Idea - 50/50 direct/resale to remove restrictions.

[RoseGold]

I’ve spent a lot of time reading about DVC, and have been confused on a couple of areas. Was DVC legally obligated to keep resale points purchased prior to 2019 unrestricted or could they change policy and make all resale points ineligible at new resorts?

The same question in regards to contracts that are grandfathered in with benefits. Could DVD change things to make all owners blue card members and make benefits in tiers based on number of direct points owned? I know it wouldn’t seem fair to many, but would it be legal?

The grandfathering might be related to the disclosures and advertising at the time. That has been more than corrected in modern resale.

The O14 have rules that establish what they can do, and to them, direct points are the same as resale. Home points and away points are not. Example: VGF could charge 20% more for non-VGF points. But, it couldn't single out just resale points or just SSR points.

I haven't actually seen the RIV documents, but my understanding is that even RIV doesn't have the structure to discriminate on your ratio or point count or whatever, just the points you are using on that reservation.

To me, "all future resorts" is far too large. I think it's fair to say DL Tower and Poly2 will be in DVC. But they don't have to be. No reason that future resorts couldn't be DVC2, which has nothing to do with DVC and can do whatever it wants. And after all the RIV shenanigans, I wouldn't put it past them. Or, even if they are DVC, they can still charge a huge premium for non-home points.

 

[Sandisw]

I’ve spent a lot of time reading about DVC, and have been confused on a couple of areas. Was DVC legally obligated to keep resale points purchased prior to 2019 unrestricted or could they change policy and make all resale points ineligible at new resorts?

The same question in regards to contracts that are grandfathered in with benefits. Could DVD change things to make all owners blue card members and make benefits in tiers based on number of direct points owned? I know it wouldn’t seem fair to many, but would it be legal?

IMO, I think they had to legally so they could amend the multi site POS and the rules in BVTC without owners saying it was a material change to the contract and thus required a vote.

There are owners out there who believe it should not been allowed to gave RIV enter with different trading rules. But, by grandfathering in owners, I think DVD believes that they have followed al legal rules.

Benefits are not guaranteed and not part of the contrac so all bets are off there. All they need to do is discontinue the membership extra program and create a new one with a new name with the same and other benefits.

More likely, I think they would just leave it, but create a higher tier of benefits, paid or otherwise, that have a different minimum. Since it woul be new, there would be no grandfathering.

For example, those with a blue card still get TOTWL and some discounts, but if you own more direct points, you get a gold card with better ones.

Just my guess. But it is why, when buying direct, no one should buy only for perks. It’s like a lottery ticket. It makes you eligible for whatever is offered. Resale prevents you from even buying that ticket.

Now, restrictions o use of points is not a perk and is not tied to number of points. It’s part of the POS and based on how RIV entered into BVTC, as well as how future resorts will enter.

DVD can change that at anytime, but until they do, those are the current rules.

 

[Sandisw]

The grandfathering might be related to the disclosures and advertising at the time. That has been more than corrected in modern resale.

The O14 have rules that establish what they can do, and to them, direct points are the same as resale. Home points and away points are not. Example: VGF could charge 20% more for non-VGF points. But, it couldn't single out just resale points or just SSR points.

I haven't actually seen the RIV documents, but my understanding is that even RIV doesn't have the structure to discriminate on your ratio or point count or whatever, just the points you are using on that reservation.

To me, "all future resorts" is far too large. I think it's fair to say DL Tower and Poly2 will be in DVC. But they don't have to be. No reason that future resorts couldn't be DVC2, which has nothing to do with DVC and can do whatever it wants. And after all the RIV shenanigans, I wouldn't put it past them. Or, even if they are DVC, they can still charge a huge premium for non-home points.

Both those projects have been announced to be part of DVC. Whether the add restrictions is a different decision but as of now, they are going to be part of DVC.

 

[achinforsomebacon]

I’ve spent a lot of time reading about DVC, and have been confused on a couple of areas. Was DVC legally obligated to keep resale points purchased prior to 2019 unrestricted or could they change policy and make all resale points ineligible at new resorts?

I think the more important question is if what they did with the RIV restrictions was legal to begin with. As Sandisw pointed out, there are differing opinions on this.

There are owners out there who believe it should not been allowed to gave RIV enter with different trading rules. But, by grandfathering in owners, I think DVD believes that they have followed al legal rules.

There's no doubt in my mind that they want to keep the restrictions. I think the only thing that would stop them is if they HAD to remove them for legal reasons.

 

[havoc315]

The grandfathering might be related to the disclosures and advertising at the time. That has been more than corrected in modern resale.

The O14 have rules that establish what they can do, and to them, direct points are the same as resale. Home points and away points are not. Example: VGF could charge 20% more for non-VGF points. But, it couldn't single out just resale points or just SSR points.

I haven't actually seen the RIV documents, but my understanding is that even RIV doesn't have the structure to discriminate on your ratio or point count or whatever, just the points you are using on that reservation.

To me, "all future resorts" is far too large. I think it's fair to say DL Tower and Poly2 will be in DVC. But they don't have to be. No reason that future resorts couldn't be DVC2, which has nothing to do with DVC and can do whatever it wants. And after all the RIV shenanigans, I wouldn't put it past them. Or, even if they are DVC, they can still charge a huge premium for non-home points.

A disconnected "DVC2" will never ever happen. It's legality would be questionable but more critically, it would provide zero benefit to Disney.
Say Disney builds a new "vacation club resort" at Disneyland... They start selling points...
From their own sales perspective, what's going to be more valuable --- "Buy into this new resort, and you can use your points at over 15 other existing resorts!"
Or -- "Buy into this new resort and the points are not currently valid at any other resorts, but we might build more resorts where your points might be valid in the future. But at any time, we can start a DVC3 and then you won't get any more resorts."

There would be no benefit to Disney to starting a DVC2. It would make DVC less valuable. It would be like building a 5th gate at Disneyworld but telling the visitors that they aren't allowed to visit Disney's other 4 theme parks the same year that they visit the new theme park. It would be like a runner getting half-way through a marathon, but then deciding to go back to the starting line.

You already have people saying they wouldn't buy RIviera direct because the re-sale points are restricted. What would the benefit to Disney be, to sell restricted DIRECT points??

The value in a "club" is the size of the club. The more properties DVC has, the more valuable it is to new buyers. It's a very attractive part of the sales pitch for DVC that, "and you can use your points to stay at our Hawaii resort!"

It's possible that Disney stops building DVC.. Maybe they do a completely different timeshare model, where points are not tradeable. Maybe they move towards the Condotel model.
But as long as they keep the basic DVC model of a points-based vacation club, they aren't going to start over with a DVC2.

 

[RoseGold]

A disconnected "DVC2" will never ever happen. It's legality would be questionable but more critically, it would provide zero benefit to Disney.
Say Disney builds a new "vacation club resort" at Disneyland... They start selling points...
From their own sales perspective, what's going to be more valuable --- "Buy into this new resort, and you can use your points at over 15 other existing resorts!"
Or -- "Buy into this new resort and the points are not currently valid at any other resorts, but we might build more resorts where your points might be valid in the future. But at any time, we can start a DVC3 and then you won't get any more resorts."

You could still have a system that "has access," but for poor value. They sell the heck of out of using your points on cruises and RCI or whatever it is now.

After RIV, it's clear Disney is willing to make new rules that help Disney.

 

[Brian Noble]

Other developers have created legally separate clubs which happen to grant exchange privileges only to certain owners. To the "blessed" owners, it looks like one unified club, but to the others it looks like resorts you can't book. Wyndham does this with their Presidential Reserve and Margaritaville products, which are incorporated in the overall Club Wyndham, but only sort of. I think they've mostly abandoned the PR product, but they are still developing and selling the Margaritaville product, most recently in Atlanta.

The advantage to this is that new buyers still see the "big resort system" of "internal" possibilities (that aren't, technically, internal) but the unwashed masses can't cross over. So, sales retains the advantage of a single club without being hamstrung by it. Disney has not done anything like this yet (as far as I know I don't think RIV is structured this way) but they certainly could if they decided they wanted to.

This is also the way that the Wyndham/WorldMark and Hilton/Diamond mergers have been handled. Only developer points in Wyndham/WorldMark can be used to book crossover reservations, and only after the in-system bookings have a head start. For Hilton/Diamond, owners have to pay to join the "new" crossover exchange system.

 

[havoc315]

You could still have a system that "has access," but for poor value. They sell the heck of out of using your points on cruises and RCI or whatever it is now.

After RIV, it's clear Disney is willing to make new rules that help Disney.

Absolutely -- Rules that help Disney. Starting a new DVC2, that cuts off DVC1 -- That would HURT Disney. You want to make direct purchase MORE valuable, not less.
Build a new resort -- Add it to regular DVC -- You thereby increase the value of DVC, you increase the potential pricing of DVC, all at NO additional cost to Disney.
Build a new resort -- And use it to launch "DVC2" entirely cut off from regular DVC -- You thereby DECREASE the value of both DVC1 and DVC2, you DECREASE the potential direct pricing of DVC, all while you increase Disney's costs (having to administer a whole second system).

So which would make sense -- The path that increases profits without additional costs to Disney, or the path that decreases profits while imposing additional costs to Disney...

 

[havoc315]

Other developers have created legally separate clubs which happen to grant exchange privileges only to certain owners. To the "blessed" owners, it looks like one unified club, but to the others it looks like resorts you can't book. Wyndham does this with their Presidential Reserve and Margaritaville products, which are incorporated in the overall Club Wyndham, but only sort of. I think they've mostly abandoned the PR product, but they are still developing and selling the Margaritaville product, most recently in Atlanta.

Yes, and for Disney, such a system is the "blessed" owners are the direct buyers. The "unblessed" are the re-sale buyers.

The advantage to this is that new buyers still see the "big resort system" of "internal" possibilities (that aren't, technically, internal) but the unwashed masses can't cross over. So, sales retains the advantage of a single club without being hamstrung by it. Disney has not done anything like this yet (as far as I know I don't think RIV is structured this way) but they certainly could if they decided they wanted to.

This is also the way that the Wyndham/WorldMark and Hilton/Diamond mergers have been handled. Only developer points in Wyndham/WorldMark can be used to book crossover reservations, and only after the in-system bookings have a head start. For Hilton/Diamond, owners have to pay to join the "new" crossover exchange system.

Disney already does their own version. First, the distinction between direct and re-sale. Second, the distinction between home resort at 11 months and trading at 7 months. You really only have "rights" at your home resort -- But then can get the "leftovers" at other resorts.
And this creates the perception of one huge system. In reality, you are only getting the "leftovers" outside of your home resort.

Building a DVC2 where you don't even have the perception of a unified system, would be a lose-lose situation for Disney. It would mean having to administer a whole new system, while having a less valuable product to sell to consumers. Allowing "non-owners" to books the unused/leftover rooms is something that increases value in the entire system, without actually increasing any costs to Disney.

 

[Kjdisney]

I think the more important question is if what they did with the RIV restrictions was legal to begin with. As Sandisw pointed out, there are differing opinions on this.

There's no doubt in my mind that they want to keep the restrictions. I think the only thing that would stop them is if they HAD to remove them for legal reasons.

I wonder if that is the reason they aren’t being more clear with Poly Tower. Maybe they are reevaluating the legality in case some one does try to challenge. I’m actually surprised it hasn’t been challenged already. This decision created three different types of resale points, and I don’t understand how that could be done without member approval. It seems like a pretty material change.

I think by doing what they did they have kind of boxed themselves into what they can do with member benefits. It would probably be easier and more effective if they took away all restrictions and everyone was a blue card. Benefits would be based on the number of direct points, and any reservation that was a combination of resale and direct points was ineligible for benefits.

 

[Sandisw]

I wonder if that is the reason they aren’t being more clear with Poly Tower. Maybe they are reevaluating the legality in case some one does try to challenge. I’m actually surprised it hasn’t been challenged already. This decision created three different types of resale points, and I don’t understand how that could be done without member approval. It seems like a pretty material change.

I think by doing what they did they have kind of boxed themselves into what they can do with member benefits. It would probably be easier and more effective if they took away all restrictions and everyone was a blue card. Benefits would be based on the number of direct points, and any reservation that was a combination of resale and direct points was ineligible for benefits.

Chances are DVD believes they are on sold foundation legally. As I have shared, I can’t find anything that for me, supports it’s not in legal bounds but that is an opinion and nothing more.

Approval for changes to the POS if it’s a material change need owners approval. However, BVTC has the right to amend rules for trading at 7 months.

Now, as I said the contention could be that because they grandfathered, and then changed, owners didn’t need to vote because it was not a retroactive change.

Remember, they could dissolve BVTC if they wanted and people simply would have rights to their own resort.

Member benefits for the blue card has nothing to do with restrictions and are guided by different aspects. Incidental benefits are extras and not actually included in the POS in terms of changes.

I think the waiting is so they can decide if they want to continue the long game to keep use of points restricted and simply don’t want to commit until the have to.

 

[Nursemanit]

Chances are DVD believes they are on sold foundation legally. As I have shared, I can’t find anything that for me, supports it’s not in legal bounds but that is an opinion and nothing more.

Approval for changes to the POS if it’s a material change need owners approval. However, BVTC has the right to amend rules for trading at 7 months.

Now, as I said the contention could be that because they grandfathered, and then changed, owners didn’t need to vote because it was not a retroactive change.

Remember, they could dissolve BVTC if they wanted and people simply would have rights to their own resort.

Member benefits for the blue card has nothing to do with restrictions and are guided by different aspects. Incidental benefits are extras and not actually included in the POS in terms of changes.

I think the waiting is so they can decide if they want to continue the long game to keep use of points restricted and simply don’t want to commit until the have to.

Since they grandfathered in existing contracts - you have no way of claiming damages, so you can not bring any action.