DVC Club Level and Home Resort Survey

[KimMcGowan]

Well, sixth time was the charm. I finally got someone from DVC acknowledge the statement.

They admitted that it was said that the tentative plan would be to add to existing PVB but could not answer whether or not any points I purchase now would give me access to the tower during home resort period or if there would be resale restrictions.

They said that when further information regarding those points is available it would be avialable to members.

No timeline for when we might get more info was shared.

But at least I finally got them to acknowledge what happened at the meeting!

ETA: And I am not reading anything into the comment about booking and restrictions. Since that was not said at the meeting, I think they were not going to address anything that hasn’t been publicly stated.

I wonder if they are thinking “oh God, her again”. . I love it, keep them on their toes.

 

[Genie+]

I wonder if they are thinking “oh God, her again”. . I love it, keep them on their toes.

Determination is a wonderful quality!

 

[Sandisw]

What is interesting to me is that they can’t answer but are choosing not too. It’s a deliberate choice now, not one with legal ramifications. I wonder why?

I never bought there being legal reasons. They would have existed with the addition of BPK.

So, why they are running this project differently in terms of communications and info? Don’t know but it’s why I don’t trust that it’s going to go exaclty like previous projects have until we see the offical documents that say that.

 

[walt34]

I never bought there being legal reasons. They would have existed with the addition of BPK

Maybe they decided later in the process what to do than they did with BPK?

Not sure what kind of agreement was necessary with the hotel side and with the existing association for BPK to join but as there was practically no alternative for BPK than to join the existing association (would not have worked stand-alone), maybe they started earlier? If they only decided recently on what to do with Poly2, maybe the ink is not dry?

I'm not saying that's what happened - I'll only believe that Poly2 joins PVB after I've seen it in writing - but it would be a reason why they are late in confirming.

 

[J-Dog]

Even executives make mistakes.

Absolutely they do.

Politicians make statement gaffes all the time - and if they do, then most of the time their aides attempt to explain the gaffe in a way to "smooth it out".

So far, there's been no "smoothing it out" on DVD's part, just silence and finally a vague answer to Sandi. That still doesn't confirm or deny anything, IMO.

And also IMO, we shouldn't assume Chang made a dumb mistake until proven otherwise. We will eventually find out who's right or wrong here, but until then, all of our posts are essentially just wild guesses.

 

[Sandisw]

Maybe they decided later in the process what to do than they did with BPK?

Not sure what kind of agreement was necessary with the hotel side and with the existing association for BPK to join but as there was practically no alternative for BPK than to join the existing association (would not have worked stand-alone), maybe they started earlier? If they only decided recently on what to do with Poly2, maybe the ink is not dry?

I'm not saying that's what happened - I'll only believe that Poly2 joins PVB after I've seen it in writing - but it would be a reason why they are late in confirming.

I was referring to a legal reason not to confirm what was said at the meeting. Not for why they didnt announce right away.

 

[tidefan]

Off-the-wall Crazy Prediction:

Tower is declared into PVB. Units are split where 70% of units are declared into a Trust Use Plan with restrictions. 30% of units are declared into a non-restricted traditional deeded ownership... with a catch. Only original PVB1 Direct Owners are allowed to purchase the deeded interests in the Tower (ETA: not sure they could do this...)

Crazy scenario 2:

Tower is declared into PVB and units are restricted, unless you are a direct PVB1 owner, and your add-on points would be exempted from restrictions

More likely Prediction:

Tower is declared into PVB and units are non-restricted

 

[walt34]

I was referring to a legal reason not to confirm what was said at the meeting. Not for why they didnt announce right away.

So was I. Maybe some legally required steps (before they can officially announce) have not been completed. Then the communication at the meeting would have been a miscommunication without being materially wrong. The most benign reason I can think of why they would say something and later neither confirm nor walk it back.

The difference for BPK could be that with BPK they knew from the beginning that they would add on to VGF. Thus those steps could have been completed much earlier than with Poly2, if they actually only decided later to add on to the existing association (I have my doubts about that, but they are not relevant for this argument).

 

[Sandisw]

So was I. Maybe some legally required steps (before they can officially announce) have not been completed. Then the communication at the meeting would have been a miscommunication without being materially wrong. The most benign reason I can think of why they would say something and later neither confirm nor walk it back.

The difference for BPK could be that with BPK they knew from the beginning that they would add on to VGF. Thus those steps could have been completed much earlier than with Poly2, if they actually only decided later to add on to the existing association (I have my doubts about that, but they are not relevant for this argument).

I dont buy that at all. Once it was out that Yvonne Change said it, nothing to prevent them from confirming it was said and either walking it back at that point, or just confirm it was meant to be an announcement of the plan.

I am still not sure that they may not add to PVB but make it different...the POS seems to allow for that....however, if they are going through the trouble of actually keeping it PVB, then it would make little sense to do something different.

Next week, when sales for CFW start and we get reports on how it is presented, it might give us more info about this new trust association that has been created.

 

[walt34]

I dont buy that at all. Once it was out that Yvonne Change said it, nothing to prevent them from confirming it was said and either walking it back at that point, or just confirm it was meant to be an announcement of the plan.

But it does provide an answer to the exactly these questions:

If the statement was wrong, why didn't they retract?
If the statement was right, why didn't they confirm?

The answer in this theory is: because the statement came early.

If the statement was just too early, the behavior would fit: they can't retract, because they would have to admit that the statement was right a few months later and they would not confirm as not to aggravate the early communication.

I can think of two reasons why the statement might have been too early and they don't want to confirm it: legal reasons (they are violating some rule because the deal isn't finalized) or business reasons: they don't want people to start buying resale contracts at PVB before they have the direct offer ready to go.

It's just a theory but at least it provides one plausible explanation for the strange behavior of DVD.

 

[TheDailyMoo]

If I was a Las Vegas oddsmaker I would make this a 50/50 pick 'em. Really could go either way and you would be like...well yeah of course that's what was going to happen!

 

[Mai Ku Tiki]

I agree it does not give any more info but at least they finally officially confirmed things that were said which puts me into the column that PVB will be involved in some way.

Just not sure I fully trust them though to not add curveballs.

I have been looking at the comptroller site to see if anything new pops up but not 100% sure which division I should put in since CFW documents all were under WDW

Curveballs ahead! " IT WAS SAID: "tentative plan would be to add to existing PVB" " doesn't confirm for me that PVB will be involved. It only confirms Chang's comment. I hope no matter what happens, PVB points, including resale, are protected...whatever happens with the Tower.

Thanks for your perseverance & updates, Sandi!

 

[Sandisw]

But it does provide an answer to the exactly these questions:

If the statement was wrong, why didn't they retract?
If the statement was right, why didn't they confirm?

The answer in this theory is: because the statement came early.

If the statement was just too early, the behavior would fit: they can't retract, because they would have to admit that the statement was right a few months later and they would not confirm as not to aggravate the early communication.

I can think of two reasons why the statement might have been too early and they don't want to confirm it: legal reasons (they are violating some rule because the deal isn't finalized) or business reasons: they don't want people to start buying resale contracts at PVB before they have the direct offer ready to go.

It's just a theory but at least it provides one plausible explanation for the strange behavior of DVD.

Or they are playing games and wanted to see how things are playing out and while they work behind the scenes to set things up that will surprise us?

I think her statement was planned and very carefully worded. I think by staying silent and not confirming, they had reasons to keep the speculation going. Just using words like “our plan right now” and “tentative” does just that.

And, I think it’s odd that I finally get an answer just before the sales of CFW are to start.

Compare to BPK which was it will be added, and they had no problem answering questions of all points, including resale can be used. Why? Because that is what they wanted the message to be and because they knew selling it as a new association wouldn’t work.

I think they want the ability to set it up the way they want, with maximum flexibility to go either way, which is why this project has been treated much differently than any other project that has happened since I have been a DVC owner.

I don’t equate that with legal…I equate that with strategy and their business plan.

 

[walt34]

Or they are playing games and wanted to see how things are playing out and while they work behind the scenes to set things up that will surprise us?

So, if it was a carefully crafted statement, in what way was the statement given (and the subsequent non-communication) better than 'we do not have anything to say on this matter at this time' for DVD?

It did lead to several articles proclaiming that Poly2 at PVB is a done deal and probably quite a few people purchasing resale contracts in the expectation to be able to use them for the tower. I fail to see how this benefits DVD.

If it was a carefully crafted statement (and not an accident), this question should be answerable.

 

[J-Dog]

But it does provide an answer to the exactly these questions:

If the statement was wrong, why didn't they retract?
If the statement was right, why didn't they confirm?

The answer in this theory is: because the statement came early.

If the statement was just too early, the behavior would fit: they can't retract, because they would have to admit that the statement was right a few months later and they would not confirm as not to aggravate the early communication.

I can think of two reasons why the statement might have been too early and they don't want to confirm it: legal reasons (they are violating some rule because the deal isn't finalized) or business reasons: they don't want people to start buying resale contracts at PVB before they have the direct offer ready to go.

It's just a theory but at least it provides one plausible explanation for the strange behavior of DVD.

This. I completely agree.

 

[Sandisw]

So, if it was a carefully crafted statement, in what way was the statement given (and the subsequent non-communication) better than 'we do not have anything to say on this matter at this time' for DVD?

It did lead to several articles proclaiming that Poly2 at PVB is a done deal and probably quite a few people purchasing resale contracts in the expectation to be able to use them for the tower. I fail to see how this benefits DVD.

If it was a carefully crafted statement (and not an accident), this question should be answerable.

It gets them to have people continue to talk and work behind the scenes to get it going the way they want. What better way to test the market? What better way to get the potential resale price up without using ROFR? They know how many resale contracts have been sold since then…maybe they wanted to see how the resale market would react if it would be part of PVB?

I am still not convinced with this trust in place that it couldn’t end up part of PVB and sold differently.

Likely? Probably not and I agree a better answer would have been “ no set decision”

The point is that they do things based on what they want to do. If the statement was premature and there were legal ramifications, it would have been quickly corrected

It was not which means the reason for not also confirming was nothing to do with a legal reason but more to do with them wanting time to put the pieces together based on lots of factors.

Heck, look at the trust piece. It’s out there because people found the documents not because DVc announced that CFW would be sold completely different.

Look at restrictions for VDH…never announced…showed up in documents.

Every move DVD does benefits them and the thing is, none of us are ever going to know why.

I think there are lots of ways it was a benefit of them to keep the language questionable and continue to not have publicly come out with a statement and let the non offical DVc sources be the ones to run with it.

 

[walt34]

It gets them to have people continue to talk and work behind the scenes to get it going the way they want. What better way to test the market? What better way to get the potential resale price up without using ROFR? They know how many resale contracts have been sold since then…maybe they wanted to see how the resale market would react if it would be part of PVB?

This sounds like 3D chess. Making the announcement (which predictably led to PVB sales) and then discern from how many contracts are sold how much interest there is? This has a lot of variables (how many articles are written about it, how many people read these articles, ...)

I am still not convinced with this trust in place that it couldn’t end up part of PVB and sold differently.

On this I agree. We do not know enough at this point.

Likely? Probably not and I agree a better answer would have been “ no set decision”

The point is that they do things based on what they want to do. If the statement was premature and there were legal ramifications, it would have been quickly corrected

How would you correct it, if it was premature but not wrong? You don't get the toothpaste back into the tube. 'Please disregard what was said - we don't want to say whether it was right or wrong'? Whatever you say only draws more attention.

Heck, look at the trust piece. It’s out there because people found the documents not because DVc announced that CFW would be sold completely different.

So far, they seem to try to sell CFW as closely as possible to what we are familiar with. At this point, I would not be surprised if the trust was just necessary for CFW because of the building type and everything else we are speculating about are precautionary measures for future developments. (ie they try to hold the door open to for a future multisite trust but don't have any plans of doing this now or in the near future). In this scenario, why would they announce anything about the trust?

I think there are lots of ways it was a benefit of them to keep the language questionable and continue to not have publicly come out with a statement and let the non offical DVc sources be the ones to run with it.

I really don't see the benefit yet. They got articles written speculating about Poly2 as part of PVB. They got people, who are interested in buying access to the tower, buy PVB resale instead of waiting a bit longer for direct options.

My money is still on Chang's statement having been a mistake (either timing or content). But we will probably find out and can return to this conversion then.

 

[ljmiii]

Or they are playing games and wanted to see how things are playing out and while they work behind the scenes to set things up that will surprise us?

I think her statement was planned and very carefully worded. I think by staying silent and not confirming, they had reasons to keep the speculation going.

Since at this point we're just speculating as we wait for the other shoe to drop I'll add another two cents to the conversation.

We tend to treat DVD as a monolithic organization that speaks with one voice. But the reality of most corporations is that each and every executive has their own agenda as they try to climb the greasy pole to the top. After all, a recent Chairman of Parks and Resorts was made CEO despite being spectacularly ill-suited to lead a media company.

Perhaps Yvonne Chang was placing a stake in the ground on her opinion on what should happen at Poly. And others at DVD disagree.

 

[Sandisw]

Since at this point we're just speculating as we wait for the other shoe to drop I'll add another two cents to the conversation.

We tend to tread DVD as a monolithic organization that speaks with one voice. But the reality of most corporations is that each and every executive has their own agenda as they try to climb the greasy pole to the top. After all, a recent Chairman of Parks and Resorts was made CEO despite being spectacularly ill-suited to lead a media company.

Perhaps Yvonne Chang was placing a stake in the ground on her opinion on what should happen at Poly. And others at DVD disagree.

Her statement was worded in such a way that it didn’t commit because she didn’t even use the word association.

So, I think it was a sanctioned answer that was a non answer

My thoughts are only different because of the email u finally got at least confirming it wa said and thst yes the tentative plan is PVB.

But I don’t think anyone should assume that being part of PVB guarantees they won’t add it with different rules because I think they have the ability to do so.

Basically, I am 90% sure now it will involve PVB but still only 50/50 that that to won’t involve this new trust in someway.

 

[BWV Dreamin]

Since at this point we're just speculating as we wait for the other shoe to drop I'll add another two cents to the conversation.

We tend to tread DVD as a monolithic organization that speaks with one voice. But the reality of most corporations is that each and every executive has their own agenda as they try to climb the greasy pole to the top. After all, a recent Chairman of Parks and Resorts was made CEO despite being spectacularly ill-suited to lead a media company.

Perhaps Yvonne Chang was placing a stake in the ground on her opinion on what should happen at Poly. And others at DVD disagree.

Well said. I love your monolithic characterization LOL!