Let's speculate about Polynesian some more!

[wiihoo888]

You say existing, I say new. Disney never defined what a new resort is, again very annoying. They could have avoided this by just being clearer. But I take this decision that your way of looking at is more their thinking and I’ll keep that in mind going forward. But nothing has been written in DVD documents about what a new resort entails or is excluded from, again leaving themselves open for interpretation and wiggle room in the future.

To your point….what will the cabins at Fort Wilderness have as their terms? They are certainly part of an existing resort. So how will the terms of their association be handled? That word isn’t in there at all. That is the devil in the wiggle room details and it could go either way

Once again, I am a proponent of just having them get rid of the restrictions and being done with it. We’ll all find out what they decide whenever they decide it

 

[BeachClub2014]

Sure, but that's the crux of the issue. People are disappointed because they read a promise that was never actually stated or intended (or if it was stated it was imprecise language used by a salesperson). Disney never "very publicly" said the thing that you're saying they said.

So far, BRV/CCV is the only example where new construction at an existing resort was made a new association, and it's also the only situation where it would have been illegal for Disney to sell the new villas under the existing association (without significant restructuring) because there was less than 40 years left on the contract. I'm not saying that I was certain either way about Poly2--I feel like it could have gone either way depending on Disney's goals--but I don't think anyone should be particularly surprised that they decided to use the existing association.

So I will play the same pedantic game right back at you: show me anything in writing from Disney indicating that the new Poly Tower is part of the same association as Poly 1.

 

[MerlinandtheMouse]

To your point….what will the cabins at Fort Wilderness have as their terms? They are certainly part of an existing resort. So how will the terms of their association be handled? That word isn’t in there at all. That is the devil in the wiggle room details and it could go either way

Once again, I am a proponent of just having them get rid of the restrictions and be done with it. We’ll all find out what they decide whenever they decide it

I think CFW will have to be in its own category given its original nature. It will be a new association because although it’s part of an existing resort it’s not part of an existing DVC resort. But putting restrictions on CFW feels like an insane move for DVD given that the future resale value would likely plummet, or at the very least, be incredibly unstable, making potential buyers very reluctant to go direct there when they can go direct at another active selling resort and swap at 7mo for the cabins.

 

[wiihoo888]

I think CFW will have to be in its own category given its original nature. It will be a new association because although it’s part of an existing resort it’s not part of an existing DVC resort. But putting restrictions on CFW feels like an insane move for DVD given that the future resale value would likely plummet, or at the very least, be incredibly unstable, making potential buyers very reluctant to go direct there when they can go direct at another active selling resort and swap at 7mo for the cabins.

Completely agree. A lot of folks seem convinced it will have restrictions. I am thinking they will take advantage of that wiggle room to not have them

 

[Sykes]

To your point….what will the cabins at Fort Wilderness have as their terms? They are certainly part of an existing resort. So how will the terms of their association be handled? That word isn’t in there at all. That is the devil in the wiggle room details and it could go either way

My assumption is that it will be its own association, although, given the unique nature of the resort, when it was first announced I was a bit surprised that they didn't try to figure out some way to wrap it into Wilderness Lodge (CCV association). It's also not part of the 14 DVC resorts that Disney referenced in their public statements regarding restrictions on resale so my default assumption is that it will have resale restrictions, but I wouldn't be terribly surprised if Disney has decided that they don't actually need those resale restrictions to sell DVC resorts anymore. (Much like you, personally I'd love it if they got rid of them entirely.)

So I will play the same pedantic game right back at you: show me anything in writing from Disney indicating that the new Poly Tower is part of the same association as Poly 1.

I assume that will be in the paperwork that the new owners sign when they buy. Obviously, for the time being, they could still change their minds--we know that nothing is set in stone until the paperwork is filed.

 

[zavandor]

I wrote a really long response but honestly I just feel like I’m smacking my head on a wall over and over again. It’s not your fault- just feel like I’m constantly explaining myself and being told you asked for it so shut up. But I hope everyone who’s telling RIV owners they’re promised nothing and can’t complain, they’re doing the same thing to those who are complaining about the retheming at any of the resorts cause that certainly isn’t promised to them, it was just marketed to them like that when they originally bought in and why they chose that location.

But yeah you’re right here I acknowledge what you’re saying. Think myself and many others have mentioned a few times in the threads - we get it. We completely understood then, too. We are promised nothing but a room to sleep in at 11mo (and even that has become a bit iffy at times) I just assumed most had made a collective decision to purchase for a few other impermanent perks, as well. Wrong to assume and as good a time as any to stop harping about this. Has anyone actually purchased RIV because of restrictions? That would certainly be an interesting take.

You were promised that you would have access to all future resorts that will join DVC. And you still have that.
Complaining that other people have the same is just mean. You want to feel good about having something that others don't? OK, but you were not promised that.

 

[BamaGuy44]

Sigh….no, there is not. It is what we were reassured of verbally. And yes, that means it is not legally binding. This is all about the perception that DVC has left us with in seemingly going against that. We all have our issues with DVC from time to time. This one just hit Riviera owners (or at least some of us) some sort of way

So tedious the way people will excuse misleading marketing just because on page 19 of the contract in fine print it says that everything you’re told can be changed on a whim, or may not even be true to begin with. They even tell you verbally usually that nothing is guaranteed, don’t buy based on perks or restrictions or blah blah. Yeah we get it. That doesn’t mean it’s not a bit annoying when you’re told things during a 5 figure purchase that they then go back on.

I don’t see anyone saying they’re legally entitled to anything, but it’s disappointing IMO that they don’t make at least a little effort to keep their promises, or at least be upfront about it, which is the bare minimum for doing business in good faith.

 

[Sykes]

it’s disappointing IMO that they don’t make at least a little effort to keep their promises, or at least be upfront about it, which is the bare minimum for doing business in good faith.

Just to be clear, I'm not excusing Disney if they truly broke any promises that they intended to make (verbal or otherwise). Even a guide using imprecise language that accidentally creates a broader commitment than Disney intended is a legitimate beef (albeit a bit smaller scale). But I do take issue with accusing Disney of lying or breaking promises when it's really a matter of Disney interpreting "new resort" (and similar language) differently than some posters would choose to interpret it.

 

[wiihoo888]

Just to be clear, I'm not excusing Disney if they truly broke any promises that they intended to make (verbal or otherwise). Even a guide using imprecise language that accidentally creates a broader commitment than Disney intended is a legitimate beef (albeit a bit smaller scale). But I do take issue with accusing Disney of lying or breaking promises when it's really a matter of Disney interpreting "new resort" differently than some posters would choose to interpret it.

Yah…it’s just way murkier than need be, and that definitely doesn’t seem new to DVC. None of us knows anything about the future resorts (associations, whatever), and there really is no sense in even debating it. The fickle hand of DVC fate will let us know when it decides things for us

More than anything, I hate the way the changes seem to have some of our community pitted against each other. We’re all just subject to their whims, our concerns based on when we bought and where, and I don’t think anyone bought in to stick it to someone else. It’s the way of timeshares, and I get it. Still hits wrong when it slaps against any of our expectations though

 

[Genie+]

Is there a link or other published resource where DVC has said that new construction at existing resorts would be subject to booking and resale restrictions? I'm having trouble finding any real public statement. The best I can find is some reports here where someone said their guide may have used imprecise language and said "new construction" would have restrictions rather than "new resorts".

They let RIV buyers think they would not be the oddball as new DVC gets added.

It’s one thing to accept restrictions, something else to learn you actually got the oddity.

Since then only 1 of 3 DVC additions has joined RIV and it’s on the west coast. 0 for 2 at WDW.

It’s the opposite direction from normalizing restrictions at RIV, rubbing salt into the wound.

Is this now a double whammy on RIV resale value? Twice the damage now. First was the sole resort booking, now it’s also sits alone outside the east coast resale pack that can book the 2 new additions to WDW.

Never guaranteed how all this would work and hopefully matters less as time goes. It is stinky right now.

Beyond RIV buyers, recent direct buyers are left with a shrug too. Any thought of paying more than resale so you can access new DVC seems like a mistake. Now it’s always going to be pointed out when people compare pros/cons direct/resale, the same way people now always emphasize APs should absolutely never be considered after DVC lost access for 2 years.

 

[Sandisw]

Every single Riviera owner has signed a document acknowledging that no other resort might ever be built or that resale restrictions might be lifted at any moment.
No one should buy Riviera just because of the existence of the resale restrictions.

It think this is more than anything else for some who are disappointed when they bought RIV. I knew what I bought and if I end up with the only restricted resort in the system at WDW, that’s okay because I bought RIV to stay there. That doesn’t change.

But, this does damage the credibility piece of it all, and that now, what it appears is that they are not committed to restricting resale from future projects because all they need to do is “add to existing resorts” instead of calling them new.

I am off Poly tower because of it being combined with PVB, not because I wanted it to have restrictions. Had it been new without restrictions, it’d still be on my list.

But, doing this…rolling it into PVB instead of making it a new resort, when technically it could easily have been…I have no reason to buy any more direct points…because I might be willing to gamble that they simply take this flip flop approach and maybe future resale points won’t be limited.

If I was a new buyer, I’d gamble for sure.

 

[CarolynFH]

Post in thread 'The Poly2 Pricing Thread'
https://www.disboards.com/threads/the-poly2-pricing-thread.3875905/post-65194286

This post states they received email from their guide confirming the tower is part of PVB and points are $250.

Anyone else?

 

[Sandisw]

But that doesn't say what I asked about. "The new policy essentially states that if you purchase a contract on the resale market after January 19, 2019, you will not be eligible to exchange your points at any new resorts built by Disney." I asked where anyone was publicly promised that new construction at existing resorts would be subject to the restrictions.

This section is also silent on new construction at existing resorts, but makes it clear that resale points will still be able to exchange into the existing 14 resorts:

People knew they couldn’t apply to existing resorts.

The issue for some is the disappointment that DVD chose to build a brand new building at an existing resort that could be self sufficient as a new resort and chose to add it to a current one there when they didn’t have to do that.

So, as I just posted, it’s hard to believe them now that future projects will be new and not just add ons which gets it out of the “resale will be restricted” strategy.

Either commit to it or don’t..but doing some as new builds and new associations that get restricted and some that will be additional phases of existing resorts make their strategy confusing and for some, they feel it was misleading

ETA. I’ll even go as far to say that waiting almost two years to tell people it would be available to resale buyers was misleading. The current POS allows for them to add phases to projects and I can’t find anything to say they have to wait to declare that.

They could have said back in 2022. “Our plan is to add this as a new phase to PVB, but that is subject to change”.

The fact they didn’t means they wanted new direct buyers to potentially assume it would follow the whole “resale will be restricted” from new resorts.

Heck, it’s why a lot of us here thought for sure this would be made new as we thought that DVD was committed to that. And adding them to VDH last Spring implied they still were.

 

[wiihoo888]

Post in thread 'The Poly2 Pricing Thread'
https://www.disboards.com/threads/the-poly2-pricing-thread.3875905/post-65194286

This post states they received email from their guide confirming the tower is part of PVB and points are $250.

Anyone else?

Well that price point is sobering. Eek!

 

[Genie+]

Post in thread 'The Poly2 Pricing Thread'
https://www.disboards.com/threads/the-poly2-pricing-thread.3875905/post-65194286

This post states they received email from their guide confirming the tower is part of PVB and points are $250.

Anyone else?

That makes me glad I don’t need to spend that kind of money to stay there.

 

[Minniemoo15]

Considering it’s not going on sale for many more months, I would be surprised if they had an initial price already decided and announced to guides.

 

[CarolynFH]

Considering it’s not going on sale for many more months, I would be surprised if they had an initial price already decided and announced to guides.

Yes, that’s why I’m wondering whether anyone else has received the same message from their guide.

 

[Sandisw]

Post in thread 'The Poly2 Pricing Thread'
https://www.disboards.com/threads/the-poly2-pricing-thread.3875905/post-65194286

This post states they received email from their guide confirming the tower is part of PVB and points are $250.

Anyone else?

No, but obviously the guides got updates after I heard from mine yesterday. It also explains why it wasn’t pulled from the website.

 

[wiihoo888]

No, but obviously the guides got updates after I heard from mine yesterday. It also explains why it wasn’t pulled from the website.

Yah, and it is already $250 on the website. Of course there will be incentives, but that is a real number

 

[Sandisw]

Considering it’s not going on sale for many more months, I would be surprised if they had an initial price already decided and announced to guides.

That is it’s sold out price. My guess is with VDH at $230 now, that start Poly tower at $250 a year from now would fit.

My guess is we will see RIV and AUL go to $230 this summer…if not before…