Just back from DVC tour- got some juicy tidbits (rumors)

[Mississippian]

I disagree that an announcement would be cause for legal action. There have been several DVCs "officially" announced and never built. Colorado, Eagle Pines, Newport Beach (now a Marriott timeshare), New York City...

Let me clarify. If Disney intentionally misleads the public about there not being a Contemporary DVC in the works then it would be cause for legal action.

My point is that if they had absolutely ruled out a DVC there they would announce it, since it would help their sales elsewhere.

 

[nuts]

Let me clarify. If Disney intentionally misleads the public about there not being a Contemporary DVC in the works then it would be cause for legal action.

My point is that if they had absolutely ruled out a DVC there they would announce it, since it would help their sales elsewhere.

No, I disagree. Disney will NEVER announce that they are NOT building at a location. Why? Simple: It precludes them from doing anything at that location in the future. Disney will only announce where they will build, and only when the timing (and legals) are right.

 

[Horace Horsecollar]

Let me clarify. If Disney intentionally misleads the public about there not being a Contemporary DVC in the works then it would be cause for legal action.

My point is that if they had absolutely ruled out a DVC there they would announce it, since it would help their sales elsewhere.

It's perfectly legal for companies to plan and develop new products and services in secret. Some companies, notably Apple Inc., have figured out how keep new products secret until the day become available for purchase.

Corporations normally instruct employees who actually know what's going on to answer questions from reporters (and others) with a phrase along the lines of, "it is the policy of our company not to comment on rumors and speculation."

Refusing to comment on rumors does not mean that a company is intentionally misleading the public.

There are specific accounting rules that companies must follow carefully and correctly, including how R & D expenses and future financial obligations must be reported. But that doesn't mean that companies have to disclose secrets to their competitors and customers until they're ready to do so.

Disney will provide more information about what they're building at the Contemporary when they deem the time to be right. Typically, it will be because they need to start filing timeshare documents with state agencies, and it's no longer possible maintain confidentiality. Until then, the construction site at the Contemporary is for some form of lodging expansion, with details not yet announced.

When Disney finally makes the announcement, it will be in the form of a simple press release. Very few people will be aware of the press release or will care about it (with the folks on this board being a notable exception). Once Disney actually starts selling DVC points, they'll crank up the advertising and publicity.

Mississippian... Can you cite a case when a company was prosecuted because they refused to confirm or deny a rumor?

 

[Dean]

Let me clarify. If Disney intentionally misleads the public about there not being a Contemporary DVC in the works then it would be cause for legal action.

My point is that if they had absolutely ruled out a DVC there they would announce it, since it would help their sales elsewhere.

I guess it depends on the situation. For example, they could abandon the AKV project at the moment and as long as they delivered on the units already introduced into the club and sold, they'd be legally OK. I also agree there's no reason to announce they're quitting, at least from a sales standpoint. One of the things that drives current sales are future prospects and that's esp true with CRV it appears. Now if they system gets to where you can ONLY reserve at your home resort AND most everyone figures that out, you'd be somewhat more correct.

 

[AKV707]

I guess it depends on the situation. For example, they could abandon the AKV project at the moment and as long as they delivered on the units already introduced into the club and sold, they'd be legally OK. I also agree there's no reason to announce they're quitting, at least from a sales standpoint. One of the things that drives current sales are future prospects and that's esp true with CRV it appears. Now if they system gets to where you can ONLY reserve at your home resort AND most everyone figures that out, you'd be somewhat more correct.

Dean, wouldn't there be an issue if they abandoned AKV. We were sold with the concept that there would be Kidani. The preview rooms are not even available at Jambo. The published floor plans are for Kidani. That is what we bought, isn't it? If Kidani was part of the sales pitch. wouldn't abandoning it be a bait and switch?

 

[Dean]

Dean, wouldn't there be an issue if they abandoned AKV. We were sold with the concept that there would be Kidani. The preview rooms are not even available at Jambo. The published floor plans are for Kidani. That is what we bought, isn't it? If Kidani was part of the sales pitch. wouldn't abandoning it be a bait and switch?

No, the POS and sales paperwork specifically says you understand that future portions are optional and might not happen. This is c/w general timeshare phasing and is c/w FL law as I understand it. One would have no recourse if it did happen.

 

[tjkraz]

Dean, wouldn't there be an issue if they abandoned AKV. We were sold with the concept that there would be Kidani. The preview rooms are not even available at Jambo. The published floor plans are for Kidani. That is what we bought, isn't it? If Kidani was part of the sales pitch. wouldn't abandoning it be a bait and switch?

You know that big circle that surrounds Kidani on the development map with a footnote that reads "Proposed Construction"? Legally that's about all Disney has to do to keep the door open to pulling the plug on that area of the resort.

 

[AKV707]

Agreed. I can, and have read that. But there still might be a case for the argument, that if Kidani were not to be built, (and I am sure that it will) that the rooms that we saw, with the extra bath, were never built so the sales pitch was intentionally misleading. Our guide never said, "if Kidani is built." At the very least there would be some bad press and some very unhappy AKV owners.

 

[tjkraz]

The land: you may be right, it may be complete swampland, I am not familiar with the area much, but you mentioned alot of backstage areas, where exactly are those? Are we talking built up backstages?

Below is an overhead image. Door-do-door it's a straight-line .86 miles. You couldn't run a path from one of the Jambo house spokes since they are surrounded by the savanna. You're welcome to try and draw a path in there if you wish. The most likely route would wind along several roads and ultimately along a road used primarily by resort busses then past the bus drop-off points themselves.

I can't see how it would be any less than 1.5 mi.

I was wrong about the positioning of the two resorts. Originally I thought Kidani would be closer. It's actually further to the west. The distance from Kidani lobby to Jambo lobby is .5 mi. Add additional time from guest rooms to the Kidani lobby.

The lodge is only about 6 years old and DAK 10 years. The appeal of the Epcot resorts area was certainly defined by then. I just think that if they had any inkling of putting in a path, it would have been part of the original design.

 

[tjkraz]

Agreed. I can, and have read that. But there still might be a case for the argument, that if Kidani were not to be built, (and I am sure that it will) that the rooms that we saw, with the extra bath, were never built so the sales pitch was intentionally misleading. Our guide never said, "if Kidani is built."

If memory serves, there were a lot of signs in the model rooms saying that they were subject to change. I suspect the documents you signed when you purchased also had little footnotes indicating that Kidani may or may not happen.

Whatever the Guides happen to omit from their sales pitch takes a back seat to that DVD puts in writing.

At the very least there would be some bad press and some very unhappy AKV owners.

Realistically it would take an act of God to derail Kidani at this time. Work is already under way. They aren't going to abruptly pull the plug.

However, as has been alluded to in this thread, I do think we tend to overstate the public interest in DVC happenings. The "bad press" wouldn't go much further than a blurb buried in the Sentinel.

Unhappy owners? Sure, but no more so than people who have been upset by recent changes to banking policies, transfer policies, waitlist policies, smoking policies, and so forth.

 

[todd222222]

Realistically it would take an act of God to derail Kidani at this time. Work is already under way. They aren't going to abruptly pull the plug.

Now I don't know the full history of Pop Century but they started the 2nd half of it and have not finished. I think it's been sitting idle for a few years. It's possible, but I would think unlikely.

 

[tjkraz]

Now I don't know the full history of Pop Century but they started the 2nd half of it and have not finished. I think it's been sitting idle for a few years. It's possible, but I would think unlikely.

Pop Century was ill-conceived from the start. Demand wasn't there when the resort was approved. Then when 9/11 struck and tourism dropped, they pulled the plug.

DVC resorts are a little different. Demand may fluctuate but it won't disappear altogether. DVC is already running short on points at Saratoga Springs and the converted rooms at AKL. Worst-case Kidani's opening could be delayed if they were to slow construction in response to reduced demand, but I can't envision any circumstance where it would be completely scrapped.

 

[Mr Man]

Now I don't know the full history of Pop Century but they started the 2nd half of it and have not finished. I think it's been sitting idle for a few years. It's possible, but I would think unlikely.

My understanding is they nixed the 2nd half as a result of the dramatic drop-off in attendance at WDW post 9/11.

I found this website with a lot of info on POP Legendary Years off of this forum.

http://jimhillmedia.com/blogs/jeff_lange/archive/2006/04/13/1813.aspx

WARNING the pics are kind of depressing........decay is never nice.

 

[sjdisneywedding]

Below is an overhead image. Door-do-door it's a straight-line .86 miles. You couldn't run a path from one of the Jambo house spokes since they are surrounded by the savanna. You're welcome to try and draw a path in there if you wish. The most likely route would wind along several roads and ultimately along a road used primarily by resort busses then past the bus drop-off points themselves.

I can't see how it would be any less than 1.5 mi.

I was wrong about the positioning of the two resorts. Originally I thought Kidani would be closer. It's actually further to the west. The distance from Kidani lobby to Jambo lobby is .5 mi. Add additional time from guest rooms to the Kidani lobby.

The lodge is only about 6 years old and DAK 10 years. The appeal of the Epcot resorts area was certainly defined by then. I just think that if they had any inkling of putting in a path, it would have been part of the original design.

thats a very misleading line you drew!!!

the path would not go door to door. more like rear(or eastern side) to western side of the park.

I work for the mapping company thats supplies the maps you are referencing so believe me I know the distance. Even winding it would be hard pressed to ever reach 1.5 miles even if it dropped you right at the front of the line for the Safari

yes ideally it would have been in the original plans, but how do we know it wasnt and was put aside for a possible future date

 

[tjkraz]

thats a very misleading line you drew!!!

Nothing misleading about it at all. I was simply illustrating the direct door-to-door distance.

the path would not go door to door. more like rear(or eastern side) to western side of the park.

I don't see how that's possible.

The savanna dominates the eastern side of the resort and the western side of the theme park is all backstage support areas. If you are implying that DAK would reconfigure its support structure AND open a second gate strictly for AKL/AKV guests, then we're further apart than I thought. Now we're talking about thousands in added costs plus staffing for the second entrance (ticket booth, turnstile, security, stroller rental.) Not gonna happen.

Feel free to amend the map with your own guesswork.

 

[sjdisneywedding]

The savanna dominates the eastern side of the resort and the western side of the theme park is all backstage support areas. If you are implying that DAK would reconfigure its support structure AND open a second gate strictly for AKL/AKV guests, then we're further apart than I thought. Now we're talking about thousands in added costs plus staffing for the second entrance (ticket booth, turnstile, security, stroller rental.) Not gonna happen.

I have no idea what the landscape or current buildings would allow, however door to door in my opinion is about as worthless as you could possibly get

If thats all it would be then in that case I would have to agree it would not happen

 

[pilferk]

I do not think this is correct...there will be Jambo parking lot view standards and value savannah view rooms. The difference in points at Jambo is based on the size not the view.

You're correct, that the points difference IS about size.

However, according to the inventory declarations DVD has made:

All the parking lot view villas are value villas in Jambo...no standard view villa has a parking lot view there. They WILL at Kidani, though.

That's not to say ALL the value villas have a parking lot view...just that the only parking lot view villas at Jambo fall into the value category.

Standard villas, at Jambo, are ALL pool view.

 

[pilferk]

Below is an overhead image. Door-do-door it's a straight-line .86 miles. You couldn't run a path from one of the Jambo house spokes since they are surrounded by the savanna. You're welcome to try and draw a path in there if you wish. The most likely route would wind along several roads and ultimately along a road used primarily by resort busses then past the bus drop-off points themselves.

I can't see how it would be any less than 1.5 mi.

I was wrong about the positioning of the two resorts. Originally I thought Kidani would be closer. It's actually further to the west. The distance from Kidani lobby to Jambo lobby is .5 mi. Add additional time from guest rooms to the Kidani lobby.

The lodge is only about 6 years old and DAK 10 years. The appeal of the Epcot resorts area was certainly defined by then. I just think that if they had any inkling of putting in a path, it would have been part of the original design.

To add to the above, keep in mind they'd need to add infrastructure to support the path (utilities, lighting, etc) AND they'd need to ensure you could get emergency support to those on the path (EMT, Fire, Rescue, and police)..meaning that building a path "straight through" would involve more than just plunking down a foot path.

 

[dwelty]

To add to the above, keep in mind they'd need to add infrastructure to support the path (utilities, lighting, etc) AND they'd need to ensure you could get emergency support to those on the path (EMT, Fire, Rescue, and police)..meaning that building a path "straight through" would involve more than just plunking down a foot path.

Also would like to add that even under the best "Path" scenario no one would walk this path from June to October simply because it would be a long hot miserable walk. I cannot see them going to the expense for a path that would only likely be used 8 months of the year.

 

[pilferk]

thats a very misleading line you drew!!!

the path would not go door to door. more like rear(or eastern side) to western side of the park.

I work for the mapping company thats supplies the maps you are referencing so believe me I know the distance. Even winding it would be hard pressed to ever reach 1.5 miles even if it dropped you right at the front of the line for the Safari

yes ideally it would have been in the original plans, but how do we know it wasnt and was put aside for a possible future date

Question: If you put it on the eastern side or rear of AKL...how would guests get to it? There is ample savannah between the areas that you can't really "plow through". So you'd have to circumnavigate it...likely from the entrance of the hotel (which is where all the "straight to the theme park" paths at WDW currently begin).

From there, to get to AKL, if you go to the western edge...you'd have to both circumnavigate around or through the animal support infrastructure AND open a 2nd gate...for access by 1 resort. With Epcot, it made sense. 3 Disney resorts AND you were trying to pull traffic out of Epcot to the boardwalk businesses and attractions...so you benefitted from the 2 way traffic.

At AKL, it's one resort, and there isnt' the type of offerings the boardwalk enjoys....so the benefits from 2 way traffic would be minimal. In addition, with the shorter AKL hours, it becomes less cost effective to run it.

The only "2nd gate" I can think of is at Epcot. Every other resort that has a walking path to a theme park drops guest directly at the entrance. The walking paths to MGM, and the Contemps path to MK, both do that....so I don't think that figuring AKL would do the same is an outlandish assumtion.

I've said before, and will say again...a walking path from AKL is, IMHO, a long shot at best.