Newest MS change and future of dvc Resales

dianeschlicht said:
Yep, I agree. I do agree with you too, Beca. I think there is probably a better way to do what they want to do, but since we aren't sure what it is they want to do..... :confused3

ITA!!! Unfortunately, I fall into the thinking that "controlling renting" is the scapegoat DVC is using to make changes that will help to balance a system that became unbalanced when they added an 850+ room complex into a system with 100 and 200 room complexes, and then tried to convince everyone that trading between the complexes would still be roughly equal, and would not create any problems.

I still can't help thinking that if SSR had been a 400 room complex, we would not be seeing these changes right now.

I really do think that if EP is announced, at SOME point DVC will make the 11/7 window into an 11/9 one. This would make the home advantage matter much less...therefore making the current resort they are selling (with 12 extra years) look much better....and therefore limit the prices that resales bring on the open market (thus, making it easier for DVC to buy back those resales and sell them to members themselves).

I am angry about this change because I paid a premium on the resale market to purchase points BECAUSE the home resort was so important....as did MANY others on these boards. If DVC continues making changes that take away flexibility options so members at the current resort they are selling,(and future resorts) can continue to find availability at VWL, BWV and BCV....what is going to be limited/taken away next? Instead of limiting our flexibility, DVC needs to work VERY hard to make sure that each new resort is comparable to, or better than anything it has EVER built before. Rooms should be getting bigger instead of smaller, features and locations should be better. Then, they wouldn't have to worry about members not being able to get into older resorts, and based on this change....it seems that the members DVC listens to most are the ones who are currently buying into their properties....not those that have been here for awhile.

Sorry to be so cynical....I really do wish I could see this for something other than what I do....I just keep having this "nagging" feeling that we are being manipulated, and I can't get it to go away. I REALLY hope I am wrong, and that the next 4 resorts are 200 units each, and are the Contemp, the Poly, AKL and Yacht Club Villas!!

:wave:

Beca
 
Beca said:
ITA!!! I am angry about this change because I paid a premium on the resale market to purchase points BECAUSE the home resort was so important....as did MANY others on these boards. If DVC continues making changes that take away flexibility options so members at the current resort they are selling,(and future resorts) can continue to find availability at VWL, BWV and BCV....what is going to be limited/taken away next? Instead of limiting our flexibility, DVC needs to work VERY hard to make sure that each new resort is comparable to, or better than anything it has EVER built before. Rooms should be getting bigger instead of smaller, features and locations should be better. Then, they wouldn't have to worry about members not being able to get into older resorts, and based on this change....it seems that the members DVC listens to most are the ones who are currently buying into their properties....not those that have been here for awhile.

Beca

I agree fully and concur this is the issue at hand. Not transferring or rental of points it is the fact that SSR is tremendous and the other resorts are overshadowed by its size.


Beca said:
ITA!!!

I really do think that if EP is announced, at SOME point DVC will make the 11/7 window into an 11/9 one. This would make the home advantage matter much less...therefore making the current resort they are selling (with 12 extra years) look much better....and therefore limit the prices that resales bring on the open market (thus, making it easier for DVC to buy back those resales and sell them to members themselves).

Beca

I wonder if many others understand what you are saying Beca. Because DVC sold a resort that so overshadows the others there is less availabilty for all of us in the older resorts. By blaming those that rent their points out for this inequity DVC has absolved themselves from fault in this transgression.
 
What both of you say is true, but the rentals would be an issue with the size units available. Unfortunately, any issue DVC has can cause even bigger issues for owners. Even those who rent on a very limited basis. If you owned 500 points so you could do a big group GV every other year, and then found you didn't need those points one year, you might be in trouble should DVC decide to really quell renting. I do think the mega resort is the heart of this issue. I also think DVC sales people have become a bit more "aggressive" than they used to be.
 
I Agree and agree once more--- over and over--- but is anyone listening???
 

I took everyone's advise on the boards when I considered buying DVC - buy where you want to stay. Currently we 10+ people that go each year so we do a week at WDW and a week at either HH or Vero. I bought at 6 out of the 7 resorts because we need the 11 month window to book Grand Villas. In order to keep my cost down I bought triple or double contracts and then rented off the extra points. By buying these points I was limited to the contracts that became available when I was looking. Going foward about half of my points will be extra points each given year since we will not use that resort. In 10 years when we retire we will be using all the points since we will be inviting extended family when our kids get married and we will be spending a lot of time ourselves at WDW. I am not happy with the changes since I may be considered in the "pattern of renting". Especially when I was told by several guides that renting was ok. I was proactive and contacted Disney's legal department through a third party and I got the impressin from legal that Disney did not really care since they have plenty of people to sell to. If it is such a problem how about making a one time exception allowing us to trim our contracts so that we can come under the new guidelines. I have lost a little bit of the "Magic" and no longer feel like I got the premier timeshare. I hope that I am wrong.
 
:confused3
Plutofan said:
I took everyone's advise on the boards when I considered buying DVC - buy where you want to stay. .

I took this to heart when buying our recent DVC membership because I got "scared" of not being to stay somewhere were I would be happy (and granted I think any of the DVC resorts I would have been happy with) but I like AKL and WL and with young kids being close to monorail, it made sense for my family to go with VWL.

With the fact that Disney does push the "you can book at other DVC's at 7 months" do we believe that Disney has "messed" up with the large SSR resort (not bashing that resort because we hopefully will be able to take advantage of the 7 month window for that resort)?

Are 7 month windows at non-home resorts REALLY that hard to come by? (I haven't had to go through the 7 month window yet so I have no clue). :confused3
 
It is very hard for Grand Villas which is what we like so that everyone can stay together. OKW fills up fast due to the low number of points. At Vero I hear that the becah cottages are great. Beach club is a great resort for kids and is one of the hardest places to get into no matter what time of year. We loved the HH Grand Villa. We usually only get to see my family once a year on vacation so we really enjoy staying in the same condo. It is just our preference.
 
Beca said:
...
I am angry about this change because I paid a premium on the resale market to purchase points BECAUSE the home resort was so important....as did MANY others on these boards. If DVC continues making changes that take away flexibility options so members at the current resort they are selling,(and future resorts) can continue to find availability at VWL, BWV and BCV....what is going to be limited/taken away next?

What flexibility has been taken away? BCV owners have complained that they have been unable to make home resort reservations prior to 7 months. The ONLY way that could happen is if other BCV owners have made reservations. SSR owners (and owners from any other resort) have no ability to make reservations at BCV until 7 months- if there is already no availabilty at that time, it is ONLY because other BCV owners have exercised their right to make those reservations. If it has happened because other BCV owners have benefitted by transferring points into ther account, then this move only serves to limit that ability. Are you complaining that commercial renters (if DVC actually follows thru with their threat) shouldn't lose this ability?

I don't unerstand the concept that DVC is doing anything that benfits DVC and harms members. I see it as only affecting those who are commercial renters and even then ONLY if DVC actually follows up and takes action against those members.

Please explain how DVC benefits to the detriment of members since DVC has no rental business of it's own?
 
I don't unerstand the concept that DVC is doing anything that benfits DVC and harms members. I see it as only affecting those who are commercial renters and even then ONLY if DVC actually follows up and takes action against those members.

Im not understanding either :confused3 The owners of the smaller resorts are the ones at fault. (present company included) They are spec booking and using transferred points at 11 months. SSR doesnt even come into play until 7 months. By then there is nothing left but the waitlist.

How this helps SSR owners I do not know. I have plenty of SSR points and I also have plenty of BCV. In the last 2 years, the only way I have been able to use SSR points at BCV is via waitlist coming thru and I do call at 7 months. Dont see this changing when there are small resort owners going on the waitlist at 10.5 months. The smaller resort owners will benefit, not SSR.

This should be a NO Spin Zone :dance3:
 
I think I see where Beca's going here (correct me if I'm wrong):

DVD creates a stand-alone mega-resort that throws demand for the smaller, parks/deluxe adjacent properties out of balance.
DVC owners, both new and old, complain that resort flexibility at the 7 month window does not meet their expectations.
DVD doesn't balance the equation by building more high-demand properties.
DVD instead chooses to selectively enforce rules which reduce point flexibility and, in turn, make it more difficult for owners to book various types of reservations (including rentals).

You could argue that the membership is being made to pay for DVD's mistake.

Man, if EP gets the green light I look for all hell to break loose on these boards.
 
Doc....I am not ignoring your questions, but I think I probably explained my point of view on the misc. thread where we have been discussing. Please let me know if you still need explanation on this.

Rinkwide...EXACTLY!!! I just WISH I could get my point across so succinctly!!! Will you be my interpreter from now on???!!!! :thumbsup2

:wave:

Beca
 
WebmasterDoc said:
I don't believe it has anything to do with SSR owners at 7 months. As for the guides using that as a sales tool- it is one of the features of the DVC program and IMO they would be remiss NOT to use that fact in the presentations.

I think the concern is coming more from owners at BCV/VWL/BWV who have started to find difficulty making reservations at their home resorts during popular times MORE THAN 7 months in advance (thus created by other owners at thos resorts) and DVC's assessment of the situation is that renting and transferring has played a role in that issue. In this case, DVC's inability or unwillingness to close the "transfer loophole" that morphs VB, SSR, HH and OKW points into BCV or VWL points merely by transferring large numbers of points into a 50 point BCV or VWL contract has effectively "oversold" those resorts by creating more points than should actually be in the inventory. When this is coupled by the time extension gained when the transferred points gain a new Use Year the situation is aggravated even more.

The original policies (one transfer per UY, no banked or borrowed points may be transferred, transferred points cannot be banked or borrowed) were established to minimize and control the issues at play at this time. For the first few years, I expect that there were few transfers and MS was therefore able to make situational decisions in favor of those few members who had a unique need regarding a transfer. This expanded to a relaxation of the policies until the current state evolved and a few have taken tremendous advantage of that relaxed position. Until 2003 it seems that everyone's POS stated "one transfer per Use Year" and then in 2003 the limit of one was not in the statement (but, it still does NOT state that unlimited- or any finite number of transfers may be made). For those that suggest that this affects "EVERYONE'S flexibility" - the policies published yesterday are merely a restatement of every POS prior to 2003- the vast majority of members weren't even aware of the removal of the "limit of one" phrase from the language in the POS.

By accepting the POS thru ownership of DVC we have already accepted the fact that DVC is allowed to make certain changes in the documents "from time-to-time" without prior knowledge of the members. Mostly these issues are designed to make the DVC programs more accessible to the membership in general - like limiting banking, borrowing, transfers, reallocation of point charts, etc. . The few issues that do require approval by the owners are also spelled out in the documents.

The email notice sent yesterday will have little affect on 98% of the owners IMO and I believe the changes will ultimately have more positive effects in the future than we may recognize at this time.

Stay tuned!

I agree with this. I just called for a ressie at the end of August - I didn't care where we stayed (usually, I don't care - we like to mix it up - variety is the spice of life) and was able to get WLV 1bedroom 3 weeks out.

So - honestly, as a SSR owner - I have never, other than for Thanksgiving, had difficulty getting a reservation at any of the DVC resorts. I usually book 1-2 months out, due to owning our own business and not knowing for sure how things will be that far down the road with employees, etc. I'm flexible and will stay anywhere - home resort or not.

I have 3 separate 170 point contracts (one for each of my children) and have decided that if an AKV or CRV were to open, we'd invest in about 210 points (again split three ways).

To me - you're buying your home resort, but you're also investing in having the flexibility to stay elsewhere (knowing you may not always have that opportunity). For the money we spent on our contracts, we easily could have bought multiple resale contracts at BWV - but we liked the idea of our contracts lasting much longer (especially because our intention is to give them to our kids as wedding gifts).

I think the biggest problem now are people (a mix of for-profit multiple ressies and some members doing it only once a year to pay their dues or what have you) hogging up holidays/peak times then offering them for rent. But, how do you eliminate that? It's exactly like ticket scalping - some people do it as a living and some people do it once a year to make a couple of bucks - where do you draw the line?

I think that now, Disney is trying to figure out where to draw the line in the sand. How do they stop the abusers without greatly impacting the innocent? I think we'll see more tweaking as time goes by until there's a happy medium for all.

As an owner, I want to be able to book a holiday for a relative or friend if they need it - and how would MS be able to differentiate between that use and some other member booking a week then auctioning it off to the highest bidder (unless they happened to see it)?

I have never had a problem getting a ressie at any of the DVC resorts, even last minute, for 1 and 2 bedroom villas (I stayed at BWV 4 times last year in 1 and 2 bedroom - all ressies made within 3 months of my arrival). Granted, I rarely travel during peak times (due to owning a retails store), but my experience thus far has been extremely positive when booking at all the DVC resorts (although, I've never attempted BCV).

Thanksgiving was another story - I dealt with someone here who rather than just cancel an unwanted reservation for Thanksgiving - put it on the boards to rent (for disney's rack rate). It drove me crazy that I might have to pay for something I had already paid for, kwim? I decided not to go through with the rental and luckily for me - my wait list came through - but the whole experience left me feeling annoyed.

I think, for now, I'm glad that disney is doing something - it's interesting that it happened to coincide with my own personal experience with this - had this happened a month ago, I wonder if I would have taken such an interest, being I wasnt' being directly impacted then. :confused3
 
Quick question, don't transferred points retain their home resort? So, if someone had two differnt contracts, one at OKW and one at VWL, they couldn't transfer their OKW points to the VWL account and use them all for the booking advantage. Correct? Or, where people transferring BCV points from another member into their SSR account so they could book at 11 months?

Just curious.
 
Beca said:
ITA!!! Unfortunately, I fall into the thinking that "controlling renting" is the scapegoat DVC is using to make changes that will help to balance a system that became unbalanced when they added an 850+ room complex into a system with 100 and 200 room complexes, and then tried to convince everyone that trading between the complexes would still be roughly equal, and would not create any problems.
Beca


OKW - 531 rooms
BCV - 208 rooms
VWL - 136 rooms
BWV - 383 rooms
SSR - 828 rooms
HH - ?
VB - ?


Beca....I still don't understand your point of view. First OKW was first and is a large resort. Second BWV is not small, more of a solid medium (383 villas). Third, I don't see how this effects the VB and HH owners.

11 month window, is still going to be 11 month....not changing. There is a finite number of owners and rooms at BCV or any of the resorts for that manner. I think that if it takes pressure off of making reservations by cutting down on the renters, that would make most owners of DVC happier. The last thing I want is to have room taken up by non-owners, making the use of DVC difficult for me to use.

One thing that I notice in your posts, over and over again, is that you reference BCV like it was the first resort. All small and cute, then this monster SSR comes along and ruined the whole DVC thing. Maybe after OKW was built, the mistake was squeezing BCV in on the scrap parcel of land next to the Yacht Club. Maybe the should have just called it BWV phase 2. Then problem would have been solved, except for poor WLV out there all by it self.

Stop acting like chicken little, the sky is not falling. Relax and see where everthing fall into place. For some reason, I feel that whatever DVC does in the future, wether its a rule change or new resort, you will still see a threat to BCV.
 
rinkwide said:
I think I see where Beca's going here (correct me if I'm wrong):

DVD creates a stand-alone mega-resort that throws demand for the smaller, parks/deluxe adjacent properties out of balance.
DVC owners, both new and old, complain that resort flexibility at the 7 month window does not meet their expectations.
DVD doesn't balance the equation by building more high-demand properties.
DVD instead chooses to selectively enforce rules which reduce point flexibility and, in turn, make it more difficult for owners to book various types of reservations (including rentals).

You could argue that the membership is being made to pay for DVD's mistake.

Man, if EP gets the green light I look for all hell to break loose on these boards.

If there is no availability at 7 months, the ONLY group responsible are the owners at that resort as they are the ONLY ones with the ability to reserve at that resort prior to thata time.

The continued insistence that there is a "stand-alone mega-resort that throws demand for the smaller, parks/deluxe adjacent properties out of balance" might apply 6 months in advance, but at 7 months NO resort owners have contributed to any perceived misbalance.

Prior to SSR, there was still an imbalance of owners from other resorts (OKW, VB and HH) vying for reservations within 7 months and SSR has certainly increased that competition - but the demand from 11 months to 7 months is only created internally by owners at those resorts. We've been seeing comments blaming the "mega, stand alone resort" ever since SSR began sales- even BEFORE any SSR owners had received any points. Until May, 2004 no SSR owners even had any points and yet they were already being blamed for some imagined imbalance.

Gee, maybe the "imbalance" was due to commercial renters all along and SSR has just been the convenient scapegoat. No one had EVER provided any factual data to support the claim that a stand-alone mega-resort is throwing demand for the smaller, parks/deluxe adjacent properties out of balance, and yet many have embraced that thought wholeheartedly.

Treu, that some of the comments are clearly identified as personal opinion, but most are not. They are based on an opinion posed by someone else and now accepted as fact.

There are a number of points in the quote above with no supporting data ( mega resort creating imbalance (???), DVC is selectively enforcing rules (???), membership is being made to pay for DVD's mistakes (???). I see this as a huge issue on these boards where people make unsubstatiated claims and then others build on those - all without any factual basis. At the same time, any explanation by DVC is dismissed as "self-serving" or in the best interest of DVC instead of the members. All of a sudden these claims become their own set of "facts" merely becasue they have been repeated and distorted time after time.

Talk about lemmings. :rolleyes:
 
I think this is one of the people DVC needs to target. Obviously this person could be considered a commercial renter since he/she/it has a very nice website that is obviously designed to make renting points a at least part time job. Check out the website at http://getawaymagic.com/default.aspx

and draw your own conclusions.
 
tomandrobin said:
OKW - 531 rooms
BCV - 208 rooms
VWL - 136 rooms
BWV - 383 rooms
SSR - 828 rooms
HH - ?
VB - ?


Beca....I still don't understand your point of view. First OKW was first and is a large resort. Second BWV is not small, more of a solid medium (383 villas). Third, I don't see how this effects the VB and HH owners.

11 month window, is still going to be 11 month....not changing. There is a finite number of owners and rooms at BCV or any of the resorts for that manner. I think that if it takes pressure off of making reservations by cutting down on the renters, that would make most owners of DVC happier. The last thing I want is to have room taken up by non-owners, making the use of DVC difficult for me to use.

One thing that I notice in your posts, over and over again, is that you reference BCV like it was the first resort. All small and cute, then this monster SSR comes along and ruined the whole DVC thing. Maybe after OKW was built, the mistake was squeezing BCV in on the scrap parcel of land next to the Yacht Club. Maybe the should have just called it BWV phase 2. Then problem would have been solved, except for poor WLV out there all by it self.

Stop acting like chicken little, the sky is not falling. Relax and see where everthing fall into place. For some reason, I feel that whatever DVC does in the future, wether its a rule change or new resort, you will still see a threat to BCV.

First, OUCH!

Second, don't be too sure, smug and self-confident that the 11 month rule will always be there, it can be changed at the will of the DVC, no prior notice or voting required. Just as they can sell any resort at anytime.

Doesn't mean it's going to happen, I'm not running off cliffs, watching the sky for cracks (although I still wear my tinfoil hat, and enjoy a cool glass of kool-aid now and then!)

What you missed, in my opinion, is that Beca is stating she believes something else (other than rental control) is behind this, I happen to agree, but freely admit I haven't got a clue as to what it is.

For Narnia, and Beca!

-Tony
 
WebmasterDoc said:
If there is no availability at 7 months, the ONLY group responsible are the owners at that resort as they are the ONLY ones with the ability to reserve at that resort prior to thata time.

The continued insistence that there is a "stand-alone mega-resort that throws demand for the smaller, parks/deluxe adjacent properties out of balance" might apply 6 months in advance, but at 7 months NO resort owners have contributed to any perceived misbalance.

Prior to SSR, there was still an imbalance of owners from other resorts (OKW, VB and HH) vying for reservations within 7 months and SSR has certainly increased that competition - but the demand from 11 months to 7 months is only created internally by owners at those resorts. We've been seeing comments blaming the "mega, stand alone resort" ever since SSR began sales- even BEFORE any SSR owners had received any points. Until May, 2004 no SSR owners even had any points and yet they were already being blamed for some imagined imbalance.

Gee, maybe the "imbalance" was due to commercial renters all along and SSR has just been the convenient scapegoat. No one had EVER provided any factual data to support the claim that a stand-alone mega-resort is throwing demand for the smaller, parks/deluxe adjacent properties out of balance, and yet many have embraced that thought wholeheartedly.

Treu, that some of the comments are clearly identified as personal opinion, but most are not. They are based on an opinion posed by someone else and now accepted as fact.

There are a number of points in the quote above with no supporting data ( mega resort creating imbalance (???), DVC is selectively enforcing rules (???), membership is being made to pay for DVD's mistakes (???). I see this as a huge issue on these boards where people make unsubstatiated claims and then others build on those - all without any factual basis. At the same time, any explanation by DVC is dismissed as "self-serving" or in the best interest of DVC instead of the members. All of a sudden these claims become their own set of "facts" merely becasue they have been repeated and distorted time after time.

[snip]....Emphasis Added....Talk about lemmings.... :rolleyes:][/snip]

Doc, are YOU making a funny?

:woohoo: :faint: :woohoo:

:)

-Tony

PS, I think that rocks!
 











DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest DIS Tiktok DIS Twitter

Back
Top Bottom