Let's speculate about Polynesian some more!

[Minniemoo15]

I think DVC is underestimating how big of a deal resale restrictions are to its members.

Most of us have swallowed the bitter pill that restrictions are the way of the future and while we may hate it, it’s just something we have to deal with.

For DVC to keep “expanding” current resorts without these restrictions, I feel they just don’t them as seriously as we do.

The resale restrictions are just silly at this point.

 

[MagicDVC]

A question about Poly tower availability Day 1:

Since this is adding 250 or so rooms to the existing 380 rooms, Disney will be selling more Polynesian points. From the time the extra Tower points start going on sale, the entire Polynesian will not be sold out.... it will go from 100% sold out to about 60% sold out.

Will they use this 60% number resort-wide and open 60% of the tower rooms and then block off 40% of Morrea/etc. to leave only 60% of the original DVC open?

Or will they only open up a percentage of the Tower rooms? Like if they sell 50% of the deeds, will only 50% of the tower rooms be available (or whatever formula they use), the rest cash, and 100% of the original Poly DVC available....

How did Grand Floridian do this?

No, 100% of the existing PVB is already declared into the existing association. They will declare a portion of the new tower into the association to be able to book through points. With VGF, IIRC they declared all the rooms at once which I doubt they would do with Poly.

 

[jbreen2010]

Yeah I mean obviously not having resale restrictions us worth a lot, but it just kind of seems like everyone treats the 9 years as worthless where as we look at 2042 resorts and say, there’s only 18 years left. At what point would you care about how many years are left? 2060? 2055? 2050? Nothing says DVC has to do the full 50 years, what if they started selling resorts with a lot less years on it like they did with the 2042 resorts since people obviously don’t care about the duration lol.

Yeah it’s an interesting point. If the new poly tower to be added was going to be 2042, I wouldn’t buy it…or may buy it for $80/point. There is likely some mathematical formula somewhere that DVC has for the pros / cons of this stuff. Like if DVC gives up resale restrictions on new poly tower but gets 9 years less if people owning it, probably a better deal for them than owners.

 

[Sandisw]

I heard back from my guide. He said they have been told they can not say the tower is part of PVB. Take that info for what it is worth.

 

[MerlinandtheMouse]

I think DVC is underestimating how big of a deal resale restrictions are to its members.

Most of us have swallowed the bitter pill that restrictions are the way of the future and while we may hate it, it’s just something we have to deal with.

For DVC to keep “expanding” current resorts without these restrictions, I feel they just don’t them as seriously as we do.

The resale restrictions are just silly at this point.

Agreed. Do all or do none (obviously please remove them all and do none!) The next WDW resort to have restrictions likely won’t be for many more years (sorry CFW, you’re unique in your own way) leaving RIV alone for that long really hurts its value and when they finally do open a new resort with restrictions Riviera will be much older and hold less value anyway.

DVC marketed Riviera with the idea that buying direct there will give you exclusive access to all the new resorts that DVC will add to its portfolio. They shouldn’t have marketed it that way if the only “new” ones come every 10 yrs or so. It was misleading and they should just remove them all together.

 

[DanCali]

I don’t want restrictions as a consumer but if I’m DVC long term I don’t understand why you would only put it on some resorts and not others.

Maybe the Riviera and VDH experiments are not really going as well as they thought they would. Selling 180K VGF points in September vs just 50K RVA points when they are both priced approximately the same says a lot. It's probably true that RVA will eventually still sell out but if you maybe planned to do it in 5 years and it takes 8+ years then that may not align with the long-term goals.

I, for one, will likely never but direct at a resale restricted resort like RVA because of the resale value destruction (I believe RVA will end up much lower than where it is now). The only exception would be if the start "point washing" my resale points and turn them into "as-if developer-purchased" with all the perks that come along with that. If they want to enter the resale-restriction game, that's how other developers like Marriott and Westin play it. In that case I know I'm "overpaying", but at least I'm getting extra value for my existing ownership that I wouldn't and couldn't get otherwise.

 

[MerlinandtheMouse]

The only exception would be if the start "point washing" my resale points and turn them into "as-if developer-purchased" with all the perks that come along with that. If they want to enter the resale-restriction game, that's how other developers like Marriott and Westin play it.

Could you explain this a little further, what does this mean?

 

[intamin]

Maybe the Riviera and VDH experiments are not really going as well as they thought they would. Selling 180K VGF points in September vs just 50K RVA points when they are both priced approximately the same says a lot. It's probably true that RVA will eventually still sell out but if you maybe planned to do it in 5 years and it takes 8+ years then that may not align with the long-term goals.

I, for one, will likely never but direct at a resale restricted resort like RVA because of the resale value destruction (I believe RVA will end up much lower than where it is now). The only exception would be if the start "point washing" my resale points and turn them into "as-if developer-purchased" with all the perks that come along with that. If they want to enter the resale-restriction game, that's how other developers like Marriott and Westin play it. In that case I know I'm "overpaying", but at least I'm getting extra value for my existing ownership that I wouldn't and couldn't get otherwise.

I wonder if they would consider selling Riviera unrestricted at a higher price point and then unrestrict the previously resale restricted points or give RIV owners the option to pay to remove the restrictions from their contracts. I don’t mind owning RIV despite it being resale restricted because we want to stay there. If I got nothing back for it, fine. We just want to be able to stay near Epcot for the foreseeable future. Our recent stay in a 1BR made me feel more justified about the purchase. I feel like right now we’re still booking BW and BC heavily with our points because we want to take advantage of those cheap point charts for now but I don’t have a problem spending them at RIV and knowing I’ll have access to the “standard” views.

It definitely causes a larger drop off in resale value as a result, but I think the resale value will actually go up like every other resort has once they’re not in active sales. If you want to see a large delta in resale price, look at direct SSR going for 165 or whatever it was right now, that’s an 80 dollar per point drop off.

 

[tidefan]

Maybe the Riviera and VDH experiments are not really going as well as they thought they would. Selling 180K VGF points in September vs just 50K RVA points when they are both priced approximately the same says a lot. It's probably true that RVA will eventually still sell out but if you maybe planned to do it in 5 years and it takes 8+ years then that may not align with the long-term goals.

I, for one, will likely never but direct at a resale restricted resort like RVA because of the resale value destruction (I believe RVA will end up much lower than where it is now). The only exception would be if the start "point washing" my resale points and turn them into "as-if developer-purchased" with all the perks that come along with that. If they want to enter the resale-restriction game, that's how other developers like Marriott and Westin play it. In that case I know I'm "overpaying", but at least I'm getting extra value for my existing ownership that I wouldn't and couldn't get otherwise.

I think it may more be VDH than RIV driving this. Sales seem much slower than any of us expected and I wonder if it’s the same for DVD? Also, just a quick glance at the “How much would you pay for VDH resale” is a sobering outlook for anyone considering buying there.

Personally, I wouldn’t buy any restricted property…

 

[DanCali]

Could you explain this a little further, what does this mean?

With Marriott or Westin/Sheraton (aka Vistana), if own resale ownership of deeded weeks it is usually restricted in some ways, similar to the RVA restrictions. Those companies are pretty aggressive at pulling existing owners into presentations (much more than DVC) and trying to sell them more direct ownership. Most savvy owners decline, at which point the salesperson, already knowing what you own, may start getting creative and say that if you buy a large direct purchase they could bring your existing resale ownership "into the system", that making the resale ownership equivalent to a direct purchase. In the DVC world that would be equivalent to taking your resale points (RVA, or other) and make them eligible to book at all resorts, or use for cruises and other stuff like that - the pitch might be "buy 200 direct points and grandfather XXX (don't know what the right number is) points". With other developers, those deals got better over time - at some point you could buy 1 direct Marriott deeded week for $50K+ and they would "grandfather" up to 7 resale weeks (they also had smaller deals involving fewer resale weeks).

We own several Marriott deeded weeks and I spent a over a year strategizing which resale purchased to make, and subsequently closing on those deals before I showed up to a sales presentation having those resale weeks in my back pocket. Similarly, with DVC, if I'm going to knowingly pay ~$200/pt for something that might be worth less than $100/pt if I turn around to sell it, I need to get something in return that I couldn't get elsewhere.

 

[kilik64]

Now that it's "confirmed" that poly 2 is part of poly 1, lets move speculation to point charts and availability going forward

Gotta figure the studios will be Standard, Lake, and Theme Park view. S and L will be the same as Poly 1 points chart would also assume. Id say TPV costs will be similar to the bump at VGF, IE anywhere from 4 to 9 points more per night depending on season.

From there they can go pretty hog wild on 1 and 2 br and any 3br GV it might have. No real clue on what those might end up.

Is there also any way to know or confirm yet that studios will still sleep 5 in the tower? Are assuming that based on the floorplans that are out there? If they don't, I could see that driving people to poly 1 for studios vs the tower, but otherwise, I dont see the studios being any harder to get than now really.

I think the situation now is for a a lot of poly owners they are switching to other resorts that have more options for 1br etc and thats why poly is generally fairly easy to get at 7 months. I think the tower will be harder to get for the 1br, 2br etc, but studios will most likely still be fairly easy to get into.

 

[CastAStone]

I heard back from my guide. He said they have been told they can not say the tower is part of PVB. Take that info for what it is worth.

I take it as he’s a sales guy with a highly regulated job.

The DVC executive said something to the effect of “as of now the plan is”. That means not 100% yet.

(But also I do think that whether DVC has realized it yet or not…
)

 

[maui22]

Yeah I mean obviously not having resale restrictions us worth a lot, but it just kind of seems like everyone treats the 9 years as worthless where as we look at 2042 resorts and say, there’s only 18 years left. At what point would you care about how many years are left? 2060? 2055? 2050? Nothing says DVC has to do the full 50 years, what if they started selling resorts with a lot less years on it like they did with the 2042 resorts since people obviously don’t care about the duration lol.

Wasn’t it normal for less than 50 years in the early 2000s? Thought BCV was roughly 40 years when it went on sale originally.

 

[Sandisw]

I take it as he’s a sales guy with a highly regulated job.

The DVC executive said something to the effect of “as of now the plan is”. That means not 100% yet.

(But also I do think that whether DVC has realized it yet or not…
View attachment 816313)

Based on our previous conversations I would have thought would have at least confirmed what was said by her at the meeting.

Since it’s been this long and DVD has not issued any statement one way or the other, it certainly means they don’t care that it’s being reports as confirmed. Enough for me to say that is the impression they want people to have.

 

[Sandisw]

I wonder if they would consider selling Riviera unrestricted at a higher price point and then unrestrict the previously resale restricted points or give RIV owners the option to pay to remove the restrictions from their contracts. I don’t mind owning RIV despite it being resale restricted because we want to stay there. If I got nothing back for it, fine. We just want to be able to stay near Epcot for the foreseeable future. Our recent stay in a 1BR made me feel more justified about the purchase. I feel like right now we’re still booking BW and BC heavily with our points because we want to take advantage of those cheap point charts for now but I don’t have a problem spending them at RIV and knowing I’ll have access to the “standard” views.

It definitely causes a larger drop off in resale value as a result, but I think the resale value will actually go up like every other resort has once they’re not in active sales. If you want to see a large delta in resale price, look at direct SSR going for 165 or whatever it was right now, that’s an 80 dollar per point drop off.

The way the documents were written, they can’t have different rules like that. The restrictions either will apply or not apply because all home resort owners have to have the same terms of the POs.

So, if they remove them, all owners will benefit. They can’t sell two different products without it being a material change to the POs.

It would be the same reason they can’t add to the resort that don’t have them.

 

[intamin]

Wasn’t it normal for less than 50 years in the early 2000s? Thought BCV was roughly 40 years when it went on sale originally.

Yep that’s what I meant with some of the 2042 resorts. None of the 2042s besides OKW got the full 50. If I’m DVC maybe the answer is to give less years and increase the cost without resale restrictions.

 

[intamin]

Based on our previous conversations I would have thought would have at least confirmed what was said by her at the meeting.

Since it’s been this long and DVD has not issued any statement one way or the other, it certainly means they don’t care that it’s being reports as confirmed. Enough for me to say that is the impression they want people to have.

Given the context of the question, idk how they could even back out now. I think they understood what the person implied. I’d say 99.9% chance same at this point. I don’t know if I would put much stock into them taking their sweet time to amend things, does anyone remember when there was an error with booking Grand Cal and they let people book their airfare and cancel other reservations before letting them know their reservation wasn’t valid?

 

[CastAStone]

Yeah I mean obviously not having resale restrictions us worth a lot, but it just kind of seems like everyone treats the 9 years as worthless where as we look at 2042 resorts and say, there’s only 18 years left. At what point would you care about how many years are left? 2060? 2055? 2050? Nothing says DVC has to do the full 50 years, what if they started selling resorts with a lot less years on it like they did with the 2042 resorts since people obviously don’t care about the duration lol.

Wasn’t it normal for less than 50 years in the early 2000s? Thought BCV was roughly 40 years when it went on sale originally.

I’d love to know where 50 years even came from. I can’t remember the last time Disney put a resort on sale with 50 years on it.
If you buy VDH today you’ll get 51 years of points.
Same with Riviera when it went on sale.
VGF 2 had 42-43 years
CCV had a number of UYs with 52 years of points when it went on sale, the rest had 51.

Disney never promises anything in terms of year count, just an expiration date.

 

[intamin]

I’d love to know where 50 years even came from. I can’t remember the last time Disney put a resort on sale with 50 years on it.
If you buy VDH today you’ll get 51 years of points.
Same with Riviera when it went on sale.
VGF 2 had 42-43 years
CCV had a number of UYs with 52 years of points when it went on sale, the rest had 51.

Disney never promises anything in terms of year count, just an expiration date.

50 years is because even though VDH opens in 2023, the contracts are finished in January 30th of 2074 which is before the first use year (February) starts so nobody gets points in 2074. The last time anybody will receive points at VDH is December 2073. Unless renewed, extended or new contracts are made of course. So everything in recent history has had the 50. The exceptions again being the 2042 resorts that aren’t OKW.

 

[SL6827]

Given the context of the question, idk how they could even back out now. I think they understood what the person implied. I’d say 99.9% chance same at this point. I don’t know if I would put much stock into them taking their sweet time to amend things, does anyone remember when there was an error with booking Grand Cal and they let people book their airfare and cancel other reservations before letting them know their reservation wasn’t valid?

It is extremely strange and totally unexpected that they might try to play a game like this. Weird.