Late spring 2025 incentives (April 29-July 14)

[WinterSolider]

I agree with you--this scenario is unlikely--but this is not entirely owners' fault. If DVD was always clear and consistent in their contractual arrangements, owners--or at least most owners--wouldn't be sitting there wondering what this might mean. This is the result of vague rules (just go look at the multi-page T&C thread about changes to the wording of renting for a terrific example of pointedly vague rules) that then prompts owners to ask--again, perhaps in ridiculous ways--what else in the T&C might be purposefully arranged vaguely in a way that allows DVD to move in unpredictable ways. Or to put it simply: the greater the specificity and transparency, the greater the general trust. But the greater the vagueness... Anyway, I would be a fan of greater specificity and clarity.

Every day on this board we see people who have been owners for years who still don't understand how Use Year works.

The average member doesn't have the first clue about any of this stuff.

 

[WinterSolider]

If you bought direct at this point in time it should’ve been a non 2042 resort already but perhaps you are meaning something longer than a 2057 expiration?

Yes my OWK Direct is 2057.

I'm saying if any ADDITIONAL later-than-2042 resort went on fire sale again, I'd buy more. Like I won't buy Beach Club even in a fire sale but I'd buy Bay Lake Tower, or even Old Key West again.

 

[Patmcpsu]

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?

cc @maui22

I bought OWKE Direct last year for like $140.

The next time we see prices like that, I'll buy 150 more at any non-2042 resort.

I am a conspiracy theorist because I don't see Disney accepting a heavy loss on The Cabins boondoggle. If The Cabins aren't subsidized in some way by LL, they will eventually have to sell The Cabins at the $140 price-point that you speak of (perhaps even lower).

I could see DVC conspiring with DVC to say "how can we make these cabins sell at $200+ per point?" There are 409 cabins and LL will have 900 rooms. As I learned in engineering school (and reinforced during my experience in Corporate America) "the solution to pollution is dilution". If they can have LL absorb The Cabin's maintenance costs in some way, the cabins would stand a chance at selling. Something has to give, and it could require legal/accounting creativity.

 

[tx911]

I agree with you--this scenario is unlikely--but this is not entirely owners' fault. If DVD was always clear and consistent in their contractual arrangements, owners--or at least most owners--wouldn't be sitting there wondering what this might mean. This is the result of vague rules (just go look at the multi-page T&C thread about changes to the wording of renting for a terrific example of pointedly vague rules) that then prompts owners to ask--again, perhaps in ridiculous ways--what else in the T&C might be purposefully arranged vaguely in a way that allows DVD to move in unpredictable ways. Or to put it simply: the greater the specificity and transparency, the greater the general trust. But the greater the vagueness... Anyway, I would be a fan of greater specificity and clarity.

 

[davidhr]

I am a conspiracy theorist because I don't see Disney accepting a heavy loss on The Cabins boondoggle. If The Cabins aren't subsidized in some way by LL, they will eventually have to sell The Cabins at the $140 price-point that you speak of (perhaps even lower).

I could see DVC conspiring with DVC to say "how can we make these cabins sell at $200+ per point?" There are 409 cabins and LL will have 900 rooms. As I learned in engineering school (and reinforced during my experience in Corporate America) "the solution to pollution is dilution". If they can have LL absorb The Cabin's maintenance costs in some way, the cabins would stand a chance at selling. Something has to give, and it could require legal/accounting creativity.

The only thing I’ll add is that if they can rent them regularly (as it was the case before the conversion), the massive loss might not be that problematic.

 

[WinterSolider]

I am a conspiracy theorist because I don't see Disney accepting a heavy loss on The Cabins boondoggle. If The Cabins aren't subsidized in some way by LL, they will eventually have to sell The Cabins at the $140 price-point that you speak of (perhaps even lower).

I could see DVC conspiring with DVC to say "how can we make these cabins sell at $200+ per point?" There are 409 cabins and LL will have 900 rooms. As I learned in engineering school (and reinforced during my experience in Corporate America) "the solution to pollution is dilution". If they can have LL absorb The Cabin's maintenance costs in some way, the cabins would stand a chance at selling. Something has to give, and it could require legal/accounting creativity.

There is no "Cabins boondoggle."

The Cabins were due for replacement or refurbishment anyways, so taking the opportunity to convert them to DVC didn't cost Disney much extra cash that they weren't going to have to spend anyways. It's not like they had to clear a bunch of prime real estate and build vertical for this project, they just flipped units that were due to be flipped either way.

The Cabins are selling slowly primarily because they're a niche product, not because their dues are high. Even if they had $8 dues, they're still a tough sell because Fort Wilderness campers aren't natural DVC buyers and "normal" hotel guests aren't natural cabin-stayers.

Finally, and most importantly, the Cabins are full. Disney is perfectly happy to let the contracts sell slowly as long as they can keep heads in beds in the form of cash-paying guests.

 

[eticketplease]

There is no "Cabins boondoggle."

The Cabins were due for replacement or refurbishment anyways, so taking the opportunity to convert them to DVC didn't cost Disney much extra cash that they weren't going to have to spend anyways. It's not like they had to clear a bunch of prime real estate and build vertical for this project, they just flipped units that were due to be flipped either way.

The Cabins are selling slowly primarily because they're a niche product, not because their dues are high. Even if they had $8 dues, they're still a tough sell because Fort Wilderness campers aren't natural DVC buyers and "normal" hotel guests aren't natural cabin-stayers.

Finally, and most importantly, the Cabins are full. Disney is perfectly happy to let the contracts sell slowly as long as they can keep heads in beds in the form of cash-paying guests.

Agreed, but I think the dues certainly hurt a little. This is just such a niche product and to only have one accommodation size really hurts as well in my opinion.

I also wish they would’ve kept the layout of the old cabins with the restroom right next to the bedroom instead of having to track across the main living space to use the restroom at night

 

[WinterSolider]

Agreed, but I think the dues certainly hurt a little. This is just such a niche product and to only have one accommodation size really hurts as well in my opinion.

I also wish they would’ve kept the layout of the old cabins with the restroom right next to the bedroom instead of having to track across the main living space to use the restroom at night

Yes there are definitely some would-be buyers who have opted out of CFW because of the dues.

I just don't think it's a big driver, and certainly not the primary one.

 

[eticketplease]

Yes there are definitely some would-be buyers who have opted out of CFW because of the dues.

I just don't think it's a big driver, and certainly not the primary one.

Absolutely there are many reasons not to buy there. I understand I won’t be able to stay at the high in demand times but I’m fairly confident that I could 7 month into the resort which is good enough for me.

 

[DonkeyHoTay]

I’m fairly confident that I could 7 month into the resort which is good enough for me.

How do you do that? Asking for a friend....

 

[eticketplease]

How do you do that? Asking for a friend....

Go onto the DVC website seven months in advance and book it just like anywhere else that’s not one of your home resorts.

 

[DVCsloth]

Absolutely there are many reasons not to buy there. I understand I won’t be able to stay at the high in demand times but I’m fairly confident that I could 7 month into the resort which is good enough for me.

Should be decent 7 month availability in the slower season. We're going to try it out on the future.

 

[DonkeyHoTay]

Go onto the DVC website seven months in advance and book it just like anywhere else that’s not one of your home resorts.

LOL. I meant to suggest that 7 month availability at CFW is almost non-existent. I thought maybe you had a secret method to getting weekends booked there.

 

[HyperspaceMountainPilot]

LOL. I meant to suggest that 7 month availability at CFW is almost non-existent. I thought maybe you had a secret method to getting weekends booked there.

I have been watching the 7mo window creep forward across WDW from the second week of Jan to today (now Jan 25) and it's been nearly impossible to get a cabin (maybe if you're up at 5AM Pacific and willing to do battle with bots you have a small chance?)... but just today I saw a couple days open up before the 7m window, so at least some of the people snatching right at 7mo are walking now. I almost booked 2 of the 3 nights we need just because it was available and I would like to try them... but on a long weekend trip it's hard to justify the extra trek to the Ft and getting around the Ft.

 

[DVCsloth]

I have been watching the 7mo window creep forward across WDW from the second week of Jan to today (now Jan 25) and it's been nearly impossible to get a cabin (maybe if you're up at 5AM Pacific and willing to do battle with bots you have a small chance?)... but just today I saw a couple days open up before the 7m window, so at least some of the people snatching right at 7mo are walking now. I almost booked 2 of the 3 nights we need just because it was available and I would like to try them... but on a long weekend trip it's hard to justify the extra trek to the Ft and getting around the Ft.

Looks like there's availability during the week.

 

[eticketplease]

LOL. I meant to suggest that 7 month availability at CFW is almost non-existent. I thought maybe you had a secret method to getting weekends booked there.

I’ve seen it several times at seven months again not at the most popular times, but it has been available for me to pick

 

[maui22]

One thing that surprises me with CFW is Disney hasn’t introduced better incentives. Terrible sales indicates they don’t care for some reason. Whether that is for cash bookings, something else in their plans, or another option?

Investors want larger profits over the next few years as opposed to decades in cash bookings. Not choosing the better near term (0-5 years) decision makes them want someone to be replaced.

 

[eticketplease]

One thing that surprises me with CFW is Disney hasn’t introduced better incentives. Terrible sales indicates they don’t care for some reason. Whether that is for cash bookings, something else in their plans, or another option?

Investors want larger profits over the next few years as opposed to decades in cash bookings. Not choosing the better near term (0-5 years) decision makes them want someone to be replaced.

I think the cabins are working quite nice for them. They were able to sell the old ones after they had already depreciated them. The units had to be replaced so they are able to kill 2 birds with one stone by “selling” them and renting them at the same time like they have for years. The few owners they have will help pay the staff and upkeep that was 100% Disney’s responsibility before. They can also use DVC marketing write offs for sweepstakes and publicity for the cabins and WDW in general. If they really need cash ASAP then they could discount them but I don’t anticipate that happening for quite awhile.

 

[maui22]

I think the cabins are working quite nice for them. They were able to sell the old ones after they had already depreciated them. The units had to be replaced so they are able to kill 2 birds with one stone by “selling” them and renting them at the same time like they have for years. The few owners they have will help pay the staff and upkeep that was 100% Disney’s responsibility before. They can also use DVC marketing write offs for sweepstakes and publicity for the cabins and WDW in general. If they really need cash ASAP then they could discount them but I don’t anticipate that happening for quite awhile.

Not sure how you can count the benefit of selling them when as you say they had to be replaced?

Cash bookings are slower long-term money. If that is a better approach, why did they have a fire sale for BPK? Just my opinion…proxy battle forced them to show higher profit for a few quarters or lose shareholders.

 

[eticketplease]

Not sure how you can count the benefit of selling them when as you say they had to be replaced?

Cash bookings are slower long-term money. If that is a better approach, why did they have a fire sale for BPK? Just my opinion…proxy battle forced them to show higher profit for a few quarters or lose shareholders.

Did you not see the articles with them showing the old cabins been driven on I4 after Disney sold them for $50k?
They got to fully depreciate them off the books, sell the units and have new ones to rent and sell for DVC. Certainly I win in my eyes.

BPK was because they would have too many active resorts at one time imo. That sale was summer of 2023 with it being sold out in October 2023. CFW started sales in February 2024 followed a little later with PVB starting in October 2024.

Losing shareholders doesn’t really matter. Shares exchange hands every day the market is open. Some may own more than others but the total outstanding stock will continue to be the same number of shares unless Disney issues more shares or performs a buyback.