What else can Disney take from resellers?

[donaldbuzz&minnie]

I'm curious about what else Disney is allowed to do to discourage people from buying resale. I'm going to assume that somewhere along the line they will do whatever they legally can to drive buyers to purchase points from them rather than resale. It is in Disney's best interest all the way around. They will lure more buyers to purchase from them if the benefits are significantly better. And the less value a resale has, the cheaper it will be for Disney to buy resale points when "ROFRing", thus making more of a profit when reselling those points on sold-out properties.

Anyone know what the limits are to what they can do? Thanks.

 

[erionm]

The programs that DVC is taking away are not part of the timeshare offering and can be removed for all members if they desire.

 

[CrazyDuck]

They can take everything away if they want, including; RCI, the ability to book other DVC resorts, booking windows etc.. etc.. The only thing they cant take away is the ability to book your home resort!

 

[donaldbuzz&minnie]

So they could say that if you buy resale you can only book your own resort with no more than 1 month before you want to go? 7 months? 11 months?

 

[hakepb]

I believe the rule states owners must get something like a 3 month home resort booking priority(before non-owners)
I suppose they could then give resale owners 10 month and direct 11 month.

Among other things, DVC reserves he rights to suspend banking and borrowing at any time.

 

[DVCGeek]

I believe the rule states owners must get something like a 3 month home resort booking priority(before non-owners)

POS guarantees a one month owner priority window.

 

[crisi]

My guess would be the next change would be tiered perks. i.e. annual pass discounts, dining discounts, etc. removed completely for resale buyers. People who bought from Disney would get some discounts, but not great ones. People with 1,000+ points might see better discounts than they get currently - particularly on things that are "free" or "practically free" for Disney anyway...."free" pluses, for instance.

I think they'd have problems letting non-resale owners of different resorts book "your home" before you do. My guess is that your dues will entitle you to some privilege. But the contract does allow them to shorten the privilege window. They potentially could let Disney buyers book at 11 months at home, resale buyers book at 10 at home, and Disney buyers book non home at 8, resalers get last dibs at 7 or something. I don't thing they would, though.

 

[smjj]

I have learned that if someone ask the OP question, there are always people out there who somehow, someway justify what they(DVC) are doing is OK. It may be in the legal agreement for them to do just about anything but that does not make it right in my opinion, not after many of these perks were selling features touted by DVC to prospective buyers in the first place. I just give up asking and roll with the punches, you can't win. I honestly think Disney pushes these "perks" knowing they will do away with them when it suits them and there will always be a devoted core of people out there to defend them to the end. They just keep quiet about it until the time to do away with it comes....smjj

 

[tjkraz]

I have learned that if someone ask the OP question, there are always people out there who somehow, someway justify what they(DVC) are doing is OK. It may be in the legal agreement for them to do just about anything but that does not make it right in my opinion, not after many of these perks were selling features touted by DVC to prospective buyers in the first place. I just give up asking and roll with the punches, you can't win. I honestly think Disney pushes these "perks" knowing they will do away with them when it suits them and there will always be a devoted core of people out there to defend them to the end. They just keep quiet about it until the time to do away with it comes....smjj

DVC couldn't survive on this so called "devoted core" you describe.

It's more likely that the vast majority of members just don't feel as passionately about recent changes as the die hard Internet followers.

 

[Brian Noble]

I have learned that if someone ask the OP question, there are always people out there who somehow, someway justify what they(DVC) are doing is OK.

Don't mistake a candid statement of the possibilities with agreement. For example, I've written elsewhere how Disney could easily, and legally, shut out owners at existing resorts from newly-constructed ones, and then extend booking privileges to existing owners using any criteria they desire. Just because I know how they *could* do it doesn't mean I think they *should* do it.

But, I also understand that Mickey has always been in this business for the cheese, and nothing but the cheese. If a decision leaves more cheese for Mickey, that's the decision he will make. I also understand that the sales staff (er, Guides) are in the business of selling timeshares. They will paint the picture they need to paint to get you to sign on the line which is dotted, usually without telling an out-and-out falsehood. But, it is not their job to explain why perks that are offered today might not be tomorrow---the program disclosures do that, and you state that you have read those disclosures before you purchase.

 

[vicki_c]

I have learned that if someone ask the OP question, there are always people out there who somehow, someway justify what they(DVC) are doing is OK. It may be in the legal agreement for them to do just about anything but that does not make it right in my opinion, not after many of these perks were selling features touted by DVC to prospective buyers in the first place. I just give up asking and roll with the punches, you can't win. I honestly think Disney pushes these "perks" knowing they will do away with them when it suits them and there will always be a devoted core of people out there to defend them to the end. They just keep quiet about it until the time to do away with it comes....smjj

Just because people are explaining the legalities of what DVC can do doesn't mean anyone is "justifying" it from the standpoint of being a DVC apologist. The question was asked - what else can be done - and people offered their factual answers based on the legal documentation. It doesn't mean people think it's a good thing - it was a black/white question with black/white answers.

edited: oh, I see that's what Brian already said basically. OK, never mind my piling on.

 

[smjj]

Just because people are explaining the legalities of what DVC can do doesn't mean anyone is "justifying" it from the standpoint of being a DVC apologist. The question was asked - what else can be done - and people offered their factual answers based on the legal documentation. It doesn't mean people think it's a good thing - it was a black/white question with black/white answers.

edited: oh, I see that's what Brian already said basically. OK, never mind my piling on.

True, true but I have seen many times here where this type of question is posed only to have people defend to the end DVC's right to do it. If you take this one question by its self, yes you are probably right but all too many times I have seen posters lambasted by simply asking these types of questions. Looks like I hit a real nerve....smjj

 

[Brian Noble]

Why is it "lambasting" to answer a factual question with our understanding of the facts? I'm asking out of genuine curiosity---I truly don't understand what you mean by this.

 

[smjj]

Why is it "lambasting" to answer a factual question with our understanding of the facts? I'm asking out of genuine curiosity---I truly don't understand what you mean by this.

Forget this post, just forget this post. When I was reading it I was remembering other post of a similar nature where they were lambasted for asking or complaining about perks taken away. Yes, I know they can do this and yes I know it is all spelled out in the paperwork we all sign but that does not mean these people can't complain or pout when a perk is taken away. This one post by its self does seem just a simple question with simple answers. That was not the point I was making. In general when people complain about perks or other perceived problems with DVC, there are those who will always take DVC side as loyal members who think DVC/Disney can do no wrong and to suggest so is sacrilegious...smjj

 

[bumbershoot]

Looks like I hit a real nerve....smjj

What nerve? You've been answered calmly, politely, and in as unemotional a manner as possible.


To me, it's the difference between those who read the POS before signing the paperwork, and those who didn't.

I'm in the middle of that. I tried to read it-I skimmed it, but I also read copious amounts of info between 9/07 and 3/09 before buying, so I feel I was realistic about what we were getting and what we were getting that was extra.

 

[crisi]

True, true but I have seen many times here where this type of question is posed only to have people defend to the end DVC's right to do it. If you take this one question by its self, yes you are probably right but all too many times I have seen posters lambasted by simply asking these types of questions. Looks like I hit a real nerve....smjj

I would hope that we defend Disney's right to abide by the terms of their contract with us. And our right to abide by those terms as well. That's what our legal system is based on, and in terms the commerce based free market economy! Can you imagine the chao is contracts were useless pieces of paper?!

 

[tjkraz]

In general when people complain about perks or other perceived problems with DVC, there are those who will always take DVC side as loyal members who think DVC/Disney can do no wrong and to suggest so is sacrilegious...smjj

In many cases, I think you are confusing frank discussion with "taking DVC's side."

Just because a poster doesn't take-up his proverbial torch and pitchfork every time a change is announced doesn't make him a mindless DVC sycophant.

In fact, I don't see anyone really "taking DVC's side" in this matter. I don't recall any posts where members are applauding the decision or urging DVC to take even more drastic action against resale buyers.

The more moderate replies seem to be coming from those who simply had more realistic expectations for what the future may hold. That doesn't mean that we are enamored with the changes but some of us were clearly more prepared for the eventuality.

 

[vicki_c]

And I manage contracts for a living, so I'm very in tune with abiding by the requirements of the contract (for both sides). So even when it impacts me negatively, I still defend to the end the right of either side to do whatever is required by the contract, or to do the least possible while meeting the requirements of the contract. That's how companies - all companies - make money.

I don't expect anything different from Disney than I would from any other person I sign a contract with personally - my mortgage, purchasing a car, or any entity I do business with professionally.

 

[Brian Noble]

I was remembering other post of a similar nature where they were lambasted for asking or complaining about perks taken away.

If you can find such a thread, I would be pleased to see a link to it. Most of these threads I've seen so far have been responded to by folks explaining what steps are legal/possible. That's not the same thing as "taking Disney's side."

 

[donaldbuzz&minnie]

As the OP, just wanted to clarify that I wasn't asking anyone to take sides, nor was I interested in doing so. I just wanted some objective information. I frankly didn't read every word of the contracts I signed and I want to be prepared for what might come.