Lawsuit

[Anewman]

If Disney took perks away from all new purchases than the playing field would be fair and equitable.

By removing perks from secondary market only is a blatant money grab that has de-valued all members.

If Disney took the Un-promised perks from all new purchases, it is OK.

If Disney takes the same Un-promised perks from the secondary market, it is bad.

rational?

Seriously
Disney has offered DIRECT customer only perks(like free APs, or "bonus points") for years.

 

[Brian Noble]

Maybe members who have never thought about selling don't understand all this, or maybe just don't care.

Or maybe they understand that the terms of the governing documents allow for this sort of thing, and while they don't necessarily like it, they accept it for what it is.

 

[childsplay]

I agree with the majority here, just because you don't like a decision DVC makes (point reallocation, removal of "free" valet parking, not being able to use secondary market points for trade-outs, etc.) doesn't mean they have done something illegal.

 

[bmtta2003]

Just because something is legal doesn't make it moral or ethical.
Slavery was legal!

 

[Brian Noble]

Just because something is legal doesn't make it moral or ethical.

Of course not. But, (a) it is not clear to me that this is either immoral or unethical, and (b) companies are not bound by moral codes, but laws.

Slavery was legal!

Let me understand something. Are you seriously comparing the removal of non-contractual use options for some owners to the abduction and enslavement of human beings?

Really?

Godwin's Law can't be far behind.

 

[crisi]

Just because something is legal doesn't make it moral or ethical.
Slavery was legal!

But this - in terms of business ethics - is ethical. In fact, from a business ethics standpoint, it can be argued (and I have) that this is the ethical path to take. Without doing something like this, DVC cannot continue to grow and be a profitable subsidary. Shareholder value demands that Disney take steps to protect their business - and Disney has a legal and ethical responsibility to their shareholders. Also, without doing something like this, Disney could shortly have a situation on their hands where Disney collection trades are unsupportable. Doing this, they may have managed to protect those options for members who bought expecting them, removing them only for new member buying resale. That would also be an ethical action.

On the unethical side, it creates a class system of ownership. I don't like that, but I think that is outweighed by the pragmatic considerations of not screwing existing owners or their shareholders.

 

[OrangeCountyCommuter]

Did you "friend" bother to READ any of the documents he signed? Because if he had he would realize that he has no basis for a lawsuit and when he finds an attorney they will read and tell him that

Disney has better attorneys then the "friend"

 

[childsplay]

I don't disagree that what they have done potentially hurts our resale value and therefore drives sales to DVC, what I'm saying is they are within their rights to do it. What is moral/ethical is almost always a moving target and frequently dependent upon personal emotion and perspective.
I think we agree that it stinks, I least I feel that way, but where we disagree, is that I don't believe it rises to the level of legal challenge.

 

[bmtta2003]

If Disney took the Un-promised perks from all new purchases, it is OK.

If Disney takes the same Un-promised perks from the secondary market, it is bad.

rational?

Seriously
Disney has offered DIRECT customer only perks(like free APs, or "bonus points") for years.

It also cost more to but direct, that's why the secondary market was doing so well. To compete Disney put add-ons (incentives) with direct purchases. They were losing too much to the secondary market, so they figure out a way to diminish the secondary market. As a business decision it's works great for Disney they now will have the majority of the sales, at least they will when our economy recovers.

I have received a lot of grief over my opinions the past several days. But, that is all they are, opinions. No better or worse than anyother. I believe I have finally figured out that people are really less intersted in my opinion, but are angered that I dare say something negative about the Great Disney. I have never said anything was illegal. I never claimed I purchased DVC as an investment, The most negative comment I made was saying I felt I was ripped-off by the new policy.

In my statement I said I don't think a lawsuit is the answer. I did say and still believe public opinion is the most important asset Disney owns. If enough people made it known that they don't like this policy Disney will change it. If everybody claims they are happy than nothing will change, except of course possibly losing more perks.

I'm interested in knowing if anybody has an opinion on how this may help current DVC owners. Are there benefits to this new policy that I am overlooking?

 

[bmtta2003]

But this - in terms of business ethics - is ethical. In fact, from a business ethics standpoint, it can be argued (and I have) that this is the ethical path to take. Without doing something like this, DVC cannot continue to grow and be a profitable subsidary. Shareholder value demands that Disney take steps to protect their business - and Disney has a legal and ethical responsibility to their shareholders. Also, without doing something like this, Disney could shortly have a situation on their hands where Disney collection trades are unsupportable. Doing this, they may have managed to protect those options for members who bought expecting them, removing them only for new member buying resale. That would also be an ethical action.

On the unethical side, it creates a class system of ownership. I don't like that, but I think that is outweighed by the pragmatic considerations of not screwing existing owners or their shareholders.

You have made a point I'm trying to make except yours is much more clear and concise. Disney made this decision on the needs of Disney shareholders not the needs of DVC holders.
Maybe you can now help explain that just because its legal doesn't mean it is helpful or beneficial. There are objections to my using moral and ethical.

I believe I am now famous, I am being quoted more than Shakespeare.

 

[doconeill]

Pure speculation...but as to how this might benefit...perhaps the administrative costs of doing all the exchanges that used to be allowed were getting to be too great, they had to make a choice - raise the costs of the exchanges across the board, which isn't helpful to anyone, or reduce the amount of exchanges to a subgroup of people who paid less for their memberships than those who purchased direct, which is well within the contractual powers.

Again, just speculation, but since it was asked how it could benefit the members (or at least some of them...)

Then again, this so far only affected exchanges within the Disney system to non-DVC related properties. I think the general consensus is that anyone buying points for that purpose is throwing money away...so is the impact really all that great?

 

[bmtta2003]

Of course not. But, (a) it is not clear to me that this is either immoral or unethical, and (b) companies are not bound by moral codes, but laws.


Let me understand something. Are you seriously comparing the removal of non-contractual use options for some owners to the abduction and enslavement of human beings?

Really?

Godwin's Law can't be far behind.

Are you being facetious? My only point was to prove that legal does not constitute morality or ethics. I think I have succeeded.

 

[Anewman]

I have never bought into a time share before. I believe they are all rip-offs, but I trusted the Disney name, only to find I was ripped off anyway!

I have never said anything was illegal. I never claimed I purchased DVC as an investment, The most negative comment I made was saying I felt I was ripped-off by the new policy.

Sorry but when you say they are rip offs or that they ripped you off... it implies that they committed a crime. So you did say they did something illegal.


Feel free to express negative opinions about Disney, but when in a thread about a possible lawsuit and you claim they ripped you off. Expect to get called on it.

 

[Brian Noble]

are angered that I dare say something negative about the Great Disney.

Not at all. If you look at my posting history, I have been pretty consistent about my views on this. Disney's job is to get as much of our money as possible, giving us as little as possible in return. Our job is to decide whether or not what Disney offers is worth our money, and to try to give less of it to them per unit "happiness". This relationship is necessarily adversarial.

Where perhaps we differ is that I *never* assume that Disney cares about me and my happiness except insofar as it leads me to give them more of my money. And, I never assumed that DVC was anything other than Yet Another Timeshare. It's sold a little bit differently, without the this-deal-is-good-today-only pressure*, but it's essentially the same thing.

(*: Even that's not entirely true. The DCL purchase incentives are time-limited.)

I felt I was ripped-off by the new policy.

Actually, I think the material impact will be low. The use options have relatively little value---in most cases, they have negative return vs. letting someone like David rent out your points and using the proceeds for the vacation you desire.

But, I was surprised by how many contracts moved prior to the 3/20 deadline, so I could be wrong about this too.

 

[bmtta2003]

Sorry but when you say they are rip offs or that they ripped you off... it implies that they committed a crime. So you did say they did something illegal.


Feel free to express negative opinions about Disney, but when in a thread about a possible lawsuit and you claim they ripped you off. Expect to get called on it.

First I am requesting the administrator rename this thread FLAME BMTTA2003.
It seems the original topic of lawsuit has been forgotten.

I grant your point that using the term, "Ripped-Off," implies illegality. Please feel free to change it to feel cheated. I clearly stated in the sentence previous to the one you quoted that I don't think Disney did anything illegal.

It seems I am the only one left to voice my displeasure with this new policy.
Has everyone else been bullied into acceptance? Is everyone else happy with this policy? If so why? Please let me know I want to be happy too! For those that are un-happy but are just to busy to complain or just feel complaining is a waste of time (anybody?) effect can only take place by action. There is nothing wrong with stating your un-happiness. It doesn't make you a bad person.

It seems that everyone in this thread has become a Disney defender. Is anyone here displeased by anything Disney? Is it sacriligious to say a bad word about Saint Walt?

I would like DVC to reverse this decision, but I cannot do it alone. Is anyone against having this decision reversed?

Yes, I welcome all comments for or against my opinions.

 

[bmtta2003]

Not at all. If you look at my posting history, I have been pretty consistent about my views on this. Disney's job is to get as much of our money as possible, giving us as little as possible in return. Our job is to decide whether or not what Disney offers is worth our money, and to try to give less of it to them per unit "happiness". This relationship is necessarily adversarial.

Where perhaps we differ is that I *never* assume that Disney cares about me and my happiness except insofar as it leads me to give them more of my money. And, I never assumed that DVC was anything other than Yet Another Timeshare. It's sold a little bit differently, without the this-deal-is-good-today-only pressure*, but it's essentially the same thing.

(*: Even that's not entirely true. The DCL purchase incentives are time-limited.)
Actually, I think the material impact will be low. The use options have relatively little value---in most cases, they have negative return vs. letting someone like David rent out your points and using the proceeds for the vacation you desire.

But, I was surprised by how many contracts moved prior to the 3/20 deadline, so I could be wrong about this too.

Yes I was taken in by the Disney name and the goodwill they project to the public. They should change their name from Disney to Dyson as their only goal is to suck as much money from your pocket as possible.

Before somebody replies that if I am so un-happy sell your DVC. To whom would I sell it?

 

[doconeill]

Yes I was taken in by the Disney name and the goodwill they project to the public. They should change their name from Disney to Dyson as their only goal is to suck as much money from your pocket as possible.

Before somebody replies that if I am so un-happy sell your DVC. To whom would I sell it?

Anybody you can get to buy it and rip them off?

 

[bmtta2003]

Amen Doc(not the webmaster)

 

[Brian Noble]

They should change their name from Disney to Dyson as their only goal is to suck as much money from your pocket as possible.

I sometimes describe a Disney vacation as: "Imagine being turned upside down, shaken until the last penny falls out of your pocket, then patted on the head and sent on your way. Surprisingly, you'll feel so good about the process that you will immediately start planning how you can do it again."

 

[Anewman]

Yes I was taken in by the Disney name and the goodwill they project to the public. They should change their name from Disney to Dyson as their only goal is to suck as much money from your pocket as possible.

I have never noticed the $15 parking at Disneyland or the $5 bottle of water...OF COURSE their goal is to suck as much money as possible.

Look nobody is HAPPY about losing any perks, but there is a big area between feeling cheated and being happy.

I dont feel taking this perk is unethical in anyway, but I respect that you do.

And I have not seen or partaken in any FLAMING of bmtta2003.