I suspect Riviera must not be selling as well as they hoped it would

[LAX]

DVC just sent the marketing material for purchasing Rivera to my 8 year old niece! Maybe sales are slow if they need to entice pre-teens to buy in

That's shrewd marketing, IMHO. Who has been buying toys/entertainments for your 8 year old niece? Her parents/grandparents, of course. Who is going to open the checkbook/wallet when your 8 year niece old makes a wish to see Mickey & Friends on her next 50 birthdays!

LAX

 

[dumaresq]

It's all a business decision. They won't remove the restrictions unless sales are hurt, since I suspect most people buy direct without thinking it as much as they should. Most of the direct sales won't even be aware that this DVC is different. This means that Disney won't notice a sales problem. Obviously those owners that already own DVC from the resale market, or have sold on resale will know better and might not buy (or buy less) but I suspect that number is so small compared to the people that buy knowing nothing, that it simply won't have an impact.

The real question is what Disney will do in 2042 when some of the resorts are gone (if they don't get extended). The people who bought resale at SSR BLT AKL etc will still be looking for rooms but there will be less rooms available, to them. This is when I think they will need to do something. Mind you I guess anyone that bought resale at the new resorts will already have this problem as they will only be able to book at there own resort... I don't know how that plays out at all...

 

[OUjenny21]

I know but man, the wording in this new Riviera contract I just got is crazy! I was ready to sign on the dotted line knowing in advance about the resale restrictions. But the verbiage in the contract doesn't even mention buying into a multi-site time share... it's like they could remove the entire DVC resort "Club" connection from Riviera if they wanted. THAT terrifies me. Not that it would be smart for them to do that, but if they thought they could so severely restrict the O14 and start with a new "club" for new resorts then maybe they would try. I feel like what I might buy with Riviera restrictions is so uncertain and it's that uncertainty that is keeping me from signing as a new buyer!

 

[TexasChick123]

I know but man, the wording in this new Riviera contract I just got is crazy! I was ready to sign on the dotted line knowing in advance about the resale restrictions. But the verbiage in the contract doesn't even mention buying into a multi-site time share... it's like they could remove the entire DVC resort "Club" connection from Riviera if they wanted. THAT terrifies me. Not that it would be smart for them to do that, but if they thought they could so severely restrict the O14 and start with a new "club" for new resorts then maybe they would try. I feel like what I might buy with Riviera restrictions is so uncertain and it's that uncertainty that is keeping me from signing as a new buyer!

There are a lot of good threads talking about any material differences in the Riviera docs versus others. You’ll find that most of the language is the same for all of the resorts except those things that you know about already. They can remove any of the resorts from “the club”. They have purposefully left all the language very developer friendly. This language really started with VGF apparently, and has continued with Poly, CCV, and Riviera.

 

[DougEMG]

... because there is zero chance that we'll even be alive when the Riviera contracts expire...

I didn't buy into DVC until my late 40s. Owning DVC was very low on the priority list compared to mortgages, college tuition, retirement saving, etc so I didn't buy until I had money too spare/waste. So I'd be lucky to be alive with a 50 year contract, let alone able to visit WDW. So what 20 year old is going to be able to buy DVC and get 50 years of use out of it. Not many. So eventually most people will have to sell or pass it on to adult children who want and can afford the points. DVC knows how long the average members owns for and knows that the resale restrictions will effect price and thus will effect their customers eventually, but right now they don't care, sad!

 

[DougEMG]

I was told this week I could buy 75 points direct on Saratoga as new to DVC, so it’s not just Riviera.

Maybe they want to increase the demand for studios to give them more data to increase the lock-off premium

 

[crvetter]

There are a lot of good threads talking about any material differences in the Riviera docs versus others. You’ll find that most of the language is the same for all of the resorts except those things that you know about already. They can remove any of the resorts from “the club”. They have purposefully left all the language very developer friendly. This language really started with VGF apparently, and has continued with Poly, CCV, and Riviera.

I actually thought the language for removing a resort from the club has the same language for the most part in the DVC Resort Agreement. At least the Boulder Ridge/Boardwalk one seems the same to CCV and Riviera. I’m referring to Section 6.3 (6.2 for Riviera) and Section 8 (excluding 8.9 and 8.10 which seem new) of the DVC Resort Agreement each seems similar. Perhaps I’m missing how the methods for deleting/removing a resort has changed. I ask out of curiosity, if it’s defined in another section of the POS because this discussion has piqued my curiosity.

While it does say they can remove a resort, I think, the poster can think of it like a “nuclear” option (if they can do it the reasons seem pretty strict) and would destroy the product they selling direct (where the resale restrictions have a strong argument for increasing the appeal of direct relative to resale, right or wrong). Plus they will always want those monorail resorts as a selling feature so while they exist I don’t see them removing any resort. So fingers crossed they never do it.

 

[OUjenny21]

I actually thought the language for removing a resort from the club has the same language for the most part in the DVC Resort Agreement. At least the Boulder Ridge/Boardwalk one seems the same to CCV and Riviera. I’m referring to Section 6.3 (6.2 for Riviera) and Section 8 (excluding 8.9 and 8.10 which seem new) of the DVC Resort Agreement each seems similar. Perhaps I’m missing how the methods for deleting/removing a resort has changed. I ask out of curiosity, if it’s defined in another section of the POS because this discussion has piqued my curiosity.

While it does say they can remove a resort, I think, the poster can think of it like a “nuclear” option (if they can do it the reasons seem pretty strict) and would destroy the product they selling direct (where the resale restrictions have a strong argument for increasing the appeal of direct relative to resale, right or wrong). Plus they will always want those monorail resorts as a selling feature so while they exist I don’t see them removing any resort. So fingers crossed they never do it.

In the other POS guides, one of the first things mentioned is the buy into a "multi-site" timeshare. That phrase is never mentioned even once in the Riviera POS. It refers to the same "Club" but also says even direct purchasers can have the ability to trade points at other DVC resorts taken away at any time. The older contracts absolutely don't say that they won't be able to trade at all with other existing Club resorts. In fact, they say that if a member is in good standing, that all ownership interests transfer upon a sale and the new member is immediately part of the "Club". So if those older contracts and deeds say they can trade at any "Club" resort... how can DVD strip that away from resale contracts when that is what the purchase was? That is directly in contradiction to what the older contracts state. Does that make sense? As far as destroying their direct sell-ability... it seems to me that they are already doing that. I'm not sure they have legal grounds to take away access to Club DVC resorts on resale contracts. However, by requiring all new Riviera owners to sign away resale access to other DVC resorts, they are effectively the ONLY group of contracts that is signing into the madness that has been created in the last 3 months. All others at least have grounds for debate. Even current direct contracts for Aulani and CCV don't include that verbiage. If DVD was really just trying to dissuade re-sale, why wouldn't they alter the direct CCV and Aulani member agreements when they are altering all resale and all new Riviera member agreements? Why ONLY Riviera? It just doesn't make sense to me unless there is something else going on. Only time will tell, but for now, it has me 90% decided against buying Riviera direct.

There are a lot of good threads talking about any material differences in the Riviera docs versus others. You’ll find that most of the language is the same for all of the resorts except those things that you know about already. They can remove any of the resorts from “the club”. They have purposefully left all the language very developer friendly. This language really started with VGF apparently, and has continued with Poly, CCV, and Riviera.

I have been looking for the threads on this and haven't found any. Is there a way you can link them here?

 

[crvetter]

In the other POS guides, one of the first things mentioned is the buy into a "multi-site" timeshare. That phrase is never mentioned even once in the Riviera POS. It refers to the same "Club" but also says even direct purchasers can have the ability to trade points at other DVC resorts taken away at any time. The older contracts absolutely don't say that they won't be able to trade at all with other existing Club resorts. In fact, they say that if a member is in good standing, that all ownership interests transfer upon a sale and the new member is immediately part of the "Club". So if those older contracts and deeds say they can trade at any "Club" resort... how can DVD strip that away from resale contracts when that is what the purchase was? That is directly in contradiction to what the older contracts state. Does that make sense? As far as destroying their direct sell-ability... it seems to me that they are already doing that. I'm not sure they have legal grounds to take away access to Club DVC resorts on resale contracts. However, by requiring all new Riviera owners to sign away resale access to other DVC resorts, they are effectively the ONLY group of contracts that is signing into the madness that has been created in the last 3 months. All others at least have grounds for debate. Even current direct contracts for Aulani and CCV don't include that verbiage. If DVD was really just trying to dissuade re-sale, why wouldn't they alter the direct CCV and Aulani member agreements when they are altering all resale and all new Riviera member agreements? Why ONLY Riviera? It just doesn't make sense to me unless there is something else going on. Only time will tell, but for now, it has me 90% decided against buying Riviera direct.



I have been looking for the threads on this and haven't found any. Is there a way you can link them here?

I was explicitly commenting on your concerns about them deleting an entire resort, since you seemed concerned if you bought Riviera direct they would delete the entire resort and you as a direct owner wouldn’t have access to the club anymore. Is there a section, other than by deleting the resort, that explains how they can remove a direct owners access to the DVC Reservation Component? My comment was to say the way they can remove an entire resort hasn’t changed in any way since the beginning of the club and if they intended on that being exercised I would have expected to see some softening of the language in the sections I quoted but they have remained the similar.

The resale restrictions are defined in a completely different section of the DVR Resort Agreement. I don’t think we will ever see them removing any resort without some major problem (catastrophe eminent domain, etc). Once they remove a resort then direct sales will probably hurt very quickly for a long long time. It’s not something that will be erased from the memory easily.

As for the language you say they included only in Riviera I assume you explicitly mean the resale restriction section of the DVC Resort Agreement? As there hasn’t been much changed aside from that from the prior resorts. I don’t think there is anything else going on other than increasing the perceived value of buying direct over resale. When a direct purchaser mentions about resale they simply say well we give you this over resale. Also they didn’t need to adjust the other resorts (CCV and Aulani) and can’t because they were admitted to the club prior to the change. The change was only necessary in Riviera because the resort was admitted under its own terms and conditions and the restrictions are Riviera specific from a legal perspective. I will say my purchase agreement did say I was only buying a real estate interes in CCV and only had guaranteed access to CCV and older (Riviera and future were called out not to buy with an expectation of access).

I mean I do think DVC was misguided in the change of the business as usual and you are right to be skeptical of DVC but I mean to only say I don’t see them ever taking away the DVC reservation component from a direct owner by deleting a resort, likely the only way for all existing resorts and including Riviera because no language, except though deletion, gives a way for them to.

 

[TexasChick123]

I have been looking for the threads on this and haven't found any. Is there a way you can link them here?

https://www.disboards.com/threads/multi-site-pos-revision-dated-01-19-19.3734585/

We’ll hear from you in a week when you come up for air from reading this doozy.

 

[TexasChick123]

I actually thought the language for removing a resort from the club has the same language for the most part in the DVC Resort Agreement. At least the Boulder Ridge/Boardwalk one seems the same to CCV and Riviera. I’m referring to Section 6.3 (6.2 for Riviera) and Section 8 (excluding 8.9 and 8.10 which seem new) of the DVC Resort Agreement each seems similar. Perhaps I’m missing how the methods for deleting/removing a resort has changed. I ask out of curiosity, if it’s defined in another section of the POS because this discussion has piqued my curiosity.

While it does say they can remove a resort, I think, the poster can think of it like a “nuclear” option (if they can do it the reasons seem pretty strict) and would destroy the product they selling direct (where the resale restrictions have a strong argument for increasing the appeal of direct relative to resale, right or wrong). Plus they will always want those monorail resorts as a selling feature so while they exist I don’t see them removing any resort. So fingers crossed they never do it.

There was different language starting with VGF about something. What that “thing” is, I cannot remember because I’ve read so much over the last few months. I’m drawing a complete blank. I know something was written which was more favorable for DVD changing terms. Maybe someone else remembers. Sorry. I know this isn’t helpful at all. I’m feeling pretty brain dead regarding DVC after these last few months.

 

[crvetter]

There was different language starting with VGF about something. What that “thing” is, I cannot remember because I’ve read so much over the last few months. I’m drawing a complete blank. I know something was written which was more favorable for DVD changing terms. Maybe someone else remembers. Sorry. I know this isn’t helpful at all. I’m feeling pretty brain dead regarding DVC after these last few months.

You’ve got me curious now so I’ll have to take a look to see if I can spot it at some point. I’m sure you are absolutely correct I just am missing it when I skim through.

 

[TexasChick123]

You’ve got me curious now so I’ll have to take a look to see if I can spot it at some point. I’m sure you are absolutely correct I just am missing it when I skim through.

I may have read it on another message board too FYI.

 

[TexasChick123]

https://www.disboards.com/threads/multi-site-pos-revision-dated-01-19-19.3734585/

We’ll hear from you in a week when you come up for air from reading this doozy.

The lawsuit thread is good too, but I know they’re both very, very long. I pop in to read from time to time, but I’ve followed from the beginning and even gotten worked up a time or two over there. :/

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

There was different language starting with VGF about something. What that “thing” is, I cannot remember because I’ve read so much over the last few months. I’m drawing a complete blank. I know something was written which was more favorable for DVD changing terms. Maybe someone else remembers. Sorry. I know this isn’t helpful at all. I’m feeling pretty brain dead regarding DVC after these last few months.

You don’t mean the language about the lockoffs premium do you? That’s the main thing I recall being talked about as being worded differently starting with VGF.

 

[OUjenny21]

https://www.disboards.com/threads/multi-site-pos-revision-dated-01-19-19.3734585/

We’ll hear from you in a week when you come up for air from reading this doozy.

HAHA, I'm on it! I just think they are going to realize they don't have grounds for the resale changes against how those contracts were initially sold, and the only solution to the problem is to take Riviera out of the Club and create a DVC2 in some way. I saw someone was already told that Riviera was advertised by the guide as "not part of the club" recently when it in fact says it is part of the club but with different restrictions. The only way their resale restrictions can be upheld is if they take Riviera out...

I'm done speculating though... it's exhausting. Either way, don't feel confident enough to pull the trigger on Riviera now.

 

[TexasChick123]

You don’t mean the language about the lockoffs premium do you? That’s the main thing I recall being talked about as being worded differently starting with VGF.

Honestly, it could be anything. I’m drawing a blank because it’s late. Super helpful, right? That very well could be it.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

HAHA, I'm on it! I just think they are going to realize they don't have grounds for the resale changes against how those contracts were initially sold, and the only solution to the problem is to take Riviera out of the Club and create a DVC2 in some way. I saw someone was already told that Riviera was advertised by the guide as "not part of the club" recently when it in fact says it is part of the club but with different restrictions. The only way their resale restrictions can be upheld is if they take Riviera out...

I'm done speculating though... it's exhausting. Either way, don't feel confident enough to pull the trigger on Riviera now.

There are several of us who thought Riviera would have to be the start of DVCII and I still don’t see how it can be added and have the resale restrictions added to the existing 14 to disallow trading to Riviera. From the language you describe in the sales contract it almost seems like DVC is covering their bases in case it is challenged and decided that they can’t include it. They can just refer to the contract if Riviera buyers are not happy about that.

 

[TexasChick123]

There are several of us who thought Riviera would have to be the start of DVCII and I still don’t see how it can be added and have the resale restrictions added to the existing 14 to disallow trading to Riviera. From the language you describe in the sales contract it almost seems like DVC is covering their bases in case it is challenged and decided that they can’t include it. They can just refer to the contract if Riviera buyers are not happy about that.

I wish they would’ve started a DVC 2. That would’ve at least made sense...

They could’ve even said all resale purchases prior to January 19, 2019 are grandfathered. Going forward, only direct can trade into DVC 1 and DVC 2.

 

[ozliz]

I bought SSR resale to save money. The plan was always to buy a small direct contract when I worked out where I liked for home resort priority but CCV and Poly are too hard to get studios due to the large points allocations to the cabins. One of the things I like best about owning at a less popular resort is that I’m not tied to the 11 month window and can often swap dates at 8 or 9 months when I’m looking at airfares. I was considering Riviera but aside from the risk to resale value, I’m also concerned about the potential long term effects when people can only book at Riviera if they’re resale buyers. Without the movement at the 7 month window it much become impossible to book at any time other than 11 months and I’ve never had a boss willing to regularly approve my leave that far in advance.