Riviera Resale

[Sandisw]

So if they charge a fee to trade inside DVC properties to resale buyers, will they stop including the operating cost of BVTC in maintenance fees of resale buyers?

The way I read it...any to clarify my posts...the fee they can charge via BVTC for L14 resorts would be for all points eligible for booking those, not just resale.

The resale only exchange fee that could be implemented would be to allow restricted points to book at resorts they can not currently. So, charging a fee for a resale owner to book at RIV.

It also seems to indicate it doesn’t have to treat every resort and room the same way.

Again, there are restrictions that can be amended and changed in reference to DVD, and then what BVTC can do as part of the exchange program when converting home resort points to DVC vacation points.

That is why I mentioned rules with BVTC for at least L14 would apply to all points, not just resale..it would be a change to the document in POS from DVD that was added with RIV that can treat them differently from the way I read it and understand it.

 

[limace]

I get that they are different companies, but I don’t believe that other similar TS companies charge a fee for internal exchanges outside of home resort-eg Marriott and World Mark. I might be wrong about this as I don’t own outside of DVC but haven’t seen it mentioned in my reading on TUG.

 

[sethschroeder]

I just think these fees would be hard to get through and not be challenged.

Yes Disney wants to add in restrictions and make money. Flip side they back down from issues where there is a serious possible challenge legally.

Putting in these fees it would be hard to convince anyone I think its for the betterment of the membership. At which point a new management company could be chosen who is happy to just control the bookings. Especially when there is basically $0 cost since the system is all the same anyways there isn't any actual "trading" of needing to have DVC talk to RCI as an example.

 

[Bing Showei]

Putting in these fees it would be hard to convince anyone I think its for the betterment of the membership.

You’d be amazed at what some owners can convince themselves of is better for the membership.

 

[sethschroeder]

You’d be amazed at what some owners can convince themselves of is better for the membership.

To clarify though I am talking about from a legal perspective if a group were to file a lawsuit. I think plenty of times there is a disconnect between membership as a whole vs personal benefit.

I personally see benefits in certain things but if I am to answer if its better for membership as a whole I would say it is not or would need more data. Also plenty of times its a "wash" where its not exactly one way or another.

A fee simply to book a room that goes as profit to Disney is slightly different. Now if the Fee 100% goes towards the management fees and lowering costs on MFs now we start to get to possibly it being tougher to decide.

 

[DVCsloth]

Wouldn't that make more competition for rooms at the Riviera if they changed the rules and allowed newer resale points to be used by paying a fee? It seems that it would make it more difficult to owners of direct points to try to book Riv at 7 months, DVC would get more money but the people who bought direct would be competing with people paying a fee. That is one of the reasons I added on direct to be able to book future resorts.

 

[sethschroeder]

Wouldn't that make more competition for rooms at the Riviera if they changed the rules and allowed newer resale points to be used by paying a fee? It seems that it would make it more difficult to owners of direct points to try to book Riv at 7 months, DVC would get more money but the people who bought direct would be competing with people paying a fee. That is one of the reasons I added on direct to be able to book future resorts.

I think it's more of a 20 years from now not a in the next year.

That being said I find it doubtful it would happen. It's pretty much a guaranteed lawsuit if it was a blanket fee IMO.

 

[SL6827]

Well this is still pretty much over my head, lol. Still not understanding the legal aspects of this possibility but that is OK as I have no dog in the game. But what I do realize is this,

1. When I did own a very small resale contract at OKW, I really had no idea what the "could, would" avenues that Disney had. I never once entertained the thought of having to pay
a fee to switch out to another DVC resort other than the one in which I owned at. And that is a major factor to me. I like to "sleep around", lol! I still have yet to even stay at
OKW.

2. I don't put ANYTHING past Disney anymore. If they can make it legally happen, they might! They are just morphing into an average timeshare company.

3. If I ever were to jump back in I would just have to get an extremely small BCVs contract and try to use it every three years there in a studio. I would just be prepared to use the
contract only at my home resort since it would be resale.

 

[Sandisw]

I just think these fees would be hard to get through and not be challenged.

Yes Disney wants to add in restrictions and make money. Flip side they back down from issues where there is a serious possible challenge legally.

Putting in these fees it would be hard to convince anyone I think its for the betterment of the membership. At which point a new management company could be chosen who is happy to just control the bookings. Especially when there is basically $0 cost since the system is all the same anyways there isn't any actual "trading" of needing to have DVC talk to RCI as an example.

The requirements of BVTC don’t necessarily have to be what you feel is best interest in the membership, but what they do and if the agreement states those are options, we have agreed to it.

It just surprises me sometimes why people believe that everything can be legally challenged, when the terms of the contract is clear. I mean, as an owner, I would have no problem if the instituted a fee for non home resort owners to book certain things, especially if in the end, the fees help to offset what we pay them. There is not $0 cost to owners for BVTC either. We pay them for what they do.

Again, DVD gave themselves the right to add fees, etc, in terms of restrictions and programs in the future.

So, again, not sure what the legal challenge would be other than, “We just don’t like your reason, even though we agreed to those terms when we bought.”

And, replacing BVTC is near impossible to do because of the way the voting works for each unit. And the only way for a unit to override the way the representative votes, you must find 60% of owners for your unit, and then they have to all agree to the same vote.

Not as easy as it sounds. Basically, there is no plausible way to replace DVCM, or BVTC, or Disney as a property manager.

 

[Sandisw]

Well this is still pretty much over my head, lol. Still not understanding the legal aspects of this possibility but that is OK as I have no dog in the game. But what I do realize is this,

1. When I did own a very small resale contract at OKW, I really had no idea what the "could, would" avenues that Disney had. I never once entertained the thought of having to pay
a fee to switch out to another DVC resort other than the one in which I owned at. And that is a major factor to me. I like to "sleep around", lol! I still have yet to even stay at
OKW.

2. I don't put ANYTHING past Disney anymore. If they can make it legally happen, they might! They are just morphing into an average timeshare company.

3. If I ever were to jump back in I would just have to get an extremely small BCVs contract and try to use it every three years there in a studio. I would just be prepared to use the
contract only at my home resort since it would be resale.

Honestly, I had no idea about the fee until recently when was trying to find the language that gives them the right to create a points chart that can be applied to trading.

Again, do I think we would see that anytime soon? No, But, do I see something coming in to play to allow RIV resale owners pay a fee to book elsewhere at some point...like per reservation...absolutely.

I am one who likes to know what could happen and what cannot, I mean, I can’t tell you how many posts I have read elsewhere of people who had no idea that banking and borrowing rules can be changed,

 

[sethschroeder]

The requirements of BVTC don’t necessarily have to be what you feel is best interest in the membership, but what they do and if the agreement states those are options, we have agreed to it.

Except the point is there is voting members for each resort. Something happening negatively impacting members they should be voting to reject the budget and working to remove BVTC.

Another example is that does the management fee even have a cap? Is housekeeping required to go through Disney?

Point is seems like there would be lots of "leverage" if the voting members were working in best interest to make sure the Fee did not go in place.

There is not $0 cost to owners for BVTC either. We pay them for what they do.

Correct but that is a fee for a service across the membership. They can't charge for management and then charge just to make money on moving between resorts.

If they start charging for trading I would expect it would be cut back as a credit to the resorts where you traded in to or to membership as a whole.

Regardless it would be hard to prove cost to trading when the system is already setup for trading across all resorts with no additional cost on a transactional basis (its why you pay a management fee).

Again, DVD gave themselves the right to add fees, etc, in terms of restrictions and programs in the future.

Doesn't mean they can just do whatever they want.

And, replacing BVTC is near impossible to do because of the way the voting works for each unit. And the only way for a unit to override the way the representative votes, you must find 60% of owners for your unit, and then they have to all agree to the same vote.

But again the voting should be in favor of owners interest. Now if its something small yes there is nothing you can really do (like balancing of seasons or moving trading from 7 months to 5 months).

That being said something like adding a fee I think would bypass a need to track down 60% of people and start heading to the courts.

Maybe someone who is a lawyer can comment but it would seem finding 60% of members who you have no information of would seem to be excessive to be able to enact protections.

 

[Sandisw]

Except the point is there is voting members for each resort. Something happening negatively impacting members they should be voting to reject the budget and working to remove BVTC.

Another example is that does the management fee even have a cap? Is housekeeping required to go through Disney?

Point is seems like there would be lots of "leverage" if the voting members were working in best interest to make sure the Fee did not go in place.



Correct but that is a fee for a service across the membership. They can't charge for management and then charge just to make money on moving between resorts.

If they start charging for trading I would expect it would be cut back as a credit to the resorts where you traded in to or to membership as a whole.

Regardless it would be hard to prove cost to trading when the system is already setup for trading across all resorts with no additional cost on a transactional basis (its why you pay a management fee).



Doesn't mean they can just do whatever they want.



But again the voting should be in favor of owners interest. Now if its something small yes there is nothing you can really do (like balancing of seasons or moving trading from 7 months to 5 months).

That being said something like adding a fee I think would bypass a need to track down 60% of people and start heading to the courts.

Maybe someone who is a lawyer can comment but it would seem finding 60% of members who you have no information of would seem to be excessive to be able to enact protections.

DVCM is in charge of the property management agreement and it is with Disney. To remove Disney as property manager, DVCM would have to decide to,

In order for owners to removed DVCM as the management company for the condo associations, the POS is clear as to how it gets done and the voting process. While not a lawyer, I’d bet those legal requirements are pretty up to speed.

For BVTC, again, read the agreement with them and what the terms and conditions of that agreement. We may not like all of them, but again, we have hired them to run the DVC reservation component

I do think if they ever instituted a fee it would go back to the condo associations in some way and not be a windfall for the company.

However, I do think that DVD can definitely change the program to allow people to pay a fee to convert resale restricted points to non restricted,

Of course, DVCM needs to act in the best interest of owners, but every owner would define that differently and when they make decisions, we have to live with it.

I am not happy that returning borrowed points is still happening now resorts are opened. I am not a fan of some of the exceptions they made for individuals, given that many people are dealing with crisis right now. But, I am sure others are happy with it.

But, DVCM has decided they feel it is best for the system as a whole and owners so it’s being done. Again, the topic was about could they charge and the answer is yes, the BVTC and POS give them the ability to do just that.

 

[sethschroeder]

the BVTC and POS give them the ability to do just that.

Well they can add about anything they want. I suspect it could be changed if they wanted to force a resort fee equal to rack rate at the sister resort to DVC if wanted to get a little crazy.

My point is simply a fairly clear point that changes need to be done to benefit members and a bad enough injury would bypass a requirement to follow the letter of the law of a fairly excessive requirement of 60%.

I think its important to call out because its not as simple as "Disney just decided". Its also why many changes grandfather owners in anyone really asking questions since any new restrictive policy doesn't impact 100% owners at that moment.

 

[zavandor]

You’d be amazed at what some owners can convince themselves of is better for the membership.

We've seen it all too well during the 2020 point charts debacle. People saying the increase to the lockdown premium benefiting the membership because it opened more availability!

 

[The Jackal]

I think buildable land may be a problem for any new MK resorts. If I remember correctly, the original Riviera concept was going to go there and was cancelled because all the land was mush.

There is a prime buildable lot right next to the swinging bridge. I don’t foresee it being DVC though. WDW didn’t just make the path and build a new road behind the MK for no reason. I see it as WDW most high end hotel. I believe upper management has been disappointed that the GF isn’t fancy enough. There is also another buildable lot above BLT, it is an open lot used for storage. There was originally supposed to be a hotel there on the monorail line, but they never built it, like the lot between the TTC and the Contemporary, but that lot has issues. But hey who knows. Selling DVC makes them some big bucks. Disney also makes great profit on renting Bungalows and Cabins that remain un booked.

 

[Brianstl]

I just don’t see how they could legally charge people as part of their maintenance fees the operating costs for BVTC if they start charging members for trading into the system. Disney would have to give up that guaranteed money that maintenance fees generate for BVTC in hopes of generating that revenue through trading fees. You just can’t add the cost of operations to maintenance fees and the charge a additional cost to what those maintenance fees already pay for.

 

[limace]

You’d be amazed at what some owners can convince themselves of is better for the membership.

This is truth. Watching folks twist themselves into knots on this board to do thus more and more every day.

 

[Sandisw]

I just don’t see how they could legally charge people as part of their maintenance fees the operating costs for BVTC if they start charging members for trading into the system. Disney would have to give up that guaranteed money that maintenance fees generate for BVTC in hopes of generating that revenue through trading fees. You just can’t add the cost of operations to maintenance fees and the charge a additional cost to what those maintenance fees already pay for.

I certainly am not suggesting that any change to fees would not have to be accounted for in some way.

As an owner, I would certainly ask where those funds would now go. But, this entire line of thinking started as to whether or not there would be ways accounted for already for both DVD and BVTC to add some sort of fee based program. And, from the documents there is,

It is like the booking window, We as owners get a 1 month advantage...that’s it. They could decide down the road, because of resale restrictions on RIV to change it so those wanting to trade into RIV won’t be able to at 7 months....but have. to wait till 3.

They can make it different for each resort as well...which, IMO, seems like a nightmare..but it’s possible.

The whole point I was trying to make is that our agreement with BVTC to run the DVC reservation components gives them the authority to do a different things in order to make it work and I definitely can see them allowing RIV resale owners paying a fee to trade into the other resorts....allowing resale owners at L14 to pay a fee to stay at RIV if the points they own are not qualified to do so,,

 

[RivShore]

The whole point I was trying to make is that our agreement with BVTC to run the DVC reservation components gives them the authority to do a different things in order to make it work and I definitely can see them allowing RIV resale owners paying a fee to trade into the other resorts....allowing resale owners at L14 to pay a fee to stay at RIV if the points they own are not qualified to do so

I think that's the simplest way to say what we are talking about. This would be a completely voluntary program - if a resale owner wants benefits they are not contractually entitled to, they pay a fee to get them. If it's voluntary, how could there be any basis for a lawsuit. the only question is what happens to the profit from this fee, if it offset MF's, I see no argument there either.

 

[RivShore]

There is a prime buildable lot right next to the swinging bridge. I don’t foresee it being DVC though. WDW didn’t just make the path and build a new road behind the MK for no reason. I see it as WDW most high end hotel. I believe upper management has been disappointed that the GF isn’t fancy enough. There is also another buildable lot above BLT, it is an open lot used for storage. There was originally supposed to be a hotel there on the monorail line, but they never built it, like the lot between the TTC and the Contemporary, but that lot has issues. But hey who knows. Selling DVC makes them some big bucks. Disney also makes great profit on renting Bungalows and Cabins that remain un booked.

I think your right, I was thinking of the TTC area where the Mediterranean themed resort was supposed to go:

The idea for the Venetian was scrapped for Disney's Mediterranean Resort. The location of the Venetian Resort was selected for the Mediterranean as well. Unfortunately, it was found the location chosen would have needed an extremely deep foundation. The land in the late 1990s was even cleared for the building.

The resort would have been located between the Transportation and Ticket Center and Disney's Contemporary Resort near the water bridge.

https://disney.fandom.com/wiki/Disney's_Venetian_Resort