The Poly2 Pricing Thread

[Sandisw]

It's Disney, and specifically Disney operating in a very highly-regulated environment--even a simple tweet or other basic official communication would involve dozens of man-hours for revision and layers upon layers of approvals. That's not an excuse, but it is the reality of it all.

Then why say anything at the meeting, because all those things you mention would still exist, wouldn’t they?

Which is why I said it’s interesting that I can’t even get them to acknowledge that Chang said anything at the meeting….if she let the cat out of the bag, so to speak, then they should be able to at least stay consistent with that, shouldn’t they?

And, if many are having difficulty getting the information as confirmed, like is being reported, than I’d say it’s not as clear….

 

[RichVIII]

Probably used ChatGPT for her response and here we are 100+ pages later parsing these words. lol

 

[Jack Kerouac]

Obviously 30 seconds is hyperbole, but my point stands And if they spent dozens of man hours crafting that non-answer they gave at the meeting (to a question they knew was coming), they're wasting a lot of man hours

.

 

[mkatsy]

Then why say anything at the meeting, because all those things you mention would still exist, wouldn’t they?

Which is why I said it’s interesting that I can’t even get them to acknowledge that Chang said anything at the meeting….if she let the cat out of the bag, so to speak, then they should be able to at least stay consistent with that, shouldn’t they?

And, if many are having difficulty getting the information as confirmed, like is being reported, than I’d say it’s not as clear….

It's in their best interest to not even acknowledge the statement. There is no trace of it to be found. Perhaps some gray-haired old lady without internet access has it squirreled away on her phone, but we'll never know. Moving forward, I will record them, I just never imagined it would be that controversial. Does anyone know the member that asked that last question? If they had a partner or friend with them, they may have been recording it and caught the answer.

 

[HyperspaceMountainPilot]

That was by design by the Disney attorneys. They’ll have a week’s worth if billable hours by yesterday afternoon.

I hedge my loss of money at Disney World by losing money as a shareholder via paying the attorneys.

Gotta diversify the way you lose money when it comes to Disney.

No better way than owning the stock for the past few years.

 

[BrianLo]

I still just find it incredibly odd that Poly2 would not be a restricted resort. We can not include VGF in the equation as this was already a building in existence, just refurbed. Riviera, VDH, FW Cabins, are all new structures, and restricted. Following this pattern so should Poly2.

I think it all comes down to sales potential. They are going to lose a savvy pool of buyers to resale Poly1. That is why I started to flip towards maybe they would make it separate association argument. It has all the makings of a separate resort to be marketed correctly on its own, unlike BPK that was dependent on the VGF1 room mix.

But I think someone made a convincing argument the pool of Poly1 buyers who may add on to upgrade their room types might outdo those savvy buyers lost to resales. Poly1 buyers would be much less interested in adding on and spreading out their points over two associations, it kind of defeats the purpose for those buyers who have outgrown studios only.

I think that math is still a fine line though and why they have taken so long to figure out which way to go. Long term though resale restrictions drive buyers to direct, which is what they want.

 

[Sandisw]

It's in their best interest to not even acknowledge the statement. There is no trace of it to be found. Perhaps some gray-haired old lady without internet access has it squirreled away on her phone, but we'll never know. Moving forward, I will record them, I just never imagined it would be that controversial. Does anyone know the member that asked that last question? If they had a partner or friend with them, they may have been recording it and caught the answer.

That’s not my point. This is an important decision and to answer the question but now not even acknowledge it is concerning.

I also dont agree that those of us who are still skeptical of DVDs motives for what seems to be backtracking on the messaging are somehow wrong.

When I am being told that no decision has been made or that we can’t answer your questions, to me, it means it’s not just normal what ifs playing a role here.

As I mentioned thought, until it’s filed, I would caution people to not make decisions based on it.

Expect it to be the same, but I wouldn’t be surprised to see something change.

 

[BWV Dreamin]

That’s not my point. This is an important decision and to answer the question but now not even acknowledge it is concerning.

I also dont agree that those of us who are still skeptical of DVDs motives for what seems to be backtracking on the messaging are somehow wrong.

When I am being told that no decision has been made or that we can’t answer your questions, to me, it means it’s not just normal what ifs playing a role here.

As I mentioned thought, until it’s filed, I would caution people to not make decisions based on it.

Expect it to be the same, but I wouldn’t be surprised to see something change.

There has been a surge in Poly1 resale contracts. Could this be a discreet effort to liquidate those contracts before opening up direct sales? I know DVC may not benefit from third party resales, but there must be some benefit. Thoughts?

 

[walt34]

That’s not my point. This is an important decision and to answer the question but now not even acknowledge it is concerning.

I also dont agree that those of us who are still skeptical of DVDs motives for what seems to be backtracking on the messaging are somehow wrong.

When I am being told that no decision has been made or that we can’t answer your questions, to me, it means it’s not just normal what ifs playing a role here.

As I mentioned thought, until it’s filed, I would caution people to not make decisions based on it.

Expect it to be the same, but I wouldn’t be surprised to see something change.

I see several possible reasons for this:
- They overstepped what they were allowed to say in the meeting. They might still be going in this direction but should not have communicated at this point in time (probably for legal reasons)
- Something material has changed and they try to walk back the communication.
- They try to avoid follow-up questions or further interpretations of what was said by their guides because what was said was all they can say at this point.

All of this could be connected to what we discussed here about a possible trust but I don't think it is necessarily the answer. Could be something much more harmless or formal.

In any case: I agree with you that, as long as DVD does not confirm this in writing, we should probably not base our decisions on what was reported from this meeting.

 

[Sandisw]

There has been a surge in Poly1 resale contracts. Could this be a discreet effort to liquidate those contracts before opening up direct sales? I know DVC may not benefit from third party resales, but there must be some benefit. Thoughts?

Yes, it is very possible that is DVD's motive. They want the resale price to go up without having to play the ROFR game, and when it gets higher, then they can set the direct pricing with incentives to be closer to drive people to direct.

The other interesting piece to all of this is that they are still selling PVB points at $250/pt to new buyers. That didn't happen with VGF...so, that leads me to believe, that the base price of the tower will start at $250/pt.

That's why I said...IMO, the fact that they are backtracking on the messaging means they want this debate to continue and that they benefit from there still being doubt out there.

I have also been reviewing things and I do now wonder, since the POS says that future phases are not guaranteed, if they can add the units to the same association, but set up different selling rules...so, could they still add it to the same association but because it is a completely different building, add restrctions to these units?

PVB resale would still be valid there, as it would be one home resort, but could they set it up that all other resorts purchases resale can't? At one time, I thought definitely no, but now not so sure....but since IANAL, I could be off base.

 

[cdirazonian]

I have also been reviewing things and I do now wonder, since the POS says that future phases are not guaranteed, if they can add the units to the same association, but set up different selling rules...so, could they still add it to the same association but because it is a completely different building, add restrctions to these units?

I’ve been thinking the exact same thing but was afraid to post it for fear of being called crazy, lol.

 

[MarkNC2Disney]

I have also been reviewing things and I do now wonder, since the POS says that future phases are not guaranteed, if they can add the units to the same association, but set up different selling rules...so, could they still add it to the same association but because it is a completely different building, add restrctions to these units?

 

[mkatsy]

I think it all comes down to sales potential. They are going to lose a savvy pool of buyers to resale Poly1. That is why I started to flip towards maybe they would make it separate association argument. It has all the makings of a separate resort to be marketed correctly on its own, unlike BPK that was dependent on the VGF1 room mix.

But I think someone made a convincing argument the pool of Poly1 buyers who may add on to upgrade their room types might outdo those savvy buyers lost to resales. Poly1 buyers would be much less interested in adding on and spreading out their points over two associations, it kind of defeats the purpose for those buyers who have outgrown studios only.

I think that math is still a fine line though and why they have taken so long to figure out which way to go. Long term though resale restrictions drive buyers to direct, which is what they want.

That’s not my point. This is an important decision and to answer the question but now not even acknowledge it is concerning.

I also dont agree that those of us who are still skeptical of DVDs motives for what seems to be backtracking on the messaging are somehow wrong.

When I am being told that no decision has been made or that we can’t answer your questions, to me, it means it’s not just normal what ifs playing a role here.

As I mentioned thought, until it’s filed, I would caution people to not make decisions based on it.

Expect it to be the same, but I wouldn’t be surprised to see something change.

my personal opinion, having been in the room for the question, was that something went wrong between Yvonne Chang jumping to answer the question, and the actual answer she gave. That being said, I do acknowledge that others in the room did not, and do not perceive it that way. So, I'm not claiming to be right, I'm just offering a perspective that supports the idea that something is amiss. It might not even be nefarious; it might just be that a decision hasn't been solidified, and it's easier to just keep all options open by saying nothing. Additionally, it's important to understand that a single source has reported this story. As best as I can tell, all other reports quote the original source. So, although it appears that this has been independently verified, I don't see that to be the case. To complicate matters, the author was not in the room and did not attend the reception. Disney refuses to acknowledge it even happened. So, what we are really left with is their friends told them what happened. At this point, if somebody buys Poly resale and they end up disappointed, I wholeheartedly believe they deserve it. You can't parent internet strangers.

 

[MerlinandtheMouse]

I have also been reviewing things and I do now wonder, since the POS says that future phases are not guaranteed, if they can add the units to the same association, but set up different selling rules...so, could they still add it to the same association but because it is a completely different building, add restrctions to these units?

PVB resale would still be valid there, as it would be one home resort, but could they set it up that all other resorts purchases resale can't? At one time, I thought definitely no, but now not so sure....but since IANAL, I could be off base.

This is interesting. I feel like the resale market as a whole has felt a bit inflated the last few weeks (maybe that’s just my narrow view of it though) and I wonder if that’s do to with the fact that people assume that their resale points from any resort will be good at 7mos at the new tower, so sellers are banking on that and increasing, as a result. But what if they do change the rules.

If what you’re saying is possible, changing the rules to make sure existing PVB direct and resale owners get 11mo access, as it’s the same association so they must, but then implementing a new rule where other resale points will be restricted might be the middle ground between giving PVB owners a complete resort finally, as well as maintaining their desire for restrictions. Seems like it would be a bit complicated allowing parts of PVB to be booked at 7mos but others not, so this feels a bit far-fetched but could be an interesting consideration.

 

[tidefan]

This is interesting. I feel like the resale market as a whole has felt a bit inflated the last few weeks (maybe that’s just my narrow view of it though) and I wonder if that’s do to with the fact that people assume that their resale points from any resort will be good at 7mos at the new tower, so sellers are banking on that and increasing, as a result. But what if they do change the rules.

If what you’re saying is possible, changing the rules to make sure existing PVB direct and resale owners get 11mo access, as it’s the same association so they must, but then implementing a new rule where other resale points will be restricted might be the middle ground between giving PVB owners a complete resort finally, as well as maintaining their desire for restrictions. Seems like it would be a bit complicated allowing parts of PVB to be booked at 7mos but others not, so this feels a bit far-fetched but could be an interesting consideration.

While interesting, if they did this, this Direct Poly1 owner would not be adding on. I have no desire for restricted points.

 

[MerlinandtheMouse]

While interesting, if they did this, this Direct Poly1 owner would not be adding on. I have no desire for restricted points.

Some might, many might not but we’ve mentioned before we don’t know what the number of existing members who add on direct looks like- maybe it’s a smaller pool and they’re willing to risk it. Also, how many existing members said they’d never buy at RIV but ultimately loved it and bought, quite a few from my understanding? Maybe they’re also hoping people will love the tower enough they’ll accept the restrictions Of course this is all very hypothetical and unlikely to happen because it seems complicated AF and that’s all DVC needs, more complications.

 

[Roughians_satchel]

As I mentioned thought, until it’s filed, I would caution people to not make decisions based on it.

Expect it to be the same, but I wouldn’t be surprised to see something change.

Have they filed Fort Wilderness? How long before sales do they file? When do you think they'll file Poly2?

 

[BrianLo]

This is interesting. I feel like the resale market as a whole has felt a bit inflated the last few weeks (maybe that’s just my narrow view of it though) and I wonder if that’s do to with the fact that people assume that their resale points from any resort will be good at 7mos at the new tower, so sellers are banking on that and increasing, as a result. But what if they do change the rules.

If what you’re saying is possible, changing the rules to make sure existing PVB direct and resale owners get 11mo access, as it’s the same association so they must, but then implementing a new rule where other resale points will be restricted might be the middle ground between giving PVB owners a complete resort finally, as well as maintaining their desire for restrictions. Seems like it would be a bit complicated allowing parts of PVB to be booked at 7mos but others not, so this feels a bit far-fetched but could be an interesting consideration.

They definitely won’t do this. This actually makes resale Poly1 even more valuable (since it would be the only resale unrestricted at 14+poly tower), which defeats the point.

To everyone wondering why they are being incredibly sketchy, it’s because Poly1 resale as is, is the better deal. They don’t really want people buying resale. One of the few and largest possible reasons one really needs to know ‘right now’ is to make a resale purchasing decision. Disney doesn’t want to drive that, really. They want people on the hook for RIV or waiting for direct Poly.

 

[HyperspaceMountainPilot]

They definitely won’t do this. This actually makes resale Poly1 even more valuable (since it would be the only resale unrestricted at 14+poly tower), which defeats the point.

To everyone wondering why they are being incredibly sketchy, it’s because Poly1 resale as is, is the better deal. They don’t really want people buying resale. One of the few and largest possible reasons one really needs to know ‘right now’ is to make a resale purchasing decision. Disney doesn’t want to drive that, really. They want people on the hook for RIV or waiting for direct Poly.

Agree with all of this 100%. Making new sale points less valuable for resale than current PVB resale would (at best!) lead to a VDH/VGC situation where resale spikes and new sales decrease.

 

[snystedt]

Have there been any updates on an opening date other than late 2024?