New rule enforcement on points

[Dr. DVC]

I agree morphing is the problem. But since DVC can't do anything about that they have to limit transfers. Kind of like fighting cocaine trafficking because you can't eliminate the real problem of drug addiction and abuse. (An analogy, folks. Not meant to compare anyone here to drug addicts.)

Why can't Disney fix this problem?

With 100,000 DVC members buying into DVC at an average of $10,000 = $1,000,000,000 = one billion dollars for 7 resorts.

Then add MF of $4pp x 10,000,000 = $40,000,000 per year from MF

I think any business with this amount of money could easily fix any software problem.

IMHO

 

[dianeschlicht]

Why can't Disney fix this problem?

With 100,000 DVC members buying into DVC at an average of $10,000 = $1,000,000,000 = one billion dollars for 7 resorts.

Then add MF of $4pp x 10,000,000 = $40,000,000 per year from MF

I think any business with this amount of money could easily fix any software problem.

IMHO

Are you saying that instead of using the money they get in payment to off set construction, they should use it to write a new program? Or are you saying that instead of paying the taxes and transportation fees, and all other maintenance to run the resorts, they should use THAT money to pay for the fix? I guess I think it is something that will take awhile to do, and frankly, if they take maintenance fees for that, we wont have much to "go home" to, since there wont be transportation, desk workers, grounds keepers, pools, etc, etc, etc....No, I think that money needs to be alotted for over a period of time, and they need to know HOW to make the fix first. What they are doing now is a stop gap measure for sure, but about all they have at their disposal in the present.

 

[rinkwide]

...we wont have much to "go home" to, since there wont be transportation, desk workers, grounds keepers, pools, etc, etc, etc...

I'm getting the impression that patching DVC's software will be almost as difficult as paying off the national debt.

 

[Dr. DVC]

Are you saying that instead of using the money they get in payment to off set construction, they should use it to write a new program? Or are you saying that instead of paying the taxes and transportation fees, and all other maintenance to run the resorts, they should use THAT money to pay for the fix? I guess I think it is something that will take awhile to do, and frankly, if they take maintenance fees for that, we wont have much to "go home" to, since there wont be transportation, desk workers, grounds keepers, pools, etc, etc, etc....No, I think that money needs to be alotted for over a period of time, and they need to know HOW to make the fix first. What they are doing now is a stop gap measure for sure, but about all they have at their disposal in the present.

I think Disney should take less profit and fix something that is obviously a problem.

With $1 Billion in DVC sales and at least $40 million in DVC yearly revenue, fixing the software should be chump change.

In fact, if they rewrote the entire software program, it would probably cost less than $2 million. Perhaps they can pass this expense to the new owners at CRV or AKV.

Besides, Disney just sold some beach front land south of VB for $13 milliion. I wonder what they will do with that money.

 

[ralphd]

Why can't Disney fix this problem?

With 100,000 DVC members buying into DVC at an average of $10,000 = $1,000,000,000 = one billion dollars for 7 resorts.

Then add MF of $4pp x 10,000,000 = $40,000,000 per year from MF

I think any business with this amount of money could easily fix any software problem.

IMHO

The money received from the members purchase price is Disney's and the members have no claim on any portion of the funds. Disney's obligations under the contract were provided at closing. The annual fees are the only funds received to operate the resorts.

 

[Chuck S]

They can not bill it to "new owners", member services serves ALL members, any upgrade costs would be divided amongst all members. "Disney" as an entity does not pay for member services, DVC members do. "Disney" owned the land in VB, not DVC. DVC only "leased" it from Disney. Just as Disney gets the management "profit", but the management "costs" are paid for by DVC members, including MS software.

 

[ralphd]

Besides, Disney just sold some beach front land south of VB for $13 milliion. I wonder what they will do with that money.

That money is Disney's, none of it will go to DVC or it's members.

 

[dianeschlicht]

They can not bill it to "new owners", member services serves ALL members, any upgrade costs would be divided amongst all members. "Disney" as an entity does not pay for member services, DVC members do. "Disney" owned the land in VB, not DVC. DVC only "leased" it from Disney. Just as DIsney gets the management "profit" but , but the management "costs" are paid for by DVC members, including MS software.

Exactly!

 

[Plutofan]

I would think that fixing the computer system problem would be an oligation of DVCMC. I am not sure if this is the company that receives the management fees that we pay to Disney to run the DVC. I would assume that DVCMC is owned by Disney. Does any one know? DVCMC obligation is:
as defined in the Multi-Site Public Offering Statement is:

DVCMC is responsible for the operation of the Home Resort Reservation Component for each DVC resort. DVCMC performs its obligations for the Club pursuant to the terms and conditions of the membership Agrrement and the Home Resort Rules and Regulations for each DVC Resort

Based upon the above I would assume that DVCMC has a resposibility to the members to do something to fix the problem. From another thread on a different board I believe that the management fee is stated as a % of overall budget items after excluding certain items.

 

[TCPluto]

I think Disney should take less profit and fix something that is obviously a problem.

They did fix the obvious probelm, by now enforcing the transfer rule. Ir was fairly cost effective too.

 

[joepoe]

I agree that it will hurt the normal DVC'ers flexibility. But I think Disney is controlling their Member Service costs by limiting transfers, they are not worried about commercial renters. I don't think the "commercial" renters are that big a force. There are 100,000 members and only about 2,000 can stay at any one week! If 5,000 want to stay at Christmas week (only 5% of total membership) 3,000 members are going to be disappointed! I am of the opinion that "commercial types" are only a very small percent of total owners, and Disney knows who they are. After all they have all the stats. They could go after them if they wanted to spend the bucks, and may hae done so already.

I want to limit commercial renters and profiteers as much as everyone else, yet I feel I will suffer as a DVC owner with this new rule enforcement.

I used to own 4 contracts 250 points each and now I own only 2 contracts. I love DVC and use it a lot. I am of the mindset that if something is good, then more if that something will be fantastic.

Honestly, 1,000 was more points that I ever used as I hated to spend the points to stay Fri-Sat nights and I found myself transferring extra points to family and friends accounts and occasionally rented points on DIS before they expired.

Now, I face a situation of only being allowed to transfer once a year and I think that sucks for me. Perhaps Disney should crack down on the abusers and not the entire DVC community. Talk about throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

 

[joepoe]

Sorry to all that are genuine DVC'rs. Something had to be done. All the prime times were being consumed by commercial renters.

There is NO WAY you can justify such a statement, I am sorry. There are 100,000 members! 2,000 a week! So all the good weeks are taken by commercial renters? I dont think so. You see ten rentals a day on EBay and you think that is a lot? That is nothing. A pittance of a percentage of the total.

 

[Deb & Bill]

I agree that it will hurt the normal DVC'ers flexibility. But I think Disney is controlling their Member Service costs by limiting transfers, ...

There has always been a limit to transfers. It's just that MS didn't track them well enough and they got out of hand with the point morphing. Transferring VB points into a BCV account and !VOILA! you have more BCV points.

 

[Dean]

The money received from the members purchase price is Disney's and the members have no claim on any portion of the funds. Disney's obligations under the contract were provided at closing. The annual fees are the only funds received to operate the resorts.

Agreed, but DVCMC owns the software. I would think that any costs in this area would come under their 12% fee.

They did fix the obvious probelm, by now enforcing the transfer rule. Ir was fairly cost effective too.

Not at all, possibly only shifted it a little.

There is NO WAY you can justify such a statement, I am sorry. There are 100,000 members! 2,000 a week! So all the good weeks are taken by commercial renters? I dont think so. You see ten rentals a day on EBay and you think that is a lot? That is nothing. A pittance of a percentage of the total.

agreed, at least there are some here who don't think with their hearts.

There has always been a limit to transfers. It's just that MS didn't track them well enough and they got out of hand with the point morphing. Transferring VB points into a BCV account and !VOILA! you have more BCV points.

The only limit that's always been in place is one direction and only current use year points. Until about 2000, transferred points couldn't be banked. From 2003 until this summer, multiple transfers in one direction was the rule.

 

[eileenkeeney]

I would think that fixing the computer system problem would be an oligation of DVCMC. I am not sure if this is the company that receives the management fees that we pay to Disney to run the DVC. I would assume that DVCMC is owned by Disney. Does any one know? DVCMC obligation is:
as defined in the Multi-Site Public Offering Statement is:

DVCMC is responsible for the operation of the Home Resort Reservation Component for each DVC resort. DVCMC performs its obligations for the Club pursuant to the terms and conditions of the membership Agrrement and the Home Resort Rules and Regulations for each DVC Resort

Based upon the above I would assume that DVCMC has a resposibility to the members to do something to fix the problem. From another thread on a different board I believe that the management fee is stated as a % of overall budget items after excluding certain items.

I would agree that someone has a responsibility (and likely a legal obligation)
to fix the problem either by fixing the software or with some sort of process.
I believe that this obligation existed as soon as they were aware of the problem.

Enforcing the existing transfer rule is not sufficient. A lot of points can be moved with one transfer.

If someone can not get their desired accommodations outside the 7 month window, and even one of their desired accommodations has been rented with morphed points, the person has a valid complaint (possibly grounds to take legal action). I don't know how a person would find this out.

I suspect the DVC is already aware of a potential legal problem with this morphing thing, and that is why they are not allowed to discuss it.

 

[TCPluto]

Not at all, possibly only shifted it a little.

There are some fairly active comercial renters no longer able to morph points to their liking, which will reduce the number of prime reservations they are consuming.

With the limit on transfers, they better get a whole years worth of prime studio rental points morphed into their account, in one transaction.

And I don't think they'll be able to do it.

 

[Anjelica]

There are some fairly active comercial renters no longer able to morph points to their liking, which will reduce the number of prime reservations they are consuming.

With the limit on transfers, they better get a whole years worth of prime studio rental points morphed into their account, in one transaction.

And I don't think they'll be able to do it.

And quite honestly if even the "pittance" of commerical renters out there hurt the true intention of DVC by renting out a prime week simply to turn a profit then I think Disney should do something.

Yes - some of us think with our heats in certain cirumstances but quite honestly don't we all LOVE disney and thats why we purchased into it? If we didn't think with our hearts on this DVC would not be in existence.

Bottom line - commercial renting - regardless if they do it 1000 times a year or 1 time a year is the same - commercial renting.

 

[Dean]

There are some fairly active comercial renters no longer able to morph points to their liking, which will reduce the number of prime reservations they are consuming.

With the limit on transfers, they better get a whole years worth of prime studio rental points morphed into their account, in one transaction.

And I don't think they'll be able to do it.

This appears to be an extremely small group that are attempting to morph points from what I can see. And given that most would have to be active on the internet or similar, I think we see most of what is going on. Since there is no formal definition of "commercial renter", it's hard to discuss this in detail without agreeing on some type of framework. Lets assume we concentrate on the group that we all could agree would fall into this area, there are maybe 10-20 at most that we could likely identify. And we know that at least some of them were actually transferring points to other members for payment. The other group that are morphing are the members who bought a small contract at their favorite one or more sites and are transferring in simply to use. They can still do that at this time but only once per use year per separate contract, nothing else has changed in that area. Plus some of those will be driven to schedule high demand rentals rather than transferring out.

But other members have lost options as well. Here are areas where this may negatively affect members everyone could agree are faultless.

• Those wanting to plan a large point trip for family, cruise, etc.
• Those who just needed a few points to round out a reservation.
• Those with just a few points they likely won't be able to use and wanted to dispose of them.
• Those that were already timid with the process, esp those who were far more comfortable transferring that fooling with the rentals.

I would bet the number of units scheduled for rental during high demand times will actually remain the same or more likely, actually increase under the change. Plus I predict we'll actually see the rental prices (transfers included) go up and we've definitely seen people not be able to just get a few points here and there.

 

[TCPluto]

...there are maybe 10-20 at most that we could likely identify.

But other members have lost options as well. Here are areas where this may negatively affect members everyone could agree are faultless.

• Those wanting to plan a large point trip for family, cruise, etc.
• Those who just needed a few points to round out a reservation.
• Those with just a few points they likely won't be able to use and wanted to dispose of them.
• Those that were already timid with the process, esp those who were far more comfortable transferring that fooling with the rentals.

I think they're like rats; if you see one, you've got a hundred.

I agree, it should make folks pay more attention to their points for banking ,borrowing, transferring, etc.

Since this was always a rule, I dont' see how they lost something. What they were doing it getting away with something, contrary to the rules. Now they're not.

 

[Doctor P]

Since there is no formal definition of "commercial renter", it's hard to discuss this in detail without agreeing on some type of framework.

There are definitions in both Florida law and administrative rules of what constitutes "commercial activity" in real estate. There are also definitions in federal law and regulations.