Why is everyone so concerned with the new Poly tower

[SeasonneRose]

Someone asked why anyone would buy Poly 1 Direct instead of Poly 1 Resale, and you answered "ROFR." There is no ROFR at Poly 1, meaning nobody is buying Poly 1 Direct to avoid ROFR.

At the moment.

I understand what ROFR is. I went to law school - it is a legal term. I am also intimately familiar with what it means as it pertains to child custody. You should keep your snarky comments to yourself when you have no idea what someone’s background may be.

Good day.

 

[DVCsloth]

Pretty obvious to me that Disney needed VGF1 to help sell VGF2, that is most likely why it is the same association. Poly2 will not need the same type of help and Poly1 does not have the larger rooms. If they restricted it or made it a separate association, they would most likely have trouble selling it.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

At the moment.

I understand what ROFR is. I went to law school - it is a legal term. I am also intimately familiar with what it means as it pertains to child custody. You should keep your snarky comments to yourself when you have no idea what someone’s background may be.

Good day.

 

[Nursemanit]

Pretty obvious to me that Disney needed VGF1 to help sell VGF2, that is most likely why it is the same association. Poly2 will not need the same type of help and Poly1 does not have the larger rooms. If they restricted it or made it a separate association, they would most likely have trouble selling it.

The majority want studios - very few people want 1br - the 1BR don't sell out until there are no studios left. Look at the ratio in DLT - Poly 1 has the largest studios at WDW.

 

[Jlo85]

So, I think the fact that they are easy to get means enough owners are leaving the resort.

I don’t know that I agree. A lot of one bedrooms have availability, but I don’t assume those owners are going elsewhere.

They could have decided to make it new, but they didn’t and I just don’t think one can conclude that means restrictions are over...

I agree, but I do think it means that DVC execs didn’t get in a room and say “Resale restrictions on everything going forward.” Because if they did, we would have got them on VGF2. Disney is probably making an ad-hoc judgement on each resort going forward is my guess.

 

[Paul Stupin]

Why so mean spirited? You make good points, let your arguments speak for themselves. Not necessary to attack everyone who does not agree with you.

Good point!

 

[Sandisw]

I don’t know that I agree. A lot of one bedrooms have availability, but I don’t assume those owners are going elsewhere.


I agree, but I do think it means that DVC execs didn’t get in a room and say “Resale restrictions on everything going forward.” Because if they did, we would have got them on VGF2. Disney is probably making an ad-hoc judgement on each resort going forward is my guess.

You can’t compare the 1 bedrooms to studios. And if there weren’t so many bungalow points it may not mean as much.

But since Poly is not booking up until well into the 7 month window pretty much year round, it means lots of owners are trading out because they don’t want to stay there all the time. I know there are a lot of rooms but its still studios and even when others can trade in, they are lasting longer than I think they should for an MK resort.

I think BPK was such a quick project that it was a stop gap to help with depressed sales in part do to the pandemic and the closure…plus to help rid the hotel of a building since the Grand was not being booked in high numbers with cash guests.

I do think this was an exception, but I don’t think it’s going to be a resort by resort thing. It won’t make sense to try to explain that to buyers…RIV is, BPK was not, VDH is, but Poly tower is not.

The purpose of the restrictions is to slowly shut out resale…they are not going to have a mish mash. If VDH doesn’t get them, then they will disappear and I’d bet from RIV too.

 

[Paul Stupin]

I don’t know that I agree. A lot of one bedrooms have availability, but I don’t assume those owners are going elsewhere.


I agree, but I do think it means that DVC execs didn’t get in a room and say “Resale restrictions on everything going forward.” Because if they did, we would have got them on VGF2. Disney is probably making an ad-hoc judgement on each resort going forward is my guess.

Of course none of us really know, but if resale restrictions are still on the table going forward with new resorts, and at least we all have to agree that its a possibility, I think Disney will have to commit one way or another and stick with whatever they decide. Said restrictions are confusing enough for new buyers, if they even care, but if Disney applies them only intermittently, it will be even more so. For all of us.

I look at VGF2 as an outlier, not an indication of a strategy going forward. To have made a single resort wing of studios a separate resort, when studios are in the original VGF wing as well, seems silly and confusing. Try explaining that to an impulse buyer. "You can book a studio in BPK, but not elsewhere, even though there's an assortment of them in the other building too." And, lets not forget, part of the sales pitch was the ability to book additional room types in the other building.

That won't be an issue at Poly2, which will probably have the usual assortment of accommodations. No need to sell studios at Poly1 if Poly2 has newer, nicer ones. Plus one bedrooms and other fanciness. And I don't think the bungalows are a viable booking option for a sizable percentage of DVC owners, so they're not a great selling tool either. If this were just a new longhouse with one bedrooms, of course it would be in the same association. But it doesn't look like DVD is making a huge effort to integrate the new building, at least design wise, into what is already there. It's beside the existing resort but certainly doesn't look like its a part of it. Of course, thats just a lesser argument to the continuation of resale restrictions, but I'm throwing that one in as well!

 

[RichVIII]

That won't be an issue at Poly2, which will probably have the usual assortment of accommodations. No need to sell studios at Poly1 if Poly2 has newer, nicer ones. Plus one bedrooms and other fanciness.

This is probably the best argument I have heard of why it would make sense as a new association. Until hearing this, I was with others who thought it might be confusing to buyers who could stay on one side of the property but not the other.

 

[Nursemanit]

That won't be an issue at Poly2, which will probably have the usual assortment of accommodations. No need to sell studios at Poly1 if Poly2 has newer, nicer ones

They have not built a nicer studio than Poly - RR came close but all of the other "newer " ones were smaller and less outfitted.

 

[DVCsloth]

The majority want studios - very few people want 1br - the 1BR don't sell out until there are no studios left. Look at the ratio in DLT - Poly 1 has the largest studios at WDW.

Polynesian studios are usually available at 7 months. Another reason I think it will be a separate association is, why buy direct if you can get the same thing resale? It doesn't make any sense to me that Disney would invest this kind of money for something that you can just buy resale or if you do buy direct you need to compete for the new resort with millions of points already out there at 11 months.

 

[Jlo85]

You can’t compare the 1 bedrooms to studios. And if there weren’t so many bungalow points it may not mean as much.

But since Poly is not booking up until well into the 7 month window pretty much year round, it means lots of owners are trading out because they don’t want to stay there all the time. I know there are a lot of rooms but its still studios and even when others can trade in, they are lasting longer than I think they should for an MK resort.

I think that is reading too much into availability. Poly has 350 studios. It has more studios than most of the DVC resorts have villas. Poly is one of the bigger DVC properties. So, having availability similar to those other bigger resorts isn’t shocking to me. BWV is the only other resort larger excluding the large ones, and it tends to have availability in the bigger rooms (it doesn’t have a ton of studios).

Also I don’t necessarily buy they won’t have a mish-mash of resorts with restrictions and ones without. DVC is already confusing. Why would they simplify things? And the reality is that it’s only confusing for resale buyers, and why does Disney care about them?

Another element here is that Disney has recently seemed to make better incentives for existing members vs new. Not sure that’s happened before, I can’t really find examples. We could extrapolate that Disney doesn’t really want new members as much, and is marketing more heavily to existing members. If add-ons are a better revenue stream, then PVB gives them that stream.

I’m not saying it’ll definitely be an expansion, but I do think for every argument there is a counter argument. To me, the only real evidence right now is ROFR. If they were ROFR’ing Poly I would definitely say it’s a new association. But they’re not.

 

[tidefan]

I look at VGF2 as an outlier, not an indication of a strategy going forward. To have made a single resort wing of studios a separate resort, when studios are in the original VGF wing as well, seems silly and confusing. Try explaining that to an impulse buyer. "You can book a studio in BPK, but not elsewhere, even though there's an assortment of them in the other building too." And, lets not forget, part of the sales pitch was the ability to book additional room types in the other building.

So, as a VGF1 owner, this exact thing has led me to question DVC more than anything over the past 15 years. Essentially, with VGF2, they are saying they can come back to any association, many years down the road, and alter it. I suppose the treehouses should have been my first indication of this, but I think this has affected the original owners more. As you say about the sales pitch selling the original building, essentially DVC is selling something that is already sold out, IMHO to the detriment of the original owners.

I keep coming back to this. What’s to say that 6-7 years from now, they decide to convert the Aruba area of CBR as a quick flip and sell them as “Riviera Resort Studios”?

 

[SL6827]

So, as a VGF1 owner, this exact thing has led me to question DVC more than anything over the past 15 years. Essentially, with VGF2, they are saying they can come back to any association, many years down the road, and alter it. I suppose the treehouses should have been my first indication of this, but I think this has affected the original owners more. As you say about the sales pitch selling the original building, essentially DVC is selling something that is already sold out, IMHO to the detriment of the original owners.

I keep coming back to this. What’s to say that 6-7 years from now, they decide to convert the Aruba area of CBR as a quick flip and sell them as “Riviera Resort Studios”?

I would say that is possible.

 

[lovethesun12]

Polynesian studios are usually available at 7 months. Another reason I think it will be a separate association is, why buy direct if you can get the same thing resale? It doesn't make any sense to me that Disney would invest this kind of money for something that you can just buy resale or if you do buy direct you need to compete for the new resort with millions of points already out there at 11 months.

In short, people would buy poly2 direct for all the same reasons people decided to buy VGF2 direct.

There just aren't that many contracts on the resale market, some people trust disney more than resale, some people won't even know about resale, potential narrow gap in pricing between resale/direct might make people feel direct is a better option, impulse buying, FOMO.

 

[Sandisw]

I think that is reading too much into availability. Poly has 350 studios. It has more studios than most of the DVC resorts have villas. Poly is one of the bigger DVC properties. So, having availability similar to those other bigger resorts isn’t shocking to me. BWV is the only other resort larger excluding the large ones, and it tends to have availability in the bigger rooms (it doesn’t have a ton of studios).

Also I don’t necessarily buy they won’t have a mish-mash of resorts with restrictions and ones without. DVC is already confusing. Why would they simplify things? And the reality is that it’s only confusing for resale buyers, and why does Disney care about them?

Another element here is that Disney has recently seemed to make better incentives for existing members vs new. Not sure that’s happened before, I can’t really find examples. We could extrapolate that Disney doesn’t really want new members as much, and is marketing more heavily to existing members. If add-ons are a better revenue stream, then PVB gives them that stream.

I’m not saying it’ll definitely be an expansion, but I do think for every argument there is a counter argument. To me, the only real evidence right now is ROFR. If they were ROFR’ing Poly I would definitely say it’s a new association. But they’re not.

Members have always gotten better incentives. I bought resale first in 2009 so I got a much better incentive as an owner for BLT.

Poly tower is two years away. Way too early for them to use ROFR. But why take it if it’s a new association? They won’t need to those points sell.

But we agree that every thought we each have can be seen differently depending on if you think it’s a expansion vs new

Of all the MK resorts, Poly has commanded less on resale market and that seems to because it’s a studio only resort

The biggest indicator right now and only real fact is that they did not specifically announce it as being part of PVB

When BPK was announced, it was stated immediately it would be an expansion.

Remember, this strategy to treat resale different from direct started 10 years ago.

I guess we shall see, but there is a reason that 6 months since it was announced they have not clarified it, and the only logical reason is that the decision to havre restrictions is still on the table.

 

[Nursemanit]

Polynesian studios are usually available at 7 months. Another reason I think it will be a separate association is, why buy direct if you can get the same thing resale? It doesn't make any sense to me that Disney would invest this kind of money for something that you can just buy resale or if you do buy direct you need to compete for the new resort with millions of points already out there at 11 months.

Basically what lovethesun12 said - we don't even have to speculate on that since we have the perfect example next door. - VGF resale is sitting unsold on the market while they are selling 70,000 VGF points a month direct. Resale is not their competition as no one can sell direct points but Disney.

 

[Nursemanit]

Poly tower is two years away. Way too early for them to use ROFR. But why take it if it’s a new association? You won’t need to those points.

You have this backward - Why Rofr it if it is the same association since you will be creating millions on new points? They don't ROFR resorts being sold for the same reason.

 

[Sandisw]

So, as a VGF1 owner, this exact thing has led me to question DVC more than anything over the past 15 years. Essentially, with VGF2, they are saying they can come back to any association, many years down the road, and alter it. I suppose the treehouses should have been my first indication of this, but I think this has affected the original owners more. As you say about the sales pitch selling the original building, essentially DVC is selling something that is already sold out, IMHO to the detriment of the original owners.

I keep coming back to this. What’s to say that 6-7 years from now, they decide to convert the Aruba area of CBR as a quick flip and sell them as “Riviera Resort Studios”?

Nothing can stop them from converting a section of CBR and saying it’s part of RIV.

The difference there is that those rooms are much smaller..so any conversion would have to be making them into some level of deluxe since RIV is a deluxe resort.

However, if they wanted to combine two into one to make it seem deluxe? Nothing in the POS to prevent that.

 

[BeachClub2014]

Poly tower is two years away. Way too early for them to use ROFR. But why take it if it’s a new association? They won’t need to those points sell.

You have this backward - Why Rofr it if it is the same association since you will be creating millions on new points? They don't ROFR resorts being sold for the same reason.

Maybe both perspectives are true and underscore that available points in the resale market are a drop in the bucket compared to the overall points for a resort.

All of the reasons and factors for why DVC takes certain contracts through the ROFR process remain a mystery. I don't know that we can make any assumptions, one way or another, between ROFR at Poly1 and whether Poly Tower will be a new association or rolled into the current association.