Or will there be only a certain amount designated for that purpose? Our daughter has severe dog allergies, so we would never stay in a unit where a dog has been, no matter how well it was cleaned.

I know your question was answered much earlier, but I wanted to point out that the current dog-friendly cabins at FW are limited to certain specific loop(s), and dogs aren't placed in just any cabin anywhere. So it should be easy to avoid being placed in a dog-friendly cabin. OTOH, if someone has a service dog, I don't know whether they might be placed in a "regular" cabin or would be placed specifically in the dog-friendly loop. Just like service dogs are allowed in any resort room at WDW and are not restricted to the pet-friendly resorts and rooms.

 

[maui22]

If tower is declared into trust but part of PVB, wouldn‘t it likely have same policy of RIV, AUL, and VDH if they declared all undeclared inventory for those resorts as part of trust?

Cant imagine they would want to say you cant stay on upper floors (if that is what hasn’t been declared). Seems it would cause some uncomfortable conversations at the hot tub.

Seems strange Disney would have waited for CFW if they knew this was the plan. Seems they should have done this with RIV prior to December declaration. VDH not selling well after the initial owners sales (based on analysis someone posted earlier).