If you buy resale, but also buy some points direct from Disney, do you still qualify...

[PolarWSU]

You can also buy a 50 point contract as a non member at certain older resorts. We just did 50 at AKL as non members as our resale has not closed yet.

 

[deedubb]

You can do a minimum 25pt add on if you are already a DVC owner and can pay cash for the purchase.

I see. So I could do a resale purchase first, then add some points (25) direct from Disney. That would save some serious coin, as I would like to get about 350 points total.

 

[Dean]

They would grandfather.

If not at first, then after the uproar.

Buying a 25 point contract NOW, while it still creates direct membership for benefits, will be a great idea until proven otherwise.

But I agree that won't work forever or even for much longer. Clock is ticking.

I too suspect the minimum will be raised in some way. I would expect those who'd be caught to be grandfathered but it wouldn't be required. The one point I'd take issue with, and one I think a lot of people overcall, is the lack of power of the membership from a complaining standpoint unless they're backed up by legal status in the POS itself. Any time the point of a post is contingent on the power of complaining or a class action lawsuit you can pretty much take the other side and be about 100% accurate.

 

[Dean]

I see. So I could do a resale purchase first, then add some points (25) direct from Disney. That would save some serious coin, as I would like to get about 350 points total.

Yes, IMO that's the main and best option for most new buyers currently.

 

[deedubb]

This is us essentially. We bought into the Poly and own a total of 100 points direct since that is all we need for our vacation needs. We started with 70pts and just recently added on 30pts as we got a better idea of what our needs were. I would definitely not be happy if they went down this route where people who own less then 160 direct points do not get access to benefits for direct buyers. I understand that benefits can go away at any time but this would seriously be uncool.

I would think (hope) that if you have 100 points but they were ALL directly purchased from Disney, there would be some sort of clause that would allow you to keep your benefits. It appears they are primarily trying to make it less attractive to buy resale so you would not be the type of individual they are targeting..

 

[_auroraborealis_]

I wouldn't trust anything a guide says about this stuff. DVD cannot share information like this with guides until it is announced. It's a form of material information. There are actual rules against this that go well beyond Disney.

 

[ziravan]

I too suspect the minimum will be raised in some way. I would expect those who'd be caught to be grandfathered but it wouldn't be required. The one point I'd take issue with, and one I think a lot of people overcall, is the lack of power of the membership from a complaining standpoint unless they're backed up by legal status in the POS itself. Any time the point of a post is contingent on the power of complaining or a class action lawsuit you can pretty much take the other side and be about 100% accurate.

Disney has shown the ability to pay attention and even reverse itself when the uproar is load enough.

Take the 4/4/16 restrictions. They fairly well made it clear that those caught in limbo were screwed and after just a few days of uproar, they clarified to grandfather those already in the pipeline.

I think they expect some backlash from new restrictions. But even Coke (New Coke) had a tipping point where the bad PR outweighs the goals of what you're trying to accomplish.

After grandfathering in the past, if DVC didn't grandfather new restrictions, the uproar would be intense and sustained and rock the boat enough to reach even a casual potential new member with the power of google.

That would be so counterproductive that it would immediately be rethunk.

Besides. Punishing existing members does absolutely nothing to steer new purchases to direct over resale. It's counterproductive on its face to do so. DVC depends on current member add one as a source of sales. For example, my first contract was resale, 2nd one direct. What would be the point of engendering so much ill will in potential future buyers?

All that's assuming we're talking about new restrictions.

My guess is the 160 point discussion is about VIP status and new benefits for VIP owners with enough qualified points. That's what I really think is coming and that's a different ballgame than restrictions. When they move to a VIP tier, only direct points will be qualified. I would expect a minor tier at 160 and a major tier at 320.

 

[Kenzientysmom]

Disney has shown the ability to pay attention and even reverse itself when the uproar is load enough.

Take the 4/4/16 restrictions. They fairly well made it clear that those caught in limbo were screwed and after just a few days of uproar, they clarified to grandfather those already in the pipeline.

I think they expect some backlash from new restrictions. But even Coke (New Coke) had a tipping point where the bad PR outweighs the goals of what you're trying to accomplish.

After grandfathering in the past, if DVC didn't grandfather new restrictions, the uproar would be intense and sustained and rock the boat enough to reach even a casual potential new member with the power of google.

That would be so counterproductive that it would immediately be rethunk.

Besides. Punishing existing members does absolutely nothing to steer new purchases to direct over resale. It's counterproductive on its face to do so. DVC depends on current member add one as a source of sales. For example, my first contract was resale, 2nd one direct. What would be the point of engendering so much ill will in potential future buyers?

All that's assuming we're talking about new restrictions.

My guess is the 160 point discussion is about VIP status and new benefits for VIP owners with enough qualified points. That's what I really think is coming and that's a different ballgame than restrictions. When they move to a VIP tier, only direct points will be qualified. I would expect a minor tier at 160 and a major tier at 320.

This to me make sense. As a direct only buyer with less than 160 points I would be beyond upset if they went the way the OP was stating.

 

[Dean]

Disney has shown the ability to pay attention and even reverse itself when the uproar is load enough.

Take the 4/4/16 restrictions. They fairly well made it clear that those caught in limbo were screwed and after just a few days of uproar, they clarified to grandfather those already in the pipeline.

I think they expect some backlash from new restrictions. But even Coke (New Coke) had a tipping point where the bad PR outweighs the goals of what you're trying to accomplish.

After grandfathering in the past, if DVC didn't grandfather new restrictions, the uproar would be intense and sustained and rock the boat enough to reach even a casual potential new member with the power of google.

That would be so counterproductive that it would immediately be rethunk.

Besides. Punishing existing members does absolutely nothing to steer new purchases to direct over resale. It's counterproductive on its face to do so. DVC depends on current member add one as a source of sales. For example, my first contract was resale, 2nd one direct. What would be the point of engendering so much ill will in potential future buyers?

All that's assuming we're talking about new restrictions.

My guess is the 160 point discussion is about VIP status and new benefits for VIP owners with enough qualified points. That's what I really think is coming and that's a different ballgame than restrictions. When they move to a VIP tier, only direct points will be qualified. I would expect a minor tier at 160 and a major tier at 320.

They've consistently grandfathered, also I'm not sure we can say this wasn't the plan all along but it wasn't put through well. But the idea they'll simply cave to pressure when they have legal basis is wrong IMO.

 

[erin1715]

You can do a minimum 25pt add on if you are already a DVC owner and can pay cash for the purchase.

Just an aside, you can only pay cash for a 25 point add on? So you can't use your Disney Rewards Visa for the purchase?

 

[Just Peachy]

Just an aside, you can only pay cash for a 25 point add on? So you can't use your Disney Rewards Visa for the purchase?

I think that Disney will not finance the 25 point sale. But, they don't care where the "cash" comes from. So, yes, you can put the purchase on any credit card you care to (although a $5,000 purchase at revolving credit card interest rates, can quickly double your purchase price if you don't pay it off quickly).

 

[CraigInPA]

Talked to a guide about this last week. From what she said, it sounds like there are some updates coming on the horizon where the Membership Extras may change to saying something along the lines of "Membership Extras are available to those members that have purchased at least XXX number of points directly from DVD". She said the numbers being discussed hover in the 160 points range, and "grandfathered" points will not count towards it. It will be simply did you purchase at least XX amount from DVD or not regardless of the date you purchased them. Now, that may just be salesmanship, but I have not known Disney guides to be untruthful like other timeshare sales people. I purchased 50 points direct to go along with the resale I have in motion...but I cant imagine buying another 110 direct for the extras.

I also cant imagine Disney actually wanting to lower the resale value of contracts (and cut off the fountain of direct small-contract sales) that would result from such a policy. But, she said it was coming, just a matter of time.

Guides are incentivized to tell half-truths and to sell rumors in order to get you to buy all your points at retail price, in order to get their commission. How many times have we heard reported that a guide told prospective purchasers that a resale purchase would result in 1) getting ripped off, 2) new restrictions "coming soon" that limit resales to home resort, or 3) new policies "coming soon" that will give retail buyers an advantage in booking beyond those enjoyed by resale buyers?

I don't doubt there will be additional future changes coming to push buyers towards retail. However, DVC has always grandfathered existing members. I don't see that as changing.

 

[Simba's Mom]

So DVC could cut us out of perks because we "only" bought 100 of our 565 points directly? That would stink. Initially we bought 175 points direct, but then we wanted to change resorts, so I called our guide and he said the only way we could do it was to buy resale so we did. That was about 13 years ago. We did buy 100 points direct at another resort, but all our other points are resale. So now if we lose all our perks, grrrr!

 

[_auroraborealis_]

Guides are incentivized to tell half-truths and to sell rumors in order to get you to buy all your points at retail price, in order to get their commission. How many times have we heard reported that a guide told prospective purchasers that a resale purchase would result in 1) getting ripped off, 2) new restrictions "coming soon" that limit resales to home resort, or 3) new policies "coming soon" that will give retail buyers an advantage in booking beyond those enjoyed by resale buyers?

And these half-truths are as reliable as bus driver rumors. These are not staff at levels to be given material information that could influence real estate value until it is being announced to the public.

 

[supersnoop]

Here's the thing about grandfathering:

The DVC board of directors has a fiduciary responsibility to owners/members. But the people on that board are also employed by Disney and DVD. Which could be a conflict of interest. If they ever make decisions that benefit the company at the expense of the members, they'd violate their responsibility. That's when people start talking about lawsuits. If that happened, a court could remove the entire board and open up the seats to actual members. And that would cause all kinds of problems for Disney. So, as long as they grandfather current members, they haven't injured anyone and there's no standing for a lawsuit. So, they will always grandfather.

 

[ziravan]

Here's the thing about grandfathering:

The DVC board of directors has a fiduciary responsibility to owners/members. But the people on that board are also employed by Disney and DVD. Which could be a conflict of interest. If they ever make decisions that benefit the company at the expense of the members, they'd violate their responsibility. That's when people start talking about lawsuits. If that happened, a court could remove the entire board and open up the seats to actual members. And that would cause all kinds of problems for Disney. So, as long as they grandfather current members, they haven't injured anyone and there's no standing for a lawsuit. So, they will always grandfather.

All the more reason why the 25 point add on for benefits is a great deal . . . while it's still avail.

 

[Mr&Mrs Incredible]

We purchased a 25 point AKL add-on contract this week and today the paperwork arrived from Disney. In the packet of paperwork there is a document called Receipt For Membership Extras Acknowledgment and Disclosure Statement. One of the paragraphs reads as follows:

The incidental benefits described in this Statement are offered to prospective purchasers of the vacation ownership plan. These benefits are available for your use a period of 3 years or less after the first date that the vacation ownership plan is available for your use. The availability of the incidental benefits may or may not be renewed or extended. You should not purchase an interest in the vacation ownership plan in reliance upon the continued availability or renewal or extension of these benefits.

Is there now a time limit on membership extras, or am I misunderstanding this paragraph? I realize they are not guaranteed and can go away at anytime. I just read it as they are only available for 3 years or less, rather than potentially the whole contract period. Has anyone else seen this or is this standard for all direct purchases?

 

[ziravan]

We purchased a 25 point AKL add-on contract this week and today the paperwork arrived from Disney. In the packet of paperwork there is a document called Receipt For Membership Extras Acknowledgment and Disclosure Statement. One of the paragraphs reads as follows:

The incidental benefits described in this Statement are offered to prospective purchasers of the vacation ownership plan. These benefits are available for your use a period of 3 years or less after the first date that the vacation ownership plan is available for your use. The availability of the incidental benefits may or may not be renewed or extended. You should not purchase an interest in the vacation ownership plan in reliance upon the continued availability or renewal or extension of these benefits.

Is there now a time limit on membership extras, or am I misunderstanding this paragraph? I realize they are not guaranteed and can go away at anytime. I just read it as they are only available for 3 years or less, rather than potentially the whole contract period. Has anyone else seen this or is this standard for all direct purchases?

It just means that incidental benefits "perks" are not guaranteed. That's always been the case, for everybody.

That's the language saying that they can pull perks. As long as they don't, this direct contract should qualify you for post 2011 perks so long as they're offered.

Unless. They require more points to qualify in the future (they probably will) and they refuse to grandfather existing members (they'll grandfather).

Congrats. You're now an existing direct member. Plus. We love AKV. Great choice.

 

[Mr&Mrs Incredible]

It just means that incidental benefits "perks" are not guaranteed. That's always been the case, for everybody.

That's the language saying that they can pull perks. As long as they don't, this direct contract should qualify you for post 2011 perks so long as they're offered.

Unless. They require more points to qualify in the future (they probably will) and they refuse to grandfather existing members (they'll grandfather).

Congrats. You're now an existing direct member. Plus. We love AKV. Great choice.

That is great to know. Thank you for help! We're super excited!

 

[Dean]

So DVC could cut us out of perks because we "only" bought 100 of our 565 points directly? That would stink. Initially we bought 175 points direct, but then we wanted to change resorts, so I called our guide and he said the only way we could do it was to buy resale so we did. That was about 13 years ago. We did buy 100 points direct at another resort, but all our other points are resale. So now if we lose all our perks, grrrr!

As noted, while they could I don't think that's likely. But what could happen is it could go away for everyone and you can bet it'll change and that most changes will not be for the better.

Here's the thing about grandfathering:

The DVC board of directors has a fiduciary responsibility to owners/members. But the people on that board are also employed by Disney and DVD. Which could be a conflict of interest. If they ever make decisions that benefit the company at the expense of the members, they'd violate their responsibility. That's when people start talking about lawsuits. If that happened, a court could remove the entire board and open up the seats to actual members. And that would cause all kinds of problems for Disney. So, as long as they grandfather current members, they haven't injured anyone and there's no standing for a lawsuit. So, they will always grandfather.

That only applies to management of the DVC resorts themselves.