One contract or two smaller contracts.

[Matty B13]

I think that if you are evaluating the future of a company it is essential to look at what the company does, what services they provide, and what kind of competition they have. Disney has become a monstrous entertainment company. They produce more than half of the big blockbuster movies every year and a number of more moderate movies every year. This brings in billions of dollars in income, and profit. They have expanded to own Star Wars comic super heroes from marvel and now, soon, 20th Century Fox. 20th Century Fox has been one of their few competitors in the blockbuster movie business. Disney uses all of those movies to feed into their toy business, Disney memorabilia business, and their theme parks. Just the toys from Star Wars are worth billions of dollars a year. It is true that Disney could fall apart, anything can, but where is the competition that is going to overwhelm them and push them under. No one else does any of those things as well as Disney does. It is the best theme park company and the best movie company out there. It dominates pop culture in many ways. Disney owns ABC as well as a number Of cable channels. Disney owns many TV shows above and beyond their Disney network TV shows. I just don’t see Disney going away. It is the best theme park company and the best movie company out there. It dominates pop culture in many ways. Disney owns ABC and a number of cable channels. Disney owns many TV shows above and beyond their own a Disney network TV shows. I just don’t see is movie going away or falling apart, or getting into serious trouble. They are diverse, and nothing new is coming down the pike to ‘replace’ what they do. Their biggest problem would be if they overextended themselves and spend money that they don’t have and then cannot cover it because of a downturn in the economy. But with them covering such a broad range of entertainment options that probably would not happen as long as they have reasonable foresight.

GE was and is a very diverse company, it was the diversity that tanked the company, investors thought it had grown to big and had some very bad divisions that were dragging the company down with it. Only a few people saw the melt down coming however.

Disney is definitely becoming the most powerful company in the entertainment business and purchasing the Star Wars brand was a great investment, but their purchase of ESPN was a big mistake that is still costing them money.

 

[deerh]

t is faith and not based on any verifiable metrics. Is it a reasonable bet, sure but it's still a gamble. As noted, Apple almost went under and are only one failed venture from that possibility again. Look back at Disney during the 2 downturns in the last 20 yrs.

Well, let's rephrase that. I won't lose any sleep over DVC/Disney Corp going out of business anytime soon. As the saying on the Allstate commercial goes, "You are in good hands with "Disney"....

 

[Bing Showei]

Well, let's rephrase that. I won't lose any sleep over DVC/Disney Corp going out of business anytime soon. As the saying on the Allstate commercial goes, "You are in good hands with "Disney"....

Allstate almost went bankrupt in 1984.

I’m kidding.

I think most people would agree Disney is a solid company. If you were talking about buying a stake in the company (and all its diversity) it would be harder to dispute your faith in the company, but DVC is a product offered by Disney, not Disney.

 

[Dean]

True. But DVC has been around now for what, 20 years or so? Didn’t they started in 1999? Timeshare is not an unknown business. The paths have been well marked out in the past by Disney and other companies. Of all the Timeshare companies out there Disney is the premium top number one no question leader. That is due to the fact that they are Disney, the fact that they have properties which are so desirable, the fact that they had made good choices, and the fact that they have right of first refusal and they actually use it. That keeps prices up.

No one can predict how well DVC will do in the future or how fast it will grow. It is quite possible that prices for DVC will stabilize and stagnate and not even go up. But even if that is the case, there will still be demand to use DVC properties. And everybody that owns it can still get their vacations.

Let’s face it, you can always be negative or ‘cautious’ about anything. Sometimes you need to. DVC is not Disney, but it is a not insignificant part of Disney. What timeshare is better? But, if you had to bet on Disney compared to the success of almost any other company, would you really REALLY bet against Disney? Would you really choose anyone else as being likely to be more successful?

As I stated, counting too heavily on where any timeshare is in 25 years is a major gamble. 25 years is roughly the same as DVC has been in existence. Sales started in 91 and occupancy in 92 IIRC.

 

[Dean]

Well, let's rephrase that. I won't lose any sleep over DVC/Disney Corp going out of business anytime soon. As the saying on the Allstate commercial goes, "You are in good hands with "Disney"....

LOL, comparing to allstate (or state farm) isn't necessarily a ringing endorsement. IMO one shouldn't buy any timeshare if losing it would change their life. It's been interesting to see things shift with DVC members here on DIS in the past 10-12 years. Before then DVC could do no wrong even when they did for most. It was almost completely rose colored glasses save for a few of us (Myself, Rich Hyams). Then there were some thing that changed with DVC, really minor things, but a major shift of the boards trust in DVC. So without any change in my stance I went from negative to DVC to a DVC lackey to hear some tell it. What change was people realized that DVC was just another timeshares and that money was king. My point being one needs to be realistic and to consider the risks/options which are many and real. Could DVC sell off, sure, they've reportedly investigated it at one point. Could dues outpace the benefit, absolutely, it did during the downturns to some degree. Could prices extend beyond the point of reasonableness, some would say they already have. Could DVC be more effective shutting our non qualified members, ABSOLUTELY. And that's all just on the Disney/DVC side not counting other life issues like general economics.

 

[deerh]

LOL, comparing to allstate (or state farm) isn't necessarily a ringing endorsement. IMO one shouldn't buy any timeshare if losing it would change their life. It's been interesting to see things shift with DVC members here on DIS in the past 10-12 years. Before then DVC could do no wrong even when they did for most. It was almost completely rose colored glasses save for a few of us (Myself, Rich Hyams). Then there were some thing that changed with DVC, really minor things, but a major shift of the boards trust in DVC. So without any change in my stance I went from negative to DVC to a DVC lackey to hear some tell it. What change was people realized that DVC was just another timeshares and that money was king. My point being one needs to be realistic and to consider the risks/options which are many and real. Could DVC sell off, sure, they've reportedly investigated it at one point. Could dues outpace the benefit, absolutely, it did during the downturns to some degree. Could prices extend beyond the point of reasonableness, some would say they already have. Could DVC be more effective shutting our non qualified members, ABSOLUTELY. And that's all just on the Disney/DVC side not counting other life issues like general economics.

Dean, you have been an institution on this forum for a while. I joined this forum in 2000. I don't post as much as you do, but do read a lot. I value your opinion on this board. You understand DVC like you wrote the book on it... Will agree, nothing lasts forever, and DVC could be that way. I am realistic in that fact, just think it will be around for quite a while.. YES... the rules change, and benefits change, but I understand what I bought-a certain # of points at a resort for X years and that is it... Any perks/benefits is gravy... BUT, I will say this, if DVC goes "belly-up" than they will have 400,000 ?? members wanting a lot of answers, and it may cost them $$$$ if that happens--- I don't see that happening.... Now, back to the original question on this forum about small/big contracts...

 

[Dean]

Dean, you have been an institution on this forum for a while. I joined this forum in 2000. I don't post as much as you do, but do read a lot. I value your opinion on this board. You understand DVC like you wrote the book on it... Will agree, nothing lasts forever, and DVC could be that way. I am realistic in that fact, just think it will be around for quite a while.. YES... the rules change, and benefits change, but I understand what I bought-a certain # of points at a resort for X years and that is it... Any perks/benefits is gravy... BUT, I will say this, if DVC goes "belly-up" than they will have 400,000 ?? members wanting a lot of answers, and it may cost them $$$$ if that happens--- I don't see that happening.... Now, back to the original question on this forum about small/big contracts...

But that's largely the point, it doesn't have to go belly up to become a problem for many people, it just has to change a moderate amount. It's not an all or none issue.

 

[RX8]

I am the OP to the thread. Back in July I posted that I had just rescinded Copper Creek as I realized I was more interested in VGC and didn't want to take the chances at the 7 month mark.

The timeline - I found VGC resale at Fidelity Resale in August and made an offer that was accepted 8/11. Sent to ROFR on 8/15 which passed 9/5. Signed and returned contracts 9/27 and closing occurred 10/15. Got the DVC welcome letter yesterday in the mail, created the account, logged in and saw points.

I know I made the right choice for VGC when I browsed the possibilities for August 2019. Just about everything was open, and for any size unit. I made my reservation and got the confirmation. The DVC website is very easy to navigate and use. I know that my stress level would have been much higher had I purchased Copper Creek and tried to use those points for VGC at the 7 month mark knowing that it was likely that I would be shut out.

Thanks for everyone's input and advice.

 

[rg35]

GE was and is a very diverse company, it was the diversity that tanked the company, investors thought it had grown to big and had some very bad divisions that were dragging the company down with it. Only a few people saw the melt down coming however.

Disney is definitely becoming the most powerful company in the entertainment business and purchasing the Star Wars brand was a great investment, but their purchase of ESPN was a big mistake that is still costing them money.

Sorry, but disagree about ESPN. ESPN was a huge cash cow for Disney for many years. It made money hand over fist for them. Only once "cord cutting" started impacting cable subscriptions over the last few years did ESPN start to suffer. But even so, they've managed OK by dropping a lot of expensive on air talent and making other adjustments. The biggest mistake they made at ESPN was overbidding for Monday Night Football. By the time Monday Night was up for grabs, the Sunday night game had already become the NFL's premier weekly matchup and there was not a lot of value in the MNF name or game anymore.

 

[rg35]

I am the OP to the thread. Back in July I posted that I had just rescinded Copper Creek as I realized I was more interested in VGC and didn't want to take the chances at the 7 month mark.

The timeline - I found VGC resale at Fidelity Resale in August and made an offer that was accepted 8/11. Sent to ROFR on 8/15 which passed 9/5. Signed and returned contracts 9/27 and closing occurred 10/15. Got the DVC welcome letter yesterday in the mail, created the account, logged in and saw points.

I know I made the right choice for VGC when I browsed the possibilities for August 2019. Just about everything was open, and for any size unit. I made my reservation and got the confirmation. The DVC website is very easy to navigate and use. I know that my stress level would have been much higher had I purchased Copper Creek and tried to use those points for VGC at the 7 month mark knowing that it was likely that I would be shut out.

Thanks for everyone's input and advice.

Congratulations and welcome home. Sometimes it really pays off to stop and take the time and have the patience to think things over.

 

[we"reofftoneverland]

Sorry, but disagree about ESPN. ESPN was a huge cash cow for Disney for many years. It made money hand over fist for them. Only once "cord cutting" started impacting cable subscriptions over the last few years did ESPN start to suffer. But even so, they've managed OK by dropping a lot of expensive on air talent and making other adjustments. The biggest mistake they made at ESPN was overbidding for Monday Night Football. By the time Monday Night was up for grabs, the Sunday night game had already become the NFL's premier weekly matchup and there was not a lot of value in the MNF name or game anymore.

The biggest mistake ESPN made is becoming a political show. Even Iger admitted this.

 

[rg35]

The biggest mistake ESPN made is becoming a political show. Even Iger admitted this.

Nope. Iger admitted that maybe things went too far in the direction of politics, but that's hardly the reason for declining revenues at ESPN. That can be directly attributed to the decline in cable subscriptions, because ESPN gets paid a certain amount of money by cable companies for each subscriber they have. Since 2011, ESPN has lost about 13 million cable subscribers, their share of which was $8 each. That's money ESPN got from cable subscribers whether they watched ESPN programming or not.

There's a lot of good information here as far as numbers and what impacts the financials (for example, paying for MNF and NBA rights costs espn nearly 3.5 BILLION dollars.) None of the financial realities have anything to do with whether or not their coverage skewed too far into politics. And their live sports coverage has never been associated with politics.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/f...vide-bristol-tradition-woke-reformers-1121634

Meanwhile, the cost of ESPN's programming — live sports — has risen as more players (from Amazon to Twitter) vie for rights. Sports accounted for 91 of the top 100 live-viewed TV programs in 2017. ESPN averaged nearly 15 million viewers for six college football bowl games last year, while this year’s NBA Finals were the most watched in two decades.

Outside of 2016, when Fox News took the top spot, ESPN has been the No. 1 cable network in primetime since 1999. Still, the network pays $1.9 billion annually for Monday Night Football and $1.4 billion a year to the NBA. It's why Disney is pouring resources into OTT platform ESPN+, which launched in April and is doing better than expected, say executives, though they won't disclose subscriber numbers yet. ESPN remains the digital sports leader, too, with more than 70 million uniques in May.

But ratings for its studio programming have inherently softened as scores and highlights proliferate on apps and social platforms like House of Highlights, recently purchased by Turner's Bleacher Report.

The financial contraction has exposed rifts inside ESPN. In conversations with staffers, a narrative has emerged of a network divided over how to best navigate an increasingly on-demand, OTT future. The Six, as Smith and Hill's iteration of SportsCenter was known, was an experiment born of necessity. But so is Scott Van Pelt's midnight SportsCenter, and it was up 50 percent in May.

And execs are quick to note SportsCenter is not just a linear brand anymore; SC on Snapchat reaches nearly 3 million consumers a day, with 80 percent of them younger than 35. Morning show Get Up! — based at a new studio in Manhattan — and High Noon, with Bomani Jones and Pablo Torre, are distinct departures from SportsCenter. They revolve around the relationship between the hosts — and not around the highlights of the day. (Washington, DC-based producer Erik Rydholm, who is given wide latitude at ESPN, has created and oversees many of these shows including High Noon, Highly Questionable and Pardon the Interruption.)

 

[we"reofftoneverland]

Nope. Iger admitted that maybe things went too far in the direction of politics, but that's hardly the reason for declining revenues at ESPN. That can be directly attributed to the decline in cable subscriptions, because ESPN gets paid a certain amount of money by cable companies for each subscriber they have. Since 2011, ESPN has lost about 13 million cable subscribers, their share of which was $8 each. That's money ESPN got from cable subscribers whether they watched ESPN programming or not.

There's a lot of good information here as far as numbers and what impacts the financials (for example, paying for MNF and NBA rights costs espn nearly 3.5 BILLION dollars.) None of the financial realities have anything to do with whether or not their coverage skewed too far into politics. And their live sports coverage has never been associated with politics.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/f...vide-bristol-tradition-woke-reformers-1121634

Meanwhile, the cost of ESPN's programming — live sports — has risen as more players (from Amazon to Twitter) vie for rights. Sports accounted for 91 of the top 100 live-viewed TV programs in 2017. ESPN averaged nearly 15 million viewers for six college football bowl games last year, while this year’s NBA Finals were the most watched in two decades.

Outside of 2016, when Fox News took the top spot, ESPN has been the No. 1 cable network in primetime since 1999. Still, the network pays $1.9 billion annually for Monday Night Football and $1.4 billion a year to the NBA. It's why Disney is pouring resources into OTT platform ESPN+, which launched in April and is doing better than expected, say executives, though they won't disclose subscriber numbers yet. ESPN remains the digital sports leader, too, with more than 70 million uniques in May.

But ratings for its studio programming have inherently softened as scores and highlights proliferate on apps and social platforms like House of Highlights, recently purchased by Turner's Bleacher Report.

The financial contraction has exposed rifts inside ESPN. In conversations with staffers, a narrative has emerged of a network divided over how to best navigate an increasingly on-demand, OTT future. The Six, as Smith and Hill's iteration of SportsCenter was known, was an experiment born of necessity. But so is Scott Van Pelt's midnight SportsCenter, and it was up 50 percent in May.

And execs are quick to note SportsCenter is not just a linear brand anymore; SC on Snapchat reaches nearly 3 million consumers a day, with 80 percent of them younger than 35. Morning show Get Up! — based at a new studio in Manhattan — and High Noon, with Bomani Jones and Pablo Torre, are distinct departures from SportsCenter. They revolve around the relationship between the hosts — and not around the highlights of the day. (Washington, DC-based producer Erik Rydholm, who is given wide latitude at ESPN, has created and oversees many of these shows including High Noon, Highly Questionable and Pardon the Interruption.)

So we may just have to agree to disagree here. I am not a huge Bob Iger fan, but he made a great decision when he recently replaced the head of ESPN. The first line of a Wahington Post article dated August 17, 2018 states, "Jimmy Pitaro has been president of ESPN for a little more than five months and made clear Friday that he wants the network to focus more on sports and less on politics." The article goes on to quote Pitaro: “I will tell you I have been very, very clear with employees here that it is not our jobs to cover politics.”
The argument can be made that the only reason why people held on to bundled cable subscriptions as long as they did was for sports. Anyone I know who still had cable five years ago had it for sports. Those people have since cut cable because of sports got political... boring. Most people hate watching Sean Hannity or Rachel Maddow (except political junkies- I know a few). Boring. I personally can't sit through either of their shows. When ESPN started getting really political it too became dull for the majority. It did not help that the commentary leaned way left and most sports fans are right of center. Hopefully Iger can stop the bleeding.