Poly tower new association? Look like it

[wdw4rfam]

Anyone see this article? Looking like a new association.
https://dvcnews.com/wdw-resorts/pol...iation?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook

 

[BleuB]

Interesting!

 

[thanxfornoticin]

That's interesting. And if true, not surprising to us. But it's going to cause a stir whichever association it's attached to. But in so many ways, it seems to make sense it'll be separated from the current Poly rooms.

 

[CraigInPA]

It's not surprising that it's not referred to as the Polynesian Villas and Bungalows, since that would be a slam dunk that it would be part of the same association. Had they called it a different name, like "Polynesian Tower", it would be a slam dunk that it's a new association. But, calling it by the generic resort name leaves the question completely open, since we know they aren't going to make the rest of the Poly resort into a DVC resort. Or, it could be a mistake made by the attorney to properly name the Tower as whatever it's going to be in the future.

The inclusion of Reflections seems to be a CYA on the part of Disney. The areas cleared for Reflections are very far from the cabins. I don't see them building the Reflections recreational facilities that far from the cabins.

 

[brazzledazzler]

To me, a new association makes more sense with the new direction DVC is going.

 

[supersnoop]

Current PVB expires in 2066. Do they really want a separate association and deed at the same resort with a different expiration date? Unless the shorter contract negatively impacted VGF sales, I would imagine they'd stick with the same associiation.

 

[thanxfornoticin]

I don't think having differing expiration dates at a location is a big deal. They already have 2042/2057 contracts at OKW. I think they need more resorts and points in the post-Riviera column to make that work.

 

[GoingSince1990]

Fairly early on in the CCV construction, the new names “Copper Creek” and “Boulder Ridge” were announced, underscoring that CCV would be a separate association from BRV. The fact that no distinctive name has yet been announced for the new tower at the Polynesian suggests that Disney is still keeping its options open. I would imagine most DVC guides are hoping for the same association, if only to avoid the “what are they? Oh, they’re the bungalows. Wow, will I be able to book those at 11 months too? Er…. no.” conversation.

 

[mz-s]

Fairly early on in the CCV construction, the new names “Copper Creek” and “Boulder Ridge” were announced, underscoring that CCV would be a separate association from BRV. The fact that no distinctive name has yet been announced for the new tower at the Polynesian suggests that Disney is still keeping its options open. I would imagine most DVC guides are hoping for the same association, if only to avoid the “what are they? Oh, they’re the bungalows. Wow, will I be able to book those at 11 months too? Er…. no.” conversation.

That's exactly why the same association makes the most sense to me.

 

[Doberge]

It's not surprising that it's not referred to as the Polynesian Villas and Bungalows, since that would be a slam dunk that it would be part of the same association. Had they called it a different name, like "Polynesian Tower", it would be a slam dunk that it's a new association. But, calling it by the generic resort name leaves the question completely open, since we know they aren't going to make the rest of the Poly resort into a DVC resort. Or, it could be a mistake made by the attorney to properly name the Tower as whatever it's going to be in the future.

The inclusion of Reflections seems to be a CYA on the part of Disney. The areas cleared for Reflections are very far from the cabins. I don't see them building the Reflections recreational facilities that far from the cabins.

Amen. Way too much is being read into this when, as you said, it's a bunch of CYA language. I don't think Disney is ready to box itself into conclusions when I'd be surprised if there's been any *final* decision what to do.

The article also suggests that not mentioning the FW cabins may be because that it could be tied to future Reflections development. While I think it's possible the cabins will be tied I think the "reasoning" in the article is pretty suspect. The project wasn't announced until after the February filing so there was no need at the time to CYA for something not officially announced.

 

[tjkraz]

Fairly early on in the CCV construction, the new names “Copper Creek” and “Boulder Ridge” were announced, underscoring that CCV would be a separate association from BRV. The fact that no distinctive name has yet been announced for the new tower at the Polynesian suggests that Disney is still keeping its options open. I would imagine most DVC guides are hoping for the same association, if only to avoid the “what are they? Oh, they’re the bungalows. Wow, will I be able to book those at 11 months too? Er…. no.” conversation.

From a marketing perspective, I don't see it as being any different than Boulder Ridge and Copper Creek. Very, very few prospective tower owners will be left pining over lack of access to the Poly Bungalows. (Let's be honest--95% of the year, Poly tower owners will be able to easily book a bungalow at 7 months.)

The resale restrictions play little to no role in DVC's marketing. They're selling the standard 7/11 month access. The only real distinction is that Poly tower owners couldn't book PVB Studios and Bungalows until 7 months. But they'll have their own range of accommodations in the tower, bookable at 11 months.

Yes this could go either way and there are pros and cons to both. Personally, I think DVC's desire for additional restricted resorts will trump all. The whole "you can only book everywhere if you buy from us" approach gains strength with every new addition.

 

[RoseGold]

This is some trash clickbait, DIS. That boilerplate has been in the contracts since Poly2 announced. And I bet the boilerplate now has the Trailers at Ft Wilderness. As it would no matter what association they put these in, even if it's not DVC at all.

This article is just sloppy. No new news.

 

[BeachClub2014]

From a marketing perspective, I don't see it as being any different than Boulder Ridge and Copper Creek. Very, very few prospective tower owners will be left pining over lack of access to the Poly Bungalows. (Let's be honest--95% of the year, Poly tower owners will be able to easily book a bungalow at 7 months.)

The resale restrictions play little to no role in DVC's marketing. They're selling the standard 7/11 month access. The only real distinction is that Poly tower owners couldn't book PVB Studios and Bungalows until 7 months. But they'll have their own range of accommodations in the tower, bookable at 11 months.

Yes this could go either way and there are pros and cons to both. Personally, I think DVC's desire for additional restricted resorts will trump all. The whole "you can only book everywhere if you buy from us" approach gains strength with every new addition.

Totally agree. As more "restricted" resorts come on-line, the more compelling an argument can be made to purchase directly from DVC. With the announcement of restrictions at VDH, I don't see DVC backing away from this strategy any time soon.

 

[Epcot Forever Forever]

This is some trash clickbait, DIS. That boilerplate has been in the contracts since Poly2 announced. And I bet the boilerplate now has the Trailers at Ft Wilderness. As it would no matter what association they put these in, even if it's not DVC at all.

This article is just sloppy. No new news.

I believe that’s from the site run by the commenter immediately above your comment, not the Dis.

 

[tjkraz]

This is some trash clickbait, DIS. That boilerplate has been in the contracts since Poly2 announced. And I bet the boilerplate now has the Trailers at Ft Wilderness. As it would no matter what association they put these in, even if it's not DVC at all.

Yes and no.

Until now, the Poly tower got a half sentence mention in an addendum to the Multi Site Public Offering Statement. This is the first time that the full POS has been amended and published online since 2018 with that exact language in place. And what the language does NOT say is (paraphrase) "there's no guarantee we will build the tower addition to Polynesian Villas & Bungalows." That in and of itself carries some significance, IMO. It's not enough to conclude whether the final decision will go one way or another, but it's another example of DVC missing an opportunity to declare that the tower will be part of PVB. The POS is a tangible data point amidst a debate which is typically relegated to "X is going to happen because I think it will happen."

As for Reflections, pointing out that DVC is still referencing a resort which was effectively scrapped 35 months ago doesn't seem out of bounds. I mean, nobody screamed "BREAKING NEWS: Reflections Resort Still Coming to DVC!" If Reflections was truly dead, buried, zero chance of being revived, it would have been simple enough to remove the mention in any amendment over the last 3 years. Maybe that will happen next time. Maybe not.

 

[RoseGold]

As for Reflections, pointing out that DVC is still referencing a resort which was effectively scrapped 35 months ago doesn't seem out of bounds. I mean, nobody screamed "BREAKING NEWS: Reflections Resort Still Coming to DVC!" If Reflections was truly dead, buried, zero chance of being revived, it would have been simple enough to remove the mention in any amendment over the last 3 years. Maybe that will happen next time. Maybe not.

The POS, yes, but all of this has been in the contracts for a long time.

Reflections will never be removed, and neither will Poly tower. The whole point is that they advertised some stuff to get your money, and it's not their fault that you took it some kind of way and actually thought any of this would actually get built. They said what they said, but you weren't supposed to actually believe it. DL was in there too, and maybe still is?

That's all the boilerplate says. It actually says the reverse of the clickbait title. They might scrap all of this, so sayeth the Mouse's lawyers.

 

[tjkraz]

The POS, yes, but all of this has been in the contracts for a long time.

This is all about the POS, which currently lists exactly two resorts under the "may not be built" heading.

Disneyland Hotel was in that grouping at one time. Now it isn't. The POS is regularly updated to reflect current and future plans.

 

[pkrieger2287]

I think that the article being discussed makes several severe assumptions and should be labeled as rumor or speculation at best.

Decision to buy or sell based on this information I feel would be unwise and we just need to wait and see what happens.

 

[RoseGold]

This is all about the POS, which currently lists exactly two resorts under the "may not be built" heading.

Disneyland Hotel was in that grouping at one time. Now it isn't. The POS is regularly updated to reflect current and future plans.

Right, but it would be in there whether it is in one association or a new one, or completely scrapped. And it's still vague and says nothing, same as the contract language for months. No new news.

I guess it makes sense they had to remove DL tower, you know, because they are now actually telling people to buy this tower that they totally promise to build. Before, it said the reverse. So they are now selling DL, also not news.

 

[tjkraz]

I think that the article being discussed makes several severe assumptions and should be labeled as rumor or speculation at best.

Decision to buy or sell based on this information I feel would be unwise and we just need to wait and see what happens.

There is no declaration (rumor) that the tower will be a separate association. It quotes passages from the POS. It accurately points out that PVB is referenced by its full and complete name over and over again, while the tower is cited differently. It's another example of DVC choosing to not lump the tower in with PVB.

People are welcome to draw their own conclusions as to whether those facts are driven by carelessness, deliberate ambiguity, indecisiveness or something else entirely.