Why?
Why does everyone insist on coming up with these absolute insane, outrageously complicated scenarios that MIGHT be possible if you squint and stretch the limits of what the legal documents say when there's absolutely no reason for them to do so?
No, Disney is not going to sell contracts where a single resort has a floating expiration date at T+50 from when someone buys because that's stupid, end of story. I don't care if it's technically legal, it's stupid. Even if they could, they don't want to.
Honestly these questions are akin to asking "can Disney paint the Tree of Life neon purple?" and people analyzing Animal Kingdom building permits saying "yeah there's nothing legally preventing them from doing that" and then half a dozen YouTubers making videos about the "credible rumor" that Disney is going to paint the Tree of Life neon purple.
This whole conspiracy mindset pervaded the discussion of VGF2, PVB2, and especially CFW and every single time the conspiracy theorists were proven wrong and the resorts launched with the exact same 11-and-7-month windows with 50 year from on-sale expiration dates as every resort that came before. The legal structure underpinning the associations has not changed how the membership actually looks and feels in the hands of the members, outside of RIV+ resale restrictions.
cc
@maui22