Let's speculate about Polynesian some more!

[RichVIII]

See, I don't see them doing any sort of semantic or logical gymnastics, just to say "Yvonne wasn't lying". They'll just make it a new association, put it in the trust, avoid all of the convoluted machinations explored in this thread, and simply say "Yvonne specifically said "currently". That was then, this is now".

Or, they won't say anything.

Keeping it in the same association, legally, semantically, whatever, serves absolutely no functional purpose and provides no one with any tangible benefit.

Auuugree. And why, until Poly2 is in writing nobody should make financial decisions based on an after meeting comment that clearly left the door open. They won’t care about people being upset on what she said. She said at the moment. 2 seconds later was after that moment.

 

[New Mouse]

See, I don't see them doing any sort of semantic or logical gymnastics, just to say "Yvonne wasn't lying". They'll just make it a new association, put it in the trust, avoid all of the convoluted machinations explored in this thread, and simply say "Yvonne specifically said "currently". That was then, this is now".

Or, they won't say anything.

Keeping it in the same association, legally, semantically, whatever, serves absolutely no functional purpose and provides no one with any tangible benefit.

I mean the DVC staff and executives aren't exactly concerned about lying. They haven't been in the past and they most certainly aren't now so I'd imagine this is no news for them.

 

[PolyRob]

I mean the DVC staff and executives aren't exactly concerned about lying. They haven't been in the past and they most certainly aren't now so I'd imagine this is no news for them.

They could also be lying by omission. Same association (current intention), but declared into the Trust which has not been mentioned once.

 

[MerlinandtheMouse]

Curious if anyone has any recent pics of the tower, I’d love to see what they’ve gotten up to!

 

[thank_the_phoenicians88]

They could also be lying by omission. Same association (current intention), but declared into the Trust which has not been mentioned once.

Outcome for current poly owners (direct and resale) would remain unchanged. In this sevanrio, all poly owners can book priority at PVB or Towers. They cannot give tower owners priority access to PVB with giving reciprocal access. Otherwise it would create an unfair booking advantage.

 

[Sandisw]

Outcome for current poly owners (direct and resale) would remain unchanged. In this sevanrio, all poly owners can book priority at PVB or Towers. They cannot give tower owners priority access to PVB with giving reciprocal access. Otherwise it would create an unfair booking advantage.

If they just add Poly tower to the trust, then PVB owners won’t have any more rights to it than any other owners.

If they decided to make it part of the resort property for PVB, but create a different vacation plan for it…meaning it is added to the trust as resort property and part of the trust assocation and not part of the PVBcondo assocation…just the property…then I do believe they can structure it to lock out PVB owners until 7 months,

The contracts do allow them to add more units to a property and never sell them…or, as I said, put those units into a different plan…but, while I believe they can make it work, I no longer see them doing it.

I see them skipping a connection to PVB altogher.

 

[KimMcGowan]

If they just add Poly tower to the trust, then PVB owners won’t have any more rights to it than any other owners.

If they decided to make it part of the resort property for PVB, but create a different vacation plan for it…meaning it is added to the trust as resort property and part of the trust assocation and not part of the PVBcondo assocation…just the property…then I do believe they can structure it to lock out PVB owners until 7 months,

The contracts do allow them to add more units to a property and never sell them…or, as I said, put those units into a different plan…but, while I believe they can make it work, I no longer see them doing it.

I see them skipping a connection to PVB altogher.

I know how you are leaning - but that has me wondering. Disney often doesn’t care about any opinion other than their own. BUT they saw the reaction to the announcement Then they did nothing to correct it. Don’t you think now they would risk angering a large number of people if they went back on that announcement? I know, they said “our plan right now” but still…

 

[Sandisw]

I know how you are leaning - but that has me wondering. Disney often doesn’t care about any opinion other than their own. BUT they saw the reaction to the announcement Then they did nothing to correct it. Don’t you think now they would risk angering a large number of people if they went back on that announcement? I know, they said “our plan right now” but still…

Considering I have contacted DVC five times and they refuse to even confirm Chsngs statement?

Yes, I think the words “our plan right now” might have more meaning than people think they do.

Thst happened before any of the trust was set up and they weren’t going to tip there hands, if that is be connected in anyway.

As I have said, reading everything, I think they can make it part of the resort property, and still put it in the trust and give it different rules.

Lots of assumptions that her statement meant no changes to who has access and when.

But, I know think it will either be sold the same way or go the trust way. It won’t be put into the resort property as part of PVB just to go to the trust in an effort to make her statement true

I definitely don’t think they will make this decision based on the reactions of people.

 

[walt34]

Yes, I think the words “our plan right now” might have more meaning than people think they do.

I agree with everything you said, just two observations:

To say 'our plan right now' does not seem to be the right move if you don't want to show your hand but you already know that you want to handle things differently to your statement. It's a lie that will be found out eventually, so why say it? Especially if, as some people have claimed, it seems to have been a prepared question.

The two positions could still both be true if the tower enters PVB with some units and the trust with others. It might also keep them from giving a more detailed written statement, as it would be hard to make an additional statement that does not imply that something new (trust) might be happening.

 

[Sandisw]

I agree with everything you said, just two observations:

To say 'our plan right now' does not seem to be the right move if you don't want to show your hand but you already know that you want to handle things differently to your statement. It's a lie that will be found out eventually, so why say it? Especially if, as some people have claimed, it seems to have been a prepared question.

The two positions could still both be true if the tower enters PVB with some units and the trust with others. It might also keep them from giving a more detailed written statement, as it would be hard to make an additional statement that does not imply that something new (trust) might be happening.

One my questions just asked to confirm that a question was asked and that Chang gave an answer.

They came back with “we can not answer that question”. So, to me, that’s a pretty big thing, at least in my opinion

 

[walt34]

One my questions just asked to confirm that a question was asked and that Chang gave an answer.

They came back with “we can not answer that question”. So, to me, that’s a pretty big thing, at least in my opinion

This would indeed point to accidental communication. At least if your contact is high enough in the food chain and this answer is not the result of a blanket ban on communication on this subject to prevent speculation.

 

[Sandisw]

This would indeed point to accidental communication. At least if your contact is high enough in the food chain and this answer is not the result of a blanket ban on communication on this subject to prevent speculation.

It may not be that high up, but if they are standing behind their statement, or at least acknowledge it was a topic at the meeting, I’d buy that.

But, as an owner, I should be given the information from that meeting when asked.

So, as far as I am concerned, until it is in writing, I don’t put any faith in her comment. It may turn out to be true snd being part of the trust won’t even play a role.

But, they also sent out an email in December about the cabins that seemed to indicate it would be sold as normal…..and guess what? It’s not.

 

[walt34]

So, as far as I am concerned, until it is in writing, I don’t put any faith in her comment. It may turn out to be true snd being part of the trust won’t even play a role.

But, they also sent out an email in December about the cabins that seemed to indicate it would be sold as normal…..and guess what? It’s not.

I think we can pretty much preclude the option that they (DVD as an organisation) did not know about the trust strategy at the beginning of December, when the meeting took place. This does not appear to be something that they came up with in December. So either Chang did not know about it (isn't her signature on the trust filings?), didn't understand it or at least parts of the tower might actually be added to PVB and she just overstepped what she was supposed to say at this moment.

It might also be a devious play but if so I fail to understand its purpose. I usually go with Hanlon's razor (never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity) but in the case of organisations, internal miscommunication offers a third option (which I assume to be the reason behind the email you mentioned).

 

[Sandisw]

I think we can pretty much preclude the option that they (DVD as an organisation) did not know about the trust strategy at the beginning of December, when the meeting took place. This does not appear to be something that they came up with in December. So either Chang did not know about it (isn't her signature on the trust filings?), didn't understand it or at least parts of the tower might actually be added to PVB and she just overstepped what she was supposed to say at this moment.

It might also be a devious play but if so I fail to understand its purpose. I usually go with Hanlon's razor (never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity) but in the case of organisations, internal miscommunication offers a third option (which I assume to be the reason behind the email you mentioned).

Chang knew about the trust. But DVd wasn’t going to even mention that since nothing was filed and wasn’t going to cause more questions than answers.

And, I still believe that the “our plan right now is” was more than just a meaningless statement. I think that was prepared.

We shall see!!

 

[walt34]

And, I still believe that the “our plan right now is” was more than just a meaningless statement. I think that was prepared.

What do you believe the purpose of the statement was? I understand it as 'if nothing changes and nothing unexpected happens, this is what we are going to do'. It would be contradicted by the ongoing work on the trust, if the tower ultimately joins the trust and does not become available to existing Poly owners, would it not? Why make the statement?

 

[Sandisw]

What do you believe the purpose of the statement was? I understand it as 'if nothing changes and nothing unexpected happens, this is what we are going to do'. It would be contradicted by the ongoing work on the trust, if the tower ultimately joins the trust and does not become available to existing Poly owners, would it not? Why make the statement?

The other part I think that was important was she said “to the poly resort” and that eventhough the person said association, she did not.

I believe the statement was like anything. They don’t confirm until the are ready and that statement just meant that no decision was final…and it wasn’t final because no paperwork was filed.

As I said, why send out an email about the cabins in December with fine print implying it would be sold the same old way, when they knew at that point it would not?

Why did they not even confirm that Bay Lake tower would be DVC until it was almost finished?

If they wanted it to be set, it would have been clear…and they would have had slides presenting it for owners, like they did for CFW.

Why didn’t they? Some people think it was a planted question but I don’t. I think they let it get asked and answered the way they did to keep doubt in play…and there are a lot of us here who are not sold that statement was a confirming as one thinks.

That was all before we saw the actual documents to setup the trust. That puts a lot of language in there that isn’t there for just the cabins.

 

[walt34]

The other part I think that was important was she said “to the poly resort” and that when though the person said association, she did not

I noticed that, too. The question is what else could she have meant? It could hardly have been the location of the tower. Maybe she just wanted to say, that it would be sharing resources (pools, etc.)? This would have been a non-statement (as this was obvious for some time). Maybe she was going for this but why then the disclaimer with 'our plans right now'? It hardly seems necessary with this interpretation.

As I said, why send out an email about the cabins in December with fine print implying it would be sold the same old way, when they knew at that point it would not?

This appears to be just a mistake. Maybe they kept the trust concept too secret even from the marketing department? What I find strange about this is that I cannot imagine any marketing communication not being cleared by the legal department for a time share company.

If they just didn't want to say anything, why not just say that? They've been doing this for a long time. There was no need to say more during the meeting.

So, if they actually didn't want to say anything, it was badly handled communication. But I agree with your conclusion: until they say more, we should assume nothing. Regarding the trust setup, I agree that it opens some doors for DVD. Whether they want to go through right now or this is just to keep some options open for later we will see in time. I think both options (shared home resorts start with the Poly Tower vs. everything stays more or less the same for the time being) are possible.

 

[BeachClub2014]

I believe the statement was like anything. They don’t confirm until the are ready and that statement just meant that no decision was final…and it wasn’t final because no paperwork was filed.

I noticed that, too. The question is what else could she have meant? It could hardly have been the location of the tower. Maybe she just wanted to say, that it would be sharing resources (pools, etc.)? This would have been a non-statement (as this was obvious for some time). Maybe she was going for this but why then the disclaimer with 'our plans right now'? It hardly seems necessary with this interpretation.

The non-answer response given by Yvonne Chang will live in DVC lore for years to come.

I can understand why people have read what they want into her vague response, and why others may think she was trying to be devious given her knowledge of the Trust. I also understand why many (myself included) think she just badly fumbled her answer.

There is no way on Earth that it was a "planted" question to allow DVC to "leak" that the Tower would become part of the PVB association. And then do it so poorly. That just defies logic. If DVC wanted to make any proclamations or announcements related to the Tower, they would have done so as part of the meeting or in a separate press release. And they haven't.

I've read many times that Yvonne's answer must be true because DVC hasn't issued any corrections or rolled back what she said. So what? They haven't doubled down on her statement or confirmed it, either.

At the end of the day, I think the DVC execs certainly anticipated that the question would be asked, Yvonne poorly fielded the response, and there's not much to it. Chalk it up to a brain cramp.

 

[walt34]

At the end of the day, I think the DVC execs certainly anticipated that the question would be asked, Yvonne poorly fielded the response, and there's not much to it. Chalk it up to a brain cramp.

Most likely. Which brings us back to Hanlon's razor.

 

[Sandisw]

I noticed that, too. The question is what else could she have meant? It could hardly have been the location of the tower. Maybe she just wanted to say, that it would be sharing resources (pools, etc.)? This would have been a non-statement (as this was obvious for some time). Maybe she was going for this but why then the disclaimer with 'our plans right now'? It hardly seems necessary with this interpretation.


This appears to be just a mistake. Maybe they kept the trust concept too secret even from the marketing department? What I find strange about this is that I cannot imagine any marketing communication not being cleared by the legal department for a time share company.

If they just didn't want to say anything, why not just say that? They've been doing this for a long time. There was no need to say more during the meeting.

So, if they actually didn't want to say anything, it was badly handled communication. But I agree with your conclusion: until they say more, we should assume nothing. Regarding the trust setup, I agree that it opens some doors for DVD. Whether they want to go through right now or this is just to keep some options open for later we will see in time. I think both options (shared home resorts start with the Poly Tower vs. everything stays more or less the same for the time being) are possible.

Why is the email a mistake but the statement not one?

The point is, in either case, there was nothing official filed for either project and both had subject to change language.

Since the beginning, they have been very vague about this project…and that has been on purpose.

They didn’t have a problem with VGF stating their intention without the clarifying language.

I still believe that this will go to the trust and if pushed, the response will be “She said it would go to the resort, and that is true..it’s at Poly resort. “. Of course, that could be wrong but it just seems there is too much in the new trust documents to support that is just for CFW

Now, I do agree it would have been better to answer the same way they are now answering me “we can’t give any info on that yet”.

But they did not prepare a slide and did for the cabins. So, I agree with the other poster that it just wasn’t answered well.