DVC Club Level and Home Resort Survey

[Sandisw]

I agree with everything you've said with one exception: I don't think you can compare BPK at VGF and Poly2: BPK would have been a very awkward standalone association (200 studios, very similar but not quite the same as the deluxe studios at VGF) while Poly2 could theoretically serve as both: either a standalone association or an add-on to Poly. Therefore the VGF add-on was always clear cut whereas Poly 2 might have been an open question even for DVD. But I don't believe that the question was still open at the meeting in December. They knew then.

I understand why they announced right away with BPK.

My point is not about last years. It’s about December. If the decision was done, at going to PVB, at that time, there was no need to still add those words.

So, BPK, once decided, was clear. The statement in December was not…which to me means they left it open for a different decision.

No reason to add those words last month because that point, it would have been the same as BPK..decision finalized other than paperwork.

And, when they announced BPK, no paperwork had been filed either.

 

[dioxide45]

I‘d bet the language they added was put in by legal to cover every eventuality, which is typically Disney.

It's typical of any company. Ever read through the T&C for signing up for anything these days?

 

[walt34]

I understand why they announced right away with BPK.

My point is not about last years. It’s about December. If the decision was done, at going to PVB, at that time, there was no need to still add those words.

So, BPK, once decided, was clear. The statement in December was not…which to me means they left it open for a different decision.

No reason to add those words last month because that point, it would have been the same as BPK..decision finalized other than paperwork.

And, when they announced BPK, no paperwork had been filed either.

In December, it sounded to me like legal boilerplate: they were going to add to PVB but the ink wasn't dry on the contracts, so they had to add some text to say that things could still change even if their plans were clear.

Then they didn't confirm (in the emails you sent) and then the filings for CFW happened. It seems now more likely that they are going to use the trust model with Poly2. Therefore I'm now leaning towards the theory, that the communication in December was an accident. I still don't quite get why someone would say what Chang said in this case (for what purpose, even with the disclaimers) but, as others have pointed out, not every mistake can be explained.

Assuming that they haven't come up with the trust idea since December (which I find hard to believe). If the statement had been intentional, what purpose would it have served (even with the disclaimer)? Make people believe, Poly resale could get you 11 months access to the tower even if it wasn't true? How would this have helped DVD?

 

[Paul Stupin]

It think they couldn’t answer new association because there had been no inkling regarding the trust plan at that point.

I think it’s impossible that they didn’t have an inkling. This kind of stuff can take months and months.

 

[walt34]

I think it’s impossible that they didn’t have an inkling. This kind of stuff can take months and months.

Unless their strategy is to throw out an idea and then read DIS boards to find out, what the advantages and disadvantages are and to go through all of the scenarios.

Just kidding.

 

[dioxide45]

I‘d bet the language they added was put in by legal to cover every eventuality, which is typically Disney. I still think the trust is intended right now solely for FWC.

Also, I keep going back to one question. Sure, the statement at the meeting did leave some wiggle room. But why say anything at all that basically implies the same association if they’re going to introduce an entirely new system that would not make it possible for Poly1 owners to book the tower? That would be a monumental miscalculation that would just anger a ton of DVC owners, and make them appear more than a little deceitful.

Or, do you think the trust and the Poly1 association can coexist together in one combined entity? Seems unlikely to me.

I'm inclined to agree, also because I mentioned the same about a week ago. All these new filings are to support CFW. However, that doesn't support the whole reason this thread was started and that was from a question asked in a survey that put the idea out there that they could be creating some kind of trust product to support multi resort reservations at 11 months. That said, I think there is an explanation for that. As they were working on creating this new trust needed for CFW, someone mentioned that they could use a similar arrangement for a multisite timeshare system. Perhaps one that could support the 2042 resorts. So they opted to ask the membership via the survey. I do think a land trust is the perfect solution for their 2042 problem, though it may or may not easily solve OKW, there are a bunch of other 2042 resorts it would work for.

 

[dioxide45]

I think it’s impossible that they didn’t have an inkling. This kind of stuff can take months and months.

We know that they knew about the trust in August. They were likely working on options months before they even announced CFW.

 

[Paul Stupin]

In December, it sounded to me like legal boilerplate: they were going to add to PVB but the ink wasn't dry on the contracts, so they had to add some text to say that things could still change even if their plans were clear.

Then they didn't confirm (in the emails you sent) and then the filings for CFW happened. It seems now more likely that they are going to use the trust model with Poly2. Therefore I'm now leaning towards the theory, that the communication in December was an accident. I still don't quite get why someone would say what Chang said in this case (for what purpose, even with the disclaimers) but, as others have pointed out, not every mistake can be explained.

Assuming that they haven't come up with the trust idea since December (which I find hard to believe). If the statement had been intentional, what purpose would it have served (even with the disclaimer)? Make people believe, Poly resale could get you 11 months access to the tower even if it wasn't true? How would this have helped DVD?

The statement had to have been intentional. Wasn’t it a written question, and staged as the last one they answered, like those legendary Apple product reveals at the end of their presentations starting with “one last thing?”

No exec would have just decided to extemporaneously announce, on her own, at the last minute, with zero prior internal discussion, such a key element to a construction project costing hundreds of millions of dollars. And you’re right, it would have served absolutely no purpose otherwise If it wasn’t DVD’s intention.

Thinking the reveal was a mistake is the only way to make work the narrative that Poly2 will be sold as a trust project, but logic just doesn’t allow it. And neither does logic allow that DVC hadn’t dreamed up the trust yet.

Of course none of us are experts, and I guess anything can happen, but I never thought that Poly2 would be in the same association as Poly1. Yet the fact is they basically did. I think it’s a bit late for everyone to once again be searching for far fetched justifications that they won’t.

 

[CarolynFH]

I would be very mad thinking I am buying cabins only for them to start selling Poly Tower with those points having equal access to CFW

I just had to giggle at this - it's the first time I've seen concern that people would buy into Poly Tower when wanting to stay in the cabins! Usually it's concern that people will buy into the cabins and want to use those points at Poly Tower!

 

[walt34]

No exec would have just decided to extemporaneously announce, on her own, at the last minute, with zero prior internal discussion, such a key element to a construction project costing hundreds of millions of dollars. And you’re right, it would have served absolutely no purpose otherwise If it wasn’t DVD’s intention.

Thinking the reveal was a mistake is the only way to make work the narrative that Poly2 will be sold as a trust project, but logic just doesn’t allow it. And neither does logic allow that DVC hadn’t dreamed up the trust yet.

Of course none of us are experts, and I guess anything can happen, but I never thought that Poly2 would be in the same association as Poly1. Yet the fact is they basically did. I think it’s a bit late for everyone to once again be searching for far fetched justifications that they won’t.

I pretty much came to the same conclusion with the same arguments before (and voiced them here) but some developments since then don't quite fit:

- to my knowledge, DVD has neither clarified Chang's statement nor repeated it since the meeting (Apple's 'one more thing' has usually still a full marketing presentation)
- the filings for CFW are clearly prepared to enable some kind of multi-site trust

None of this is conclusive. One of my pet theories is that DVD might still add Poly2 to PVB and has only made the preparations in the CFW filings as a precaution for later developments (maybe even for the eventuality that the CFW don't sell well by themselves). But one aspect remains:

If DVD has the intention to combine resorts into one trust, they will probably do so to combine highly attractive resorts with less attractive ones. They apparently also need a resort with enough undeclared units. Poly2 has those and will probably be the resort with the broadest appeal for years. If they don't do it now, it might take years before a similar opportunity arises.

 

[dioxide45]

I just had to giggle at this - it's the first time I've seen concern that people would buy into Poly Tower when wanting to stay in the cabins! Usually it's concern that people will buy into the cabins and want to use those points at Poly Tower!

True, but if they sell out the cabins pretty fast and dump something else in there. They can then start selling Cabins again.

 

[Sandisw]

I think it’s impossible that they didn’t have an inkling. This kind of stuff can take months and months.

Sorry…what I meant is that if ithe plan is to put it into the trust, it’s not going to be a new Poly association.

It would be a resort property added to the trust. So, answering new, would have required them to clarify it would be a different type of project.

Thst is why I think they said the plan right now…because on that date…the trust did not officially exist.

If had just said new, people would still have assumed it would be the same situation of the rest…deeded ownerships.

In reality, at least for me, the true answer to that question would have been neither if it will be sold as part of the trust association.

Even today, no official statement has been shared regarding the trust.

 

[Sandisw]

The statement had to have been intentional. Wasn’t it a written question, and staged as the last one they answered, like those legendary Apple product reveals at the end of their presentations starting with “one last thing?”

No exec would have just decided to extemporaneously announce, on her own, at the last minute, with zero prior internal discussion, such a key element to a construction project costing hundreds of millions of dollars. And you’re right, it would have served absolutely no purpose otherwise If it wasn’t DVD’s intention.

Thinking the reveal was a mistake is the only way to make work the narrative that Poly2 will be sold as a trust project, but logic just doesn’t allow it. And neither does logic allow that DVC hadn’t dreamed up the trust yet.

Of course none of us are experts, and I guess anything can happen, but I never thought that Poly2 would be in the same association as Poly1. Yet the fact is they basically did. I think it’s a bit late for everyone to once again be searching for far fetched justifications that they won’t.

I do not believe ir was a planted question. They didn’t need to plant it. And from some reports, her affect was stifled.

They could have prepared a slide with the same exact wording. DVD didn’t need to play those games.

And, they have not confirmed it was said nor will they. So, as far as I am concerned they are still very much playing games with it all.

There is zero reason, zero reason, today to not officially confirm it for all members since so many didn’t attend the meeting and many don’t follow social media.

I am basing my opinion on the answers I have gotten from DVC…and that is no information can be given.

Until there is paperwork filed, it’s all still speculation it will become part of PVB, with no restrictions and sold as part of a leasehold condo project

Let’s see where they land in the next few months.

 

[Paul Stupin]

I do not believe ir was a planted question. They didn’t need to plant it. And from some reports, her affect was stifled.

They could have prepared a slide with the same exact wording. DVD didn’t need to play those games.

And, they have not confirmed it was said nor will they. So, as far as I am concerned they are still very much playing games with it all.

There is zero reason, zero reason, today to not officially confirm it for all members since so many didn’t attend the meeting and many don’t follow social media.

I am basing my opinion on the answers I have gotten from DVC…and that is no information can be given.

Until there is paperwork filed, it’s all still speculation it will become part of PVB, with no restrictions and sold as part of a leasehold condo project

Let’s see where they land in the next few months.

Yep, all speculation! But there is a reason not to officially confirm. I think timeshares everywhere, but especially in Florida, are highly regulated, involving months and months of legal filings and paperwork. This process is probably not yet completed, prohibiting DVD from confirming anything,

Yet it’s still hard for me to believe that they would potentially jeopardize Poly2 sales by angering Poly1 owners who they will have misled, and then charging extra for priority booking at other resorts, whether they are current ones not selling, or ones yet to be built…especially since direct points can already be used at 7 months to book anywhere.

 

[Sykes]

There is zero reason, zero reason, today to not officially confirm it for all members since so many didn’t attend the meeting and many don’t follow social media.

There's zero reason for them to confirm or correct the information at this time too. If I were them I'd say nothing too. Saying something further commits them to a plan that could potentially change by the time PVB2 goes on sale, and gives them more opportunity to run afoul of marketing regulations for timeshares. They have a lot more to lose by further clarifying than they have to gain at this point in the sales cycle.

 

[J-Dog]

The statement had to have been intentional. Wasn’t it a written question, and staged as the last one they answered, like those legendary Apple product reveals at the end of their presentations starting with “one last thing?”

No exec would have just decided to extemporaneously announce, on her own, at the last minute, with zero prior internal discussion, such a key element to a construction project costing hundreds of millions of dollars. And you’re right, it would have served absolutely no purpose otherwise If it wasn’t DVD’s intention.

Thinking the reveal was a mistake is the only way to make work the narrative that Poly2 will be sold as a trust project, but logic just doesn’t allow it. And neither does logic allow that DVC hadn’t dreamed up the trust yet.

Of course none of us are experts, and I guess anything can happen, but I never thought that Poly2 would be in the same association as Poly1. Yet the fact is they basically did. I think it’s a bit late for everyone to once again be searching for far fetched justifications that they won’t.

I totally agree. Either:

1) The trust has been thrown together within the last 5 weeks. (Which I think is unlikely).
2) Chang, one of DVD's top exec's, had no clue whereas everyone else knew about the Trust, and therefore she spoke out-of-turn. (Which I seriously doubt).
3) Chang outright lied. (Possible but bad for future optics for the brand)
4) PVB2 will not be a part of the Trust. At least not as the trust is being described on this thread by us clueless/guessing posters. (I think this is most likely)

 

[MarkNC2Disney]

Unless their strategy is to throw out an idea and then read DIS boards to find out, what the advantages and disadvantages are and to go through all of the scenarios.

Just kidding.

Someone from Corp. Strat. is pulling verbatims from the DIS I can feel it

 

[walt34]

Chang, one of DVD's top exec's, had no clue whereas everyone else knew about the Trust, and therefore she spoke out-of-turn. (Which I seriously doubt).

Her name and signature is on the Palmetto trust document filed in November. I think we can safely preclude the option that she did not know about the trust.

 

[walt34]

4) PVB2 will not be a part of the Trust. At least not as the trust is being described on this thread by us clueless/guessing posters. (I think this is most likely)

Maybe there is another spin that we are not aware of which makes Poly2 or parts of it accessible to Poly1 owners that we don't know about and DVD doesn't want to explain at this point. Could explain the communication silence.

 

[BeachClub2014]

Good to see the discussion and debate over Yvonne Chang's response to a question at the recent Association Annual meeting. Here's a link to an article from DVCNews.com directly quoting Chang as saying: "Our plans right now are for the new tower to be part of the existing Polynesian resort." https://dvcnews.com/wdw-resorts/pol...esian-tower-to-be-part-of-current-association

I can certainly understand why many may latch on to this response and believe it to mean, without a doubt, that the Poly Tower will be in the same association as PVB. Especially those who are reading it with confirmation bias. But nowhere in that statement does the word "association" appear. What she said was that it would be part of the same resort. Well duh, we can see that. I won't even touch on the standard waffle phrase of "our plans right now...." as that gives an out and means that things change.

If you stand back and view her response through a different lens, it's actually kinda brilliant. Here's why:

1. DVC had to know the question would come up and it's not good form to not provide an answer, so they answered.
2. They positively answered the question by saying it would be part of the existing "resort". They know it's a charged question that will upset some folks whichever way it goes, so why upset them now?
3. The response didn't disclose ANYTHING that we didn't already know, to wit, the Tower is "part of the same resort."
4. The article even acknowledges that it ain't a done deal by saying "the legal setup will not be fully confirmed until the condo association is amended to add the new tower" immediately preceding the quote attributed to Chang.