"Sleep-Around Points" (SAP) - The Thread

[intamin]

Which is why it is important for anyone who is buying to understand that you are not guaranteed the right to trade into other DVC resorts if, for whatever reason, they decide to remove the resort from BVTC.

To be fair, they can't do it willy nilly or on a whim...there are some ground rules...but when we buy, we are buying for the right to use our home resort only.

As I said, there are a lot of things that can be done to change how exchanges work. They don't have to be free...they can decide to have non home resort point charts for trading...they can change the booking window....and who knows what else.

I agree that it is unlikely to happen at this juncture, but its always good to know these things and whether or not buying a non WDW resort for staying at WDW will work if something like this happened. Its why many have always advised not to buy VB or HH for WDW stays if there is no intention of using there.

Its like the change to borrowing that happened during 2020...many did not realize that DVC has the power to amend banking/borrowing rules if they feel it is needed to balance demand....

Def interesting to think about, that being said I still stand by my position of using AUL sub as SAP if you already have WDW points and are okay with using those points solely at AUL. Don’t expect that to be the case until maybe nearing the last 10 years of the contract but like you said nothing is guaranteed but home booking priority.

 

[Sandisw]

I've read that language and from what I can tell, deletion can happen in cases of resort devastation, eminent domain issues, expiration of term (if you can't reserve home resort, you automatically can't exchange), or if the resort ceases to be affiliated with DVC.

So if they sell Vero Beach in 2042 to Hyatt, yes it will be deleted. If HHI or Vero Beach go down in a hurricane, they may be deleted if the replacement vacation homes (from insurance money) do not meet the criteria set by DVC. But those are 1 in 1,000,000+ circumstances. It's not going to be done just because some resort functions as SAP on the resale market...

View attachment 775129

Oh, of course, they are not going to do it to remove it for SAP. But, they could certainly decide to make trading in/out of a place like AUL at a different window...it doesn't have to stay at 7 months...as I said, they could decide to have it 5 months instead, even leaving the other resorts at the current 7 months. They could also make it fee based like any DVC resort could become that.

The point was that people buying at least need to be aware that the non home resort booking period is not set in stone and things with BVTC can be changed at any time...not just for AUL but all resorts that are part of DVC.

And, yes, if they terminate the DVC resort agreement, then it won't be part of the system. Which is why I said, its not something that can be done willy nilly...but people still need to realize that this is a possibility and be comfortable that you are buying a home resort works for you if something like this happens.

 

[Sandisw]

Def interesting to think about, that being said I still stand by my position of using AUL sub as SAP if you already have WDW points and are okay with using those points solely at AUL. Don’t expect that to be the case until maybe nearing the last 10 years of the contract but like you said nothing is guaranteed but home booking priority.

AUL SAP definitely will work for someone wants to use at WDW but also plans to use at AUL, or has other WDW points to supplement. There is so much about DVC that isn't always known, especially when it comes to trading out of your home resort, that is good to at least be aware of how it all works.

There are plenty who will find owning AUL for SAP at WDW to be a great choice and many have luck at 7 months. For me, knowing what the rules are and could become, it would not be my choice for going to WDW. I'd rather have WDW points to ensure I had a place to stay there if things with booking habits change.

 

[crisi]

As I said, there are a lot of things that can be done to change how exchanges work. They don't have to be free...they can decide to have non home resort point charts for trading...they can change the booking window....and who knows what else.

Given Disney's renewed interest in generating as much cash as possible - it would be the "not free" exchanges that would seem most likely to actually occur out of your "lots of things they could do" list.

 

[kanerf]

I like my OKW points. I have a mixture of resale and direct in the same use year so they can be combined for reservations. They work fine and I have used them at may different resorts over the years. If I can't get what I am looking for, I am fine staying at OKW. Largest rooms on property!

 

[HIRyeDVC]

All this BVTC talk really reinforces the mantra of "buying where you want to stay."

 

[DanCali]

Oh, of course, they are not going to do it to remove it for SAP. But, they could certainly decide to make trading in/out of a place like AUL at a different window...it doesn't have to stay at 7 months...as I said, they could decide to have it 5 months instead, even leaving the other resorts at the current 7 months.

I don't think that's not what the documents say. They can change the home resort priority for individual resorts - so exchanges from any resort into say VGF would start at 10 months out, 7 months out, or 5 months out. It's home resort preference period vs. exchange window. But that can't say that Aulani can exchange into VGF (or other WDW resorts) at 5 months out and SSR can exchange into VGF (or other WDW resorts) at 7 months out.

In the DVC Resort Documents for each DVC Resort, the Management Company has reserved the right to increase or decrease the length of the Home Resort Priority Period for a given DVC Resort; provided, however, the Home Resort Priority Period will be at least one (1) month prior to the period during which Club Members from other DVC Resorts have the right to request a reservation for that Vacation Home for that Use Day. Except, during the initial year of opening of each new DVC Resort, the Management Company may modify the Home Resort Priority Period for the new DVC Resort to give greater priority(the “Opening Priority Period”) for reservations for, and access to, Vacation Homes at such new DVC Resort to Members with Home Resort Priority at that new DVC Resort. The Opening Priority Period may vary for each new DVC Resort. The Management Company, in its discretion, will determine how long the Opening Priority Period will be for Members with Home Resort Priority as well as for Members who own at other DVC Resorts. In addition, BVTC, in its discretion, also reserves the right to establish (or honor the Management Company’s establishment of) other special or event preference periods for new DVC Resorts based on the particular circumstances of the new DVC Resort (for example, a “continental” preference for resorts located outside of the jurisdictional limits of the United States that are associated as DVC Resorts).

(https://cdn1.parksmedia.wdprapps.disney.com/media/dvc/en/collateral-docs/MS_POS_Rev_05_02_2023.pdf - page 52)

 

[Sandisw]

I don't think that's not what the documents say. They can change the home resort priority for individual resorts - so exchanges from any resort into say VGF would start at 10 months out, 7 months out, or 5 months out. It's home resort preference period vs. exchange window. But that can't say that Aulani can exchange into VGF (or other WDW resorts) at 5 months out and SSR can exchange into VGF (or other WDW resorts) at 7 months out.

In the DVC Resort Documents for each DVC Resort, the Management Company has reserved the right to increase or decrease the length of the Home Resort Priority Period for a given DVC Resort; provided, however, the Home Resort Priority Period will be at least one (1) month prior to the period during which Club Members from other DVC Resorts have the right to request a reservation for that Vacation Home for that Use Day. Except, during the initial year of opening of each new DVC Resort, the Management Company may modify the Home Resort Priority Period for the new DVC Resort to give greater priority(the “Opening Priority Period”) for reservations for, and access to, Vacation Homes at such new DVC Resort to Members with Home Resort Priority at that new DVC Resort. The Opening Priority Period may vary for each new DVC Resort. The Management Company, in its discretion, will determine how long the Opening Priority Period will be for Members with Home Resort Priority as well as for Members who own at other DVC Resorts. In addition, BVTC, in its discretion, also reserves the right to establish (or honor the Management Company’s establishment of) other special or event preference periods for new DVC Resorts based on the particular circumstances of the new DVC Resort (for example, a “continental” preference for resorts located outside of the jurisdictional limits of the United States that are associated as DVC Resorts).

Remember, each DVC resort has its own agreement with BVTC. While we think of them all as the same, they are not and therefore, the rules can be whatever is agreed to in the POS.

Here is the language from RIV and AUL which both say that different home resort periods can exist at each resort. Each resort does not have to be given the same home resort booking period. And, if the home resort booking period is different at one resort than the other, the exchange window will be different.

So, yes, they could give AUL owners a longer home resort booking period (which means they can't trade until later) while not doing the same at SSR.

All this just to share that people need to just understand there are things out there that can change the way one can use their contracts at other resorts and as long as one is aware, then they can decide if it makes sense for them to purchase whichever resort they want for SAP!

w

 

[DanCali]

Here is the language from RIV and it says that different home resort periods can exist at each resort. Each resort does not have to be given the same home resort booking period. And, if the home resort booking period is different at one resort than the other, the exchange window will be different.

So, yes, they could give AUL owners a longer home resort booking period (which means they can't trade until later) will not doing the same at SSR.

I think this says the same thing as what I cited - that each resort does not have to have the same home resort booking period. But I don't interpret it the way you do.

If the home resort priority at Aulani was from 11 months in advance to 5 months in advance for some bizarre reason, that means all other resorts can trade into Aulani starting 5 months out. But it doesn't mean Aulani owners can't trade to other resorts at 7 months in advance of their desired dates if all other resorts had home resort priority as it is today. Home resort priority is the period when owners at that resort have priority to book at their own resort. You should still be able to trade out based on the prevailing home priority at the other resorts.

 

[Sandisw]

I think this says the same thing as what I cited - that each resort does not have to have the same home resort booking period. But I don't interpret it the way you do.

If the home resort priority at Aulani was from 11 months in advance to 5 months in advance for some bizarre reason, that means all other resorts can trade into Aulani starting 5 months out. But it doesn't mean Aulani owners can't trade to other resorts at 7 months in advance of their desired dates if all other resorts had home resort priority as it is today. Home resort priority is the period when owners at that resort have priority to book at their own resort. You should still be able to trade out based on the prevailing home priority at the other resorts.

Not sure because if your rooms are not available for others, then it would imbalance the system. There is even language in there that if your resort isn't available, for whatever reason...you are not eligible for using other resorts. There are other remedies listed. So, I do think it could be set up to prevent an owner from accessing other resorts prior to their own resort being eligible for trades.

That is why when a new resort opens you can't use your points at other open resorts because your inventory does not yet exist.

So, if any resort has a different window, it would impact the trades as the system does need to stay in balance in some way. I agree that for ease its probably why they keep them all the same...but they could devise it in a way that limits certain trades from becoming harder.

Each DVC resort has their own agreement with BVTC...and technically the rules for trading can be made whatever they want them to be with each different resort as long as it is done based on resort, and not the type of points being used (direct vs. resale).

I really just brought up the topic for SAP because many new people do not realize that trading into other DVC resorts is not guaranteed in the same way it is for use of your home resort.

ETA: Maybe I am saying it backwards...that it would be the more popular resorts getting the longer home resort periods which cuts down the trading window for others at the less popular or off site resorts.

 

[crisi]

And it isn't really worth worrying about if you've already bought....most of the rights DVC has reserved for themselves under contract to make significant changes are unlikely to come to fruition. It is worth evaluating your risk tolerance for "unlikely" if you are looking at buying SAP and looking at buying a resort you don't ever want to stay at.

(We bought DVC in 2002 - started looking shortly after 9/11 - our own risk analysis included the idea that a terrorist attack could shut down the theme parks for good - its been twenty years and the parks continue to operate - but in 2002 that was a risk worth considering.)

 

[HIRyeDVC]

Not sure because if your rooms are not available for others, then it would imbalance the system. There is even language in there that if your resort isn't available, for whatever reason...you are not eligible for using other resorts. There are other remedies listed. So, I do think it could be set up to prevent an owner from accessing other resorts prior to their own resort being eligible for trades.

That is why when a new resort opens you can't use your points at other open resorts because your inventory does not yet exist.

So, if any resort has a different window, it would impact the trades as the system does need to stay in balance in some way. I agree that for ease its probably why they keep them all the same...but they could devise it in a way that limits certain trades from becoming harder.

Each DVC resort has their own agreement with BVTC...and technically the rules for trading can be made whatever they want them to be with each different resort as long as it is done based on resort, and not the type of points being used (direct vs. resale).

I really just brought up the topic for SAP because many new people do not realize that trading into other DVC resorts is not guaranteed in the same way it is for use of your home resort.

I think most of us can agree that Disney has really smart lawyers that protects Disney from doing things in in their best interest, whatever that may be. CAN Disney do it and WOULD they do it is probably two separate conversations. One of the main reasons why I could see it happening is the impending loss of the 2042 resorts, as you already mentioned.

The biggest problem I see is the monster they already created in Aulani and Saratoga. These two resorts alone account for almost 26 million points, which is like 40% of the entire DVC system. If people strictly buy into AUL and SSR so they can use as SAP for other "more desirable" resorts, I'm not sure if that's tenable and hence, I can see Disney maybe trying to limit the ability to trade-in from these two mega resorts. But we're all speculating at this point. I acknowledge what you are saying, that Disney ultimately has the legal power to do what they want.

 

[tidefan]

I think most of us can agree that Disney has really smart lawyers that protects Disney from doing things in in their best interest, whatever that may be. CAN Disney do it and WOULD they do it is probably two separate conversations. One of the main reasons why I could see it happening is the impending loss of the 2042 resorts, as you already mentioned.

The biggest problem I see is the monster they already created in Aulani and Saratoga. These two resorts alone account for almost 26 million points, which is like 40% of the entire DVC system. If people strictly buy into AUL and SSR so they can use as SAP for other "more desirable" resorts, I'm not sure if that's tenable and hence, I can see Disney maybe trying to limit the ability to trade-in from these two mega resorts. But we're all speculating at this point. I acknowledge what you are saying, that Disney ultimately has the legal power to do what they want.

The only difference here is that I suspect that Aulani has no shortage of people wanting to trade in there from other resorts...

 

[HIRyeDVC]

The only difference here is that I suspect that Aulani has no shortage of people wanting to trade in there from other resorts...

I don't disagree. There are so many aspects that are so different from AUL and SSR. Which is why I have a hard time comparing the two. I get why some do though, just from a "SAP" perspective. I DO know some of my fellow Hawaii locals that have traded their AUL points to stay at WDW, and often times, all they can get is SSR or OKW, so it goes both ways. I just love that we all can trade, at least with the O14 resorts. But you're hunch is totally correct as I always tend to meet more non-Aulani DVC owners visiting from the mainland when I'm there than actual Aulani owners.

 

[DanCali]

I think most of us can agree that Disney has really smart lawyers that protects Disney from doing things in in their best interest, whatever that may be.

I'm sure this is true and agree with that. But sometimes companies try to do things beyond what is in the written rules, or even in violation of them.

Back in 2017 Vistana (Westin/Sheraton timeshares) decided that if they can't enforce limiting the amount of 3rd party guests - in many cases those were rentals - they might as well profit from it. So, they instituted a "3rd party guest fee" to be applied when changing the guest's name on the reservation. A handful of owners on TUG fought that and managed to get them to back off that idea at least for home resort reservations (they did keep the fee for exchanges, defined in that system as all reservations at 8 months out or less, including at home resort).

It turns out the ownership rules literally said " You may permit another person to occupy your Assigned Unit during your Use Period(s) without charge" but they tried to apply a fee anyway... So just because a company with many in-house lawyers tries something, doesn't always mean it's foolproof!

 

[HIRyeDVC]

I'm sure this is true and agree with that. But sometimes companies try to do things beyond what is in the written rules, or even in violation of them.

Back in 2017 Vistana (Westin/Sheraton timeshares) decided that if they can't enforce limiting the amount of 3rd party guests - in many cases those were rentals - they might as well profit from it. So, they instituted a "3rd party guest fee" to be applied when changing the guest's name on the reservation. A handful of owners on TUG fought that and managed to get them to back off that idea at least for home resort reservations (they did keep the fee for exchanges, defined in that system as all reservations at 8 months out or less, including at home resort).

It turns out the ownership rules literally said " You may permit another person to occupy your Assigned Unit during your Use Period(s) without charge" but they tried to apply a fee anyway... So just because a company with many in-house lawyers tries something, doesn't always mean it's foolproof!

I guess then, it falls on us and this small band of dedicated fans to keep our vigilance and keep Disney's power in check. I just haveto admit upfront that legalese bores me to death and I hate reading things like instructions, manuals, and legal documents. But if someone else were to take the lead, I have no problems signing a petition or something! Bring the power back to the people!

 

[DanCali]

I guess then, it falls on us and this small band of dedicated fans to keep our vigilance and keep Disney's power in check. I just haveto admit upfront that legalese bores me to death and I hate reading things like instructions, manuals, and legal documents. But if someone else were to take the lead, I have no problems signing a petition or something! Bring the power back to the people!

I don't think Disney has done anything wrong - but lots of speculation going on how they might try to change things just because they (perhaps) can. Personally, I don't see a reason to mess with the 11-month and 7-month windows at any resort. If it's simple to explain, it probably also simpler to sell!

SAP is a "feature" of any points system where dues differ by resort. Some people will always buy cheap resorts in the desert and hope to score an ocean view in Hawaii. But if what you need is available when the exchange window opens, I don't see a problem with that. If anything, I think the "feature" enabling walking reservations is probably a much bigger inconvenience for many owners.

 

[HIRyeDVC]

I don't think Disney has done anything wrong - but lots of speculation going on how they might try to change things just because they (perhaps) can. Personally, I don't see a reason to mess with the 11-month and 7-month windows at any resort. If it's simple to explain, it probably also simpler to sell!

SAP is a "feature" of any points system where dues differ by resort. Some people will always buy cheap resorts in the desert and hope to score an ocean view in Hawaii. But if it's available when the exchange window opens, I don't see a problem with that. If anything, I think the "feature" enabling walking reservations is probably a much bigger inconvenience for many owners.

Didn't Disney try to finagle the points chart while back and got caught so they quietly reversed it or something? I don't think we should put our guards down with Disney and their tactics. On the flip side, I am thankful that DVC is an easy and wonderful product. Hope they keep it that way and stay away from the Timeshare-sleaziness that pervades the other companies.

 

[Sandisw]

I don't think Disney has done anything wrong - but lots of speculation going on how they might try to change things just because they (perhaps) can. Personally, I don't see a reason to mess with the 11-month and 7-month windows at any resort. If it's simple to explain, it probably also simpler to sell!

SAP is a "feature" of any points system where dues differ by resort. Some people will always buy cheap resorts in the desert and hope to score an ocean view in Hawaii. But if what you need is available when the exchange window opens, I don't see a problem with that. If anything, I think the "feature" enabling walking reservations is probably a much bigger inconvenience for many owners.

I guess I just think it’s important for new buyers to have a good understanding of the program and to be sure it works for them.

No one ever predicted they would do what they did with changes to resale and yet, here we are with restrictions in play.

So, while there may not be a big reason to change booking windows right now I do beleive buying resort thst isn’t at WDW for stays at WDW carries a risk and one needs to be okay with that and not assume it won’t be an issue to get what one wants.

In the 13 years since I have owned, things have change a lot in terms of booking patterns and what used to be easy csn now be much harder.

So, if one is deciding on SAPs for WDW, then it might be worth it to choose a WDW like SSR over AUL as at least you know what you own can always be used for a WDW stay

Personally, I think it would be a good move to increase home resort booking to 6 months from 4 given how booking has changed over time.

 

[Sandisw]

Didn't Disney try to finagle the points chart while back and got caught so they quietly reversed it or something? I don't think we should put our guards down with Disney and their tactics. On the flip side, I am thankful that DVC is an easy and wonderful product. Hope they keep it that way and stay away from the Timeshare-sleaziness that pervades the other companies.

What they did was use some contract language to what they felt was vague enough to support their moves but adjusted things when owners brought up a different interpretation and that maybe what they did was not the right move..and yes, they did make some adjustments to fix it.

But, I could see how they came to their reasoning but also believe that they made the decision they did to fix it so it couldn’t happen again.