- Apr 1, 2007
As a VGF1 owner, I sure do wish they made it into a separate association though. I have no desire to stay in the hotel rooms.If Disney didn’t see a benefit in maintaining Riviera resale restrictions, they wouldn’t be there. There’s also zero evidence that Disney doesn’t like having a studio only resort. The lack of ROFR on Poly, as I’m sure you know, can also indicate that Poly2 will be in a separate association.
I think it would have been a reach to see VGF2, a quickly converted older hotel wing with zero amenities of its own, formed with a separate association, so I don’t think its status has any bearing on this discussion. But VDH, Poly2, and Riviera exist on an entirely different level, all being huge new builds costing hundreds of millions of dollars. These and other resorts down the line are the reason for the restrictions. And they work! I bought a bunch of direct VGF points specifically to book Riviera at 7 months, and potentially other yet to be built resorts in the future.
If VDH has the restrictions, so will Poly2. It would otherwise undermine DVD’s long term goal of competing more effectively with resale, and confuse buyers.
You are correct, but I think it's to a point. I do think it is affecting sales of VGF2 in comparison to RIV. RIV may have resale restrictions (that would give me, personally, pause as a first-time buyer as it would be harder to sell down the road if I needed to) but balancing that is that it has 6 more years on the contract than VGF does. I think that extra 6 years is a big part of why RIV sales are higher than VGF2 (other than, well, with VGF2 all you get is a hotel room...)You’re right, there is a diminishing return on a 40 year contract, but it’s a long enough time that I don’t think it would prevent a shiny new resort selling if buyers really liked it.
It’s certainly not stopping healthy sales (and prices) of BCV and BWV, and those only have about 19 years left.