Riviera points can only be used at Riviera?

[Robbie Cottam]

I have read it and my thoughts are that BVTC had the right to amend its agreement with owners and that by grandfathering owners into the terms in which they bought, the language about similar resort…which has now been removed…satisfied their contract being the same.

FL law only applies to rules needing to be the same for owners at the same resort. A resale owner can’t be treated any differently than when buying direct for home resort use.

Exchanges are different and thus can be treated as such. I know there is something regarding the use of the word Vacation Club, but the statute simply means that unless something is part of a multi site timeshare system, the rules of that section of FL law don’t apply…for example, if I have a business called Magic Vacation Club that has to do with trading reservations with others, the law doesn’t apply to me in terms of what my business has to do.

But, it’s never been taken to court and my opinion is just that…but I lean toward the inclusion of it, and now VDH…would withstand a legal challenge since those owners who have bought resale since 2019 entered into contract with different terms in the multisite POS.

Getting back to the other point….we are indifferent to them, even as an owner of RIV. We bought where we want to be and don’t care about resale value.

No question todays DVC product is different than the one of years past in terms of what might happen if you sell…but using direct points offers the same opportunities as before…and if someone loves RIV, VDH, or any other future restricted resort enough, then they will have no issue buying resale points for use there.

very well said!

 

[Robbie Cottam]

This has been discussed in the thread as well.
If you don't want to spend the time to read about the topic, I'm not going to waste mine recapping it for you.

Then we have an accord

 

[TheDailyMoo]

if you step back from personal biases and have no horse in the race you can see there are elements of truth to both arguments. Disney people are very passionate about their opinions and harder than most groups to persuade otherwise. I know because I’m one of them!

 

[Robbie Cottam]

if you step back from personal biases and have no horse in the race you can see there are elements of truth to both arguments. Disney people are very passionate about their opinions and harder than most groups to persuade otherwise. I know because I’m one of them!

I don’t think it’s about no horse in the race….
There is no race here…

Attorneys get paid by the hour.
Taking Disney to court would generate business, $$$$$
Losing, on the other hand, makes you look like a fool,

If there was a valid complaint here someone would have made a name for themself and a lot of money off of suing Disney …

Someone sued Disney in CA over annual passes…. 5 million total…. I dare say the stakes are a lot bigger here ,

That a law suit hasn’t happened here,

It begs the question why.

 

[we"reofftoneverland]

This is very simple…..

direct Riv owners can use there points anywhere ….
when the direct owners transfer out to another resort, they will be openings of other direct owner to transfer in…..

the entire claim that it going to crash the system is based on fear and buyers remorse …

Nothing that has been repeated ad nauseam, is any different than trying to book at a popular resort…

the only things that this panic *****‘n cause is the thing you are most worried about…. The value of your membership will drop…..

change is never easy, this is the start of a new phase of DVC….

DVC has identified a problem with the system, and has taken steps to correct it….

the solution is simple but direct,

I guess I am not explaining myself very well … . I am well aware that RIV direct is unrestricted. I can book anywhere with my direct RIV points. My point is that for example when someone, let’s say Bill, buys at poly tower direct, he looks forward to many years of booking everywhere in the system. Bill likes to book a few days at RIV every year at the 7month mark. Or at least he likes to try. However, as years pass, it becomes more and more difficult for Bill to book at RIV (substitute any resort with similar resale restrictions here). Because less and less people are trading out of RIV. Why? Not because RIV is the place to be. But because Disney has designed the system to get less flexible over time as the contracts get resold. If less people trade out, less people get to trade in. Unlike GC, where less people trade out because GC is the place to be, less people will trade out of RIV because that’s how Disney wants it. Yes, buyer beware. My point is Disney is making their product less and less flexible— and Disney’s big pitch IS flexibility . (We just sat through the pitch for the umpteenth time on a cruise). Disney is making their product less valuable in doing this.
I’m not interested in “discussing” with someone who pretends I said something I didn’t btw. I’m going with the benefit of doubt that maybe I was confusing. I never said RIV direct was restricted. I said all direct owners over time will have a less flexible product due to dedicated resale not being able to trade out of their resort.

 

[DanCali]

But because Disney has designed the system to get less flexible over time as the contracts get resold. If less people trade out, less people get to trade in.

That is why "point washing" is a win-win.

Buy 500 points at Poly2 (or BCV2 or BWV2) at rack rate, and we'll make your 500 resale RIV points (or any other resort, including O14) fully functional...

That makes your issue go away, and adds a bunch of large sales for DVD that would otherwise not materialize.

 

[Robbie Cottam]

I guess I am not explaining myself very well … . I am well aware that RIV direct is unrestricted. I can book anywhere with my direct RIV points. My point is that for example when someone, let’s say Bill, buys at poly tower direct, he looks forward to many years of booking everywhere in the system. Bill likes to book a few days at RIV every year at the 7month mark. Or at least he likes to try. However, as years pass, it becomes more and more difficult for Bill to book at RIV (substitute any resort with similar resale restrictions here). Because less and less people are trading out of RIV. Why? Not because RIV is the place to be. But because Disney has designed the system to get less flexible over time as the contracts get resold. If less people trade out, less people get to trade in. Unlike GC, where less people trade out because GC is the place to be, less people will trade out of RIV because that’s how Disney wants it. Yes, buyer beware. My point is Disney is making their product less and less flexible— and Disney’s big pitch IS flexibility . (We just sat through the pitch for the umpteenth time on a cruise). Disney is making their product less valuable in doing this.
I’m not interested in “discussing” with someone who pretends I said something I didn’t btw. I’m going with the benefit of doubt that maybe I was confusing. I never said RIV direct was restricted. I said all direct owners over time will have a less flexible product due to dedicated resale not being able to trade out of their resort.

No you are explaining your position perfectly fine.

You position. Is wrong, it is based on a false assumption.

Your “BIll” has no expectation to be able to book anywhere other than poly…

“Buy where you want to stay”

If Bill does he didn’t do enough due diligence,
And didn’t understand going in that his ability to book all resort at 7 months was based on availability… well that’s not Disney fault, or a change in the product..

You also make the assumption that 50 percent of the owners will be resale.
Frankly, I think that is high…. And That assumption is not supported with fact. Unless you can cite data indicating this.

I don’t think you will see any difference in direct members ability to sleep around.

In theory with or without restrictions, the only time an owner of one resort gets to stay at another is when an owner at the first resort banks there points, or uses them at another resort.

So nothing has really changed.

Now, I think Disney didn’t under take restrictions without a plan to capitalize on it….

I think you will see, once there are 4 restricted properties, Disney exercising ROFR far more often. This will Drive the price of the resale market up, to the point were it is a no brainer for people to buy these resort direct from Disney….

In which case your hypothetical 50 percent resale, is more like 20 percent and this is much todo about nothing…

Edit: in one of the other discussion it was just posted that beach club is about 3 million points total, and Riviera is 6.7 million points …

Assuming you are correct and 50 percent on the points are held by resale owners,

Riviera would still be like booking at beach club at 7 months, not easy but not impossible …. Depending on what is going on…what month, etc.

I would say easier at Riviera because how how many people complain about the skyline…

We stayed at BCV last Nov with SSR points so do able

 

[zavandor]

I have read it and my thoughts are that BVTC had the right to amend its agreement with owners and that by grandfathering owners into the terms in which they bought, the language about similar resort…which has now been removed…satisfied their contract being the same.

FL law only applies to rules needing to be the same for owners at the same resort. A resale owner can’t be treated any differently than when buying direct for home resort use.

Exchanges are different and thus can be treated as such. I know there is something regarding the use of the word Vacation Club, but the statute simply means that unless something is part of a multi site timeshare system, the rules of that section of FL law don’t apply…for example, if I have a business called Magic Vacation Club that has to do with trading reservations with others, the law doesn’t apply to me in terms of what my business has to do.

But, it’s never been taken to court and my opinion is of course, just that….but I do lean toward the inclusion of it, and now VDH…would withstand a legal challenge since those owners who have bought resale since 2019 entered into contract with different terms in the multisite POS.

Getting back to the other point….we are indifferent to them, even as an owner of RIV. We bought where we want to be and don’t care about resale value.

No question todays DVC product is different than the one of years past in terms of what might happen if you sell…but using direct points offers the same opportunities as before…and if someone loves RIV, VDH, or any other future restricted resort enough, then they will have no issue buying resale points for use there.

Have the POS of the original 14 been modified? I didn't know.

The language about the Vacation Club could be an issue only of consumers protection and misleading marketing, that's outside the scope of that thread.

 

[Sandisw]

Have the POS of the original 14 been modified? I didn't know.

The language about the Vacation Club could be an issue only of consumers protection and misleading marketing, that's outside the scope of that thread.

My reference to vacation club is that I don’t interpret that clause the way others do and believe RIV can enter DVC with different rules based on the statute. That’s different than whether the entrance violates the contract is

And, I can’t say for sure the language of the original POS, and how the updates have or have not changed I do know that the BVTC agreement with the resorts have been changed…and that when you get new documents, it has the new language in the multisite POS which guides the new rules.

But even the initial contracts indicate that the DVC resort with BVTC can be amended at any time.

Not wanting to derail the thread but as I said, my review of everything has me leaning toward this being allowed, based on the moves made when RIV, and now VDH, we’re added. But, since IANL or the courts, no idea what they would decide.

While I do think that DVC does sometimes take liberty with their interpretation of some of the contract…and uses things to what they feel is to their advantage…i also believe they know the odds of where they stand legally in terms of pushback and when they reverse course it’s because they are not confident it would withstand a challenge, or it’s not worth it to do so.

For all we know, this may have had some legal challenges, but not to the level of class action? But, for now, and barring any changes, they seem to be here to stay.

 

[Robbie Cottam]

My reference to vacation club is that I don’t interpret that clause the way others do and believe RIV can enter DVC with different rules based on the statute. That’s different than whether the entrance violates the contract is

And, I can’t say for sure the language of the original POS, and how the updates have or have not changed I do know that the BVTC agreement with the resorts have been changed…and that when you get new documents, it has the new language in the multisite POS which guides the new rules.

But even the initial contracts indicate that the DVC resort with BVTC can be amended at any time.

Not wanting to derail the thread but as I said, my review of everything has me leaning toward this being allowed, based on the moves made when RIV, and now VDH, we’re added. But, since IANL or the courts, no idea what they would decide.

While I do think that DVC does sometimes take liberty with their interpretation of some of the contract…and uses things to what they feel is to their advantage…i also believe they know the odds of where they stand legally in terms of pushback and when they reverse course it’s because they are not confident it would withstand a challenge, or it’s not worth it to do so.

For all we know, this may have had some legal challenges, but not to the level of class action? But, for now, and barring any changes, they seem to be here to stay.

I think, that if anyone had successful put disney on their heels about this we would all now about.

I m speculating that anyone who has taken this to an attorney was either told there is not enough there to fight them with, or the retainer would be so large, with no guarantee, that it simple was not worth it….

 

[zavandor]

My reference to vacation club is that I don’t interpret that clause the way others do and believe RIV can enter DVC with different rules based on the statute. That’s different than whether the entrance violates the contract is

And, I can’t say for sure the language of the original POS, and how the updates have or have not changed I do know that the BVTC agreement with the resorts have been changed…and that when you get new documents, it has the new language in the multisite POS which guides the new rules.

But even the initial contracts indicate that the DVC resort with BVTC can be amended at any time.

Not wanting to derail the thread but as I said, my review of everything has me leaning toward this being allowed, based on the moves made when RIV, and now VDH, we’re added. But, since IANL or the courts, no idea what they would decide.

While I do think that DVC does sometimes take liberty with their interpretation of some of the contract…and uses things to what they feel is to their advantage…i also believe they know the odds of where they stand legally in terms of pushback and when they reverse course it’s because they are not confident it would withstand a challenge, or it’s not worth it to do so.

For all we know, this may have had some legal challenges, but not to the level of class action? But, for now, and barring any changes, they seem to be here to stay.

The fact Riviera and VDH have joined the BVTC doesn't in itself justifies them joining . Otherwise any contract violation would justify itself. Like the 2020 point charts, many said Disney has so many lawyers that it's impossible they would do something illegal. And yet...

Also, the fact your interpretation that the POS could be changed doesn't really justify Riviera joining, given that they haven't changed that paragraph in the POS. (As far as I know). If they could easily change it, why haven't they done it?
Notice that all POS have been changed to allow the change of UY of points in any unit, if it was such an easy change, why not update the paragraph about the BVTC too?

I've been told the multisite POS doesn't superced the individual POS, but I don't know, maybe someone with knowledge can comment on this.

At the end of the day, we're OT, so we can either continue in a dedicated thread or just agree to disagree.

 

[Sandisw]

The fact Riviera and VDH have joined the BVTC doesn't in itself justifies them joining . Otherwise any contract violation would justify itself. Like the 2020 point charts, many said Disney has so many lawyers that it's impossible they would do something illegal. And yet...

Also, the fact your interpretation that the POS could be changed doesn't really justify Riviera joining, given that they haven't changed that paragraph in the POS. (As far as I know). If they could easily change it, why haven't they done it?
Notice that all POS have been changed to allow the change of UY of points in any unit, if it was such an easy change, why not update the paragraph about the BVTC too?

I've been told the multisite POS doesn't superced the individual POS, but I don't know, maybe someone with knowledge can comment on this.

At the end of the day, we're OT, so we can either continue in a dedicated thread or just agree to disagree.

We can probably just leave it since as I said, my interpretation of “substantially similar” fits with how RIV and VDH have entered…and why I lean it being legal…but I have been wrong before.

But hey, if someone wants to revisit the topic in a new thread, they can!

 

[zavandor]

We can probably just leave it since as I said, my interpretation of “substantially similar” fits with how RIV and VDH have entered…and why I lean it being legal…but I have been wrong before.

But hey, if someone wants to revisit the topic in a new thread, they can!

Ah sorry, I didn't understand this was your position. I thought it was technical. Well, everyone can judge by themselves if Riviera and VDH (resale) owners can trade in a way substantially similar to the Original 14.
The fact we have a name for the Original 14 says everything, for me.

 

[TheDailyMoo]

I don’t think it’s about no horse in the race….
There is no race here…

Attorneys get paid by the hour.
Taking Disney to court would generate business, $$$$$
Losing, on the other hand, makes you look like a fool,

If there was a valid complaint here someone would have made a name for themself and a lot of money off of suing Disney …

Someone sued Disney in CA over annual passes…. 5 million total…. I dare say the stakes are a lot bigger here ,

That a law suit hasn’t happened here,

It begs the question why.

This was in regards to original back and forth between Neverland and Beachclub. As for the suing part I tend to agree if it could have been done successfully it would'be been taken to court by now.

 

[zavandor]

This was in regards to original back and forth between Neverland and Beachclub. As for the suing part I tend to agree if it could have been done successfully it would'be been taken to court by now.

According to DVC only two dozen people complained about the 2020 point charts.
Given they impacted the majority of members (not 4%) it's not surprising no one has tried yet.

 

[Sandisw]

Ah sorry, I didn't understand this was your position. I thought it was technical. Well, everyone can judge by themselves if Riviera and VDH (resale) owners can trade in a way substantially similar to the Original 14.
The fact we have a name for the Original 14 says everything, for me.

ETA: Sorry…I said we should probably get back on topic and I just distracted us again!!

So, I deleted my thought!

 

[Robbie Cottam]

This was in regards to original back and forth between Neverland and Beachclub. As for the suing part I tend to agree if it could have been done successfully it would'be been taken to court by now.

Cool no problem

 

[Yankee626]

I would think that when the 2042 resorts become extinct that it will open alot of opportunity at the 7 month mark for the remaining owners. Same in 2057 when SSR goes off the books.

 

[Robbie Cottam]

I would think that when the 2042 resorts become extinct that it will open alot of opportunity at the 7 month mark for the remaining owners. Same in 2057 when SSR goes off the books.

For direct owners,

 

[Sandisw]

I would think that when the 2042 resorts become extinct that it will open alot of opportunity at the 7 month mark for the remaining owners. Same in 2057 when SSR goes off the books.

Most of the 2042 rooms and points that are leaving the system are the more popular ones.

I think it’s going to make trading into the near park ones left harder for the resale owners since more owners won’t have BCV, BRV, and BWV to book.

What might help, though, is the direct points at the newer resorts will have those Epcot locations back which could help steer than away from the ones left for the resale owners.