SAP+ ?

[MarkNC2Disney]

Since you asked about SAP+ DIRECT, my opinion is Polynesian. My reasoning is:
*Long houses have 3 sleeping surfaces
*Long houses have split bathroom
* One bedroom tower has 2 bathrooms
*Lower buy in cost due to current incentives
*Annual dues aren't bad

Not just not bad, they’re the best. Only Aulani Subsidized are lower.

 

[airjay75]

Not just not bad, they’re the best. Only Aulani Subsidized are lower.

Of course, this is true, as of today. Will it be true 5 or 10 years from now? I wouldn't be very confident based on the history of Poly dues prior to the opening of the island tower. Personally, I wouldn't let that drive my decision making between Poly and RIV for SAP+. Plenty of other reasons for someone to go with Poly over RIV, but that one, alone, wouldn't do it for me.

I'll just note a few things in RIV's favor.
--better upfront incentives than Poly
--easier points chart, particularly helpful when planning to change your points to a lower point resort at 7-months
--3 BR GVs - none at Poly
--if we want to talk about dues, RIV's dues have had some of the lowest average annual increases (but, it's newer and still in active sales, so I wouldn't trust that it will stay that way)
--better transportation/location for everything at WDW other than MK area

Personally, I'd say the best direct SAP+ between RIV and Poly is the resort you like best. If you like them both about the same, Poly probably wins out on account of no resale restrictions.

 

[WinterSolider]

I think there is a fighting chance that LSL and CFW get lumped together, because it makes the latter easier to sell and DVD is in the business of selling timeshares. I don't assume that will mean a significant drop in Dues.

I'm not sure I'd take the "they will be combined" bet with even odds, but I might at, say, +130 or so.

It would be a huge break from every historical pattern. 100% of the time, when a project gets a unique name, it becomes a separate association. When it shares a name, it joins the existing association.

Boulder Ridge Villas versus Copper Creek Villas, two different associations.

Animal Kingdom Villas - Jambo House versus Animal Kingdom Villas - Kidani Village, same association.

Island Tower at Disney's Polynesian Villas and Bungalows, joined the existing PVB association.

Big Pine Key at The Villas at Disney's Grand Floridian Resort, joined the existing VGF association.

If LSL and CFW were going to get joined together, they would have named it "Lakeshore Lodge at Disney's Fort Wilderness - A Disney Vacation Club Resort."

 

[airjay75]

It would be a huge break from every historical pattern. 100% of the time, when a project gets a unique name, it becomes a separate association. When it shares a name, it joins the existing association.

Boulder Ridge Villas versus Copper Creek Villas, two different associations.

Animal Kingdom Villas - Jambo House versus Animal Kingdom Villas - Kidani Village, same association.

Island Tower at Disney's Polynesian Villas and Bungalows, joined the existing PVB association.

Big Pine Key at The Villas at Disney's Grand Floridian Resort, joined the existing VGF association.

If LSL and CFW were going to get joined together, they would have named it "Lakeshore Lodge at Disney's Fort Wilderness - A Disney Vacation Club Resort."

Does the name actually matter from a legal perspective? I don't know, but I would think names can easily be changed if needed.

Another pattern, sort of, that I see, is whether the potential additions to any resort would make sense to match the expiration date of the existing contracts. CCV came along 18 years after BRV, and I don't think they wanted CCV to have a 2042 expiration date. Every other addition was close enough in time that having them match the expiration date of the existing association was fine. CFW and LSL would fit that pattern to be matched together. But, again, I don't know that there is any legal limitation on all owners in an association having the same expiration date - obviously, that isn't the case at OKW. And everyone seems to think that the trust structure gives more flexibility from a legal perspective.

I really don't have any strong opinion one way or the other - just a passing interest. I certainly wouldn't be buying CFW based on the assumption LSL will be part of the same association, but it seems to me that DVD will do whatever they think is best to maximize sales. Seems you can make arguments either way on this one.

 

[WinterSolider]

Does the name actually matter from a legal perspective? I don't know, but I would think names can easily be changed if needed.

Another pattern, sort of, that I see, is whether the potential additions to any resort would make sense to match the expiration date of the existing contracts. CCV came along 18 years after BRV, and I don't think they wanted CCV to have a 2042 expiration date. Every other addition was close enough in time that having them match the expiration date of the existing association was fine. CFW and LSL would fit that pattern to be matched together. But, again, I don't know that there is any legal limitation on all owners in an association having the same expiration date - obviously, that isn't the case at OKW. And everyone seems to think that the trust structure gives more flexibility from a legal perspective.

I really don't have any strong opinion one way or the other - just a passing interest. I certainly wouldn't be buying CFW based on the assumption LSL will be part of the same association, but it seems to me that DVD will do whatever they think is best to maximize sales. Seems you can make arguments either way on this one.

Right right, I'm not making a legal case that about what they can or can't do.

I'm making a marketing case about what would be really really weird for them to do. I make the same argument when people talk about all these convoluted schemes about how they're going to use the "trust model" to create a DVC product that's unrecognizable from what we all know and use today. My point has always been that, whatever the underlying legal structure, these new resorts are going to function the way we're used to (11 month home resort booking window, 7 month open booking window, banking and borrowing, etc.)

 

[airjay75]

Right right, I'm not making a legal case that about what they can or can't do.

I'm making a marketing case about what would be really really weird for them to do. I make the same argument when people talk about all these convoluted schemes about how they're going to use the "trust model" to create a DVC product that's unrecognizable from what we all know and use today. My point has always been that, whatever the underlying legal structure, these new resorts are going to function the way we're used to (11 month home resort booking window, 7 month open booking window, banking and borrowing, etc.)

Got it. That makes complete sense and completely agree with you about the legal structure point. On the marketing point, if they end up combining CFW and LSL, maybe that indicates that was not the original plan, and it was only after seeing how poorly CFW sales were going that they decided to change things up. Or, maybe they make LSL separate and leave CFW as the niche product that it is. I sort of think the bigger question is not whether making them one association would help sales of CFW (seems to me it clearly would), but whether it would help sales of LSL. I could make arguments either way on the latter question.

 

[Mouseforward]

Boulder Ridge and Copper creek - not the same due to leasholds having to be > 40 years in Florida.

All the rest were combined.

 

[WinterSolider]

Boulder Ridge and Copper creek - not the same due to leasholds having to be > 40 years in Florida.

All the rest were combined.

Finish that thought.

All the rest... of what... were combined?

All the rest... of the properties that opened at the SAME RESORT as an existing property.

Fort Wilderness and Lakeshore Lodge are not the same resort in the first place. Combining them would be like combining VGF and PVB just because they're close to one another.

Lakeshore Lodge is not AT Fort Wilderness so there's nothing to combine.

 

[Mouseforward]

Got it. That makes complete sense and completely agree with you about the legal structure point. On the marketing point, if they end up combining CFW and LSL, maybe that indicates that was not the original plan, and it was only after seeing how poorly CFW sales were going that they decided to change things up. Or, maybe they make LSL separate and leave CFW as the niche product that it is. I sort of think the bigger question is not whether making them one association would help sales of CFW (seems to me it clearly would), but whether it would help sales of LSL. I could make arguments either way on the latter question.

More important , do they combine the cash side hotel operations, security , registration, with fort Wilderness?

 

[Mouseforward]

Finish that thought.

All the rest... of what... were combined?

All the rest... of the properties that opened at the SAME RESORT as an existing property.

Fort Wilderness and Lakeshore Lodge are not the same resort in the first place. Combining them would be like combining VGF and PVB just because they're close to one another.

Lakeshore Lodge is not AT Fort Wilderness so there's nothing to combine.

It is 100% at fort wilderness - have you ever been to Fort Wilderness?

 

[WinterSolider]

It is 100% at fort wilderness -

It's not! It's NEAR Fort Wilderness, heck, even "next to" Fort Wilderness. But it's not AT Fort Wilderness. Just like Riviera is not "at" Caribbean Beach.

have you ever been to Fort Wilderness?

My wife literally worked there for 3 years.

 

[Brian Noble]

It would be a huge break from every historical pattern. 100% of the time, when a project gets a unique name, it becomes a separate association. When it shares a name, it joins the existing association.

Yeah, I know, and that's why I would not take even-money odds.

But money talks. And there is no money in CFW at the moment from DVD's perspective, because it is such a niche product. It will always be a niche product while it is "just the cabins". If it is "the cabins, and the A-frames, and the treehouses, and the tower" it is a much easier sell.

Maybe DVD is fine with that---and they might be, becuase this might have just been a different way to deal with the accounting of capex for replacing the cabins. That was going to happen anyway because the existing ones were at end-of-life, and the only other option was to keep them as rental stock---and "undeclared inventory" is just another name for rental stock.

 

[WinterSolider]

Yeah, I know, and that's why I would not take even-money odds.

But money talks. And there is no money in CFW at the moment from DVD's perspective, because it is such a niche product. It will always be a niche product while it is "just the cabins". If it is "the cabins, and the A-frames, and the treehouses, and the tower" it is a much easier sell.

Maybe DVD is fine with that---and they might be, becuase this might have just been a different way to deal with the accounting of capex for replacing the cabins. That was going to happen anyway because the existing ones were at end-of-life, and the only other option was to keep them as rental stock---and "undeclared inventory" is just another name for rental stock.

Has anyone done an analysis of dollar-of-rack-rate-per-point on the cabins? If not, I might.

My hunch is that they're making a killing on breakage because the cabins are too cheap (in points) so they're perfectly happy selling the inventory back to Walt Disney Travel Company or Disney Destinations LLC or whatever entity is managing the cash inventory these days.

 

[Mouseforward]

It's not! It's NEAR Fort Wilderness, heck, even "next to" Fort Wilderness. But it's not AT Fort Wilderness. Just like Riviera is not "at" Caribbean Beach.

Just like the Tree houses were not "AT" SSR thats why they were not combined with SSR