Just back and my feelings on Saratoga Springs

[BroganMc]

Sure I know exactly how the system works and the only guarantee is the ability to reserve at the home resort.

No, the guarantee is that you can reserve a room within the designated booking windows. It doesn't mean which room or which location. You aren't even guaranteed a room at your home resort, even within the priority booking window.

In practicality, some rooms are easier to book at certain times than others. That's a quirk of the system reflecting supply & demand. But any given day, a DVC member can book a room at any DVC resort. (A quirk of the Marriott/II system is that availability for Orlando resorts increases the closer to your travel dates, with a flood of availability appearing at the first of the year.)

For instance, when I called last May for a December booking, I was given the choice of 1 bedroom units at VWL, BWV and SSR. Only SSR had the handicap-accessible room I preferred. Other posters here have reported booking all manner of rooms regardless of their home resort priority. And that includes BWV standard views, boardwalk views, VWL at Christmastime, and BCV in summer.

The system won't reflect your "legally and technically" limited aspect until non-Home Resort bookings are disallowed. Since the ownership interests are sold as a "vacation club", you can bet that will never happen.

 

[Dean]

No, the guarantee is that you can reserve a room within the designated booking windows. It doesn't mean which room or which location. You aren't even guaranteed a room at your home resort, even within the priority booking window.

In practicality, some rooms are easier to book at certain times than others. That's a quirk of the system reflecting supply & demand. But any given day, a DVC member can book a room at any DVC resort. (A quirk of the Marriott/II system is that availability for Orlando resorts increases the closer to your travel dates, with a flood of availability appearing at the first of the year.)

For instance, when I called last May for a December booking, I was given the choice of 1 bedroom units at VWL, BWV and SSR. Only SSR had the handicap-accessible room I preferred. Other posters here have reported booking all manner of rooms regardless of their home resort priority. And that includes BWV standard views, boardwalk views, VWL at Christmastime, and BCV in summer.

The system won't reflect your "legally and technically" limited aspect until non-Home Resort bookings are disallowed. Since the ownership interests are sold as a "vacation club", you can bet that will never happen.

There are reasons a given resort could be excluded from the club. Not all that likely be possible. Thus back to the guarantee I posted above.

 

[BroganMc]

There are reasons a given resort could be excluded from the club. Not all that likely be possible. Thus back to the guarantee I posted above.

Ah, I see what you're trying to say.

Strictly speaking, yes you are correct that owners are actually deeded (or leased) rights to one physical location. But that physical location is also part of the wider club organization. A resort can be dropped from the club if it is not beneficial to club owners. But then it would also devalue ownership of that property and force Disney into a precarious legal position with owners. For those reasons, I cannot see it ever happening. Regardless how tough it becomes to get bookings at smaller resorts in popular seasons.

In practicality, we are dealing with a chain of resorts open to member bookings on more or less the same playing field. There are no real impediments, outside availability, to bookings at non-home vs. home resorts. For all intents and purposes, that makes ownership in OKW just as valuable as ownership in BWV. The fact that members have their own personal ranking system for the resorts is immaterial to how the club system works.

 

[jemiaule]

The system won't reflect your "legally and technically" limited aspect until non-Home Resort bookings are disallowed. Since the ownership interests are sold as a "vacation club", you can bet that will never happen.

Back when there was only one DVC, Old Key West, there was no non-Home Resort to book into. At that time it was also called a "vacation club" and, with one resort, was indeed limited.

Yes, the ownerships are sold as a vacation club however a "vacation club" is not the number of resorts one can book. By definition a club is: "a group of persons organized for a social, literary, athletic, political, or other purpose".

 

[Dean]

Ah, I see what you're trying to say.

Strictly speaking, yes you are correct that owners are actually deeded (or leased) rights to one physical location. But that physical location is also part of the wider club organization. A resort can be dropped from the club if it is not beneficial to club owners. But then it would also devalue ownership of that property and force Disney into a precarious legal position with owners. For those reasons, I cannot see it ever happening. Regardless how tough it becomes to get bookings at smaller resorts in popular seasons.

In practicality, we are dealing with a chain of resorts open to member bookings on more or less the same playing field. There are no real impediments, outside availability, to bookings at non-home vs. home resorts. For all intents and purposes, that makes ownership in OKW just as valuable as ownership in BWV. The fact that members have their own personal ranking system for the resorts is immaterial to how the club system works.

No legal jam for DVC if a resort were dropped within the rules as purblished, but it would certainly devalue the ownership at any given resort. Reality is that only the off property resorts are at any significant risk. They are more likely to be destroyed and not integrally tied in to the general Disney system other than their DVC connection. I do wonder what would happen if a given resort were almost completely destroyed.

Back when there was only one DVC, Old Key West, there was no non-Home Resort to book into. At that time it was also called a "vacation club" and, with one resort, was indeed limited.

Even then the legal paperwork listed a home resort priority but it was 11/10 instead of 11/7.

 

[BroganMc]

No legal jam for DVC if a resort were dropped within the rules as purblished, but it would certainly devalue the ownership at any given resort. Reality is that only the off property resorts are at any significant risk. They are more likely to be destroyed and not integrally tied in to the general Disney system other than their DVC connection. I do wonder what would happen if a given resort were almost completely destroyed.

Absolutely certain about the "no legal jam"? The contracts do all refer to "Disney Vacation Club property(ies)". I could see a lawyer arguing fiercely that the de facto understanding of owners was that they were buying into a club and so valued the purchase as such. Something around class action lawsuit I would presume if Disney ever did drop a property.

But yes, I agree it is more of a concern for off-site resorts. One good hurricane can wipe out HHI or VB. But then insurance is there to cover rebuilding costs and owners are not automatically out of the system. Oddly enough, I did pose that question to my guide one day. I like to throw oddball questions at people.

Even then the legal paperwork listed a home resort priority but it was 11/10 instead of 11/7.

Don't the OKW contracts refer to the "vacation club"? If so, even then they were preparing for the possibility of future expansion and other locations. OKW ownership is therefore no different than ownership in other home resorts.

To bring up Marriott again, while that is deeded property and part of a club, I do notice the home resort preferences are not as enticing as Disney. I can book 12-13 months out but then only in my season. That was a rude awakening when I wanted to book May this year at Grande Vista but own a Platinum week. Marriott flatly told me I couldn't do it but would have to go through II. And II inventory was not as available as Marriott. Took me until 7-8 mos out to book a reservation. (Now II is flooded with weeks.) Makes a body nonplussed. Because of this quirk, I'm in the habit of booking my DVC reservations first and then finding Marriott weeks later to supplement.

As far as clubs go, Disney is much easier to work with.

 

[Amy5000]

No legal jam for DVC if a resort were dropped within the rules as purblished, but it would certainly devalue the ownership at any given resort.

Dean: Are you saying that BCV could, if determined by its members, withdraw from the DVC or at least decide it wanted to stop letting non-BCV members from booking?

I'm not yet a member, but am curious as to how much leeway the owners of any resort have to take actions to change the current DVC setup...

 

[3DisneyKids]

Dean: Are you saying that BCV could, if determined by its members, withdraw from the DVC or at least decide it wanted to stop letting non-BCV members from booking?

I'm not yet a member, but am curious as to how much leeway the owners of any resort have to take actions to change the current DVC setup...

I am hard-pressed to go against Dean as I freely admit that he knows WAY more than I do about timeshares in every regard, however that being said, I find it hard to believe that the owners of any single DVC resort have this voting authority. While I don't have my POS in front of me (and I didn't memorize it the way some here seem to have ) I did read it carefully and I think something of that nature would have made an impression on me.

 

[BroganMc]

Agreed, as amusing at the proposition sounds to me, I don't think Disney allows owners such lattitude. We don't even own the realestate so they can have ultimate control.

But keep in mind, if it was possible for resort owners to vote themselves out of the system, then they'd be voting themselves out of all other resort trades as well. Given that, I can't imagine there'd be enough majority in any resort for such a measure to pass.

 

[3DisneyKids]

Jillpie, I agree if my goal was to have easy access to the gift shop, I'd ask to stay in the Springs or Grandstand. (In fact, the Springs room I stayed in last December would have been perfect for you. Right across the street from the pool, canal view with the bus stop on the street-side. I was always stopping over at AP for drink refills, shopping and collecting my park package pickups.)

Unfortunately, you ended up at the furthest point out because the resort was full. Such is the disadvantage of no booking categories and busy Spring Break seasons.

Think of it this way. You decided to stay at BWV for F&W, but they put you in the farthest wing MGM side because it was packed. You'd be a bit miffed about that too. Does this mean BWV is a terrible resort and one you can never enjoy? Or did you simply draw the short straw and perhaps next time you'll get a better one.

Very well said, Brogan! This is absolutely the case.

I certain agree with Jill's original post that the walks at SSR CAN be long, especially if you do need something small like milk and you want it right at that moment. Having to walk even 5 minutes there and another 5 back can be less than pleasant if you have already been walking all day and all you want to do is crash.

However....the same thing can happen at any resort. Yes, SSR is the largest of all of the DVC resorts. But OKW is pretty darn close. As will AKV be once complete (and I can already hear the complaints about how the new section is SO FAR from the original AKL). And we have all heard...repeatedly...about the ultra-long hallways at BWV. All of these issues, regardless of resort, can be handled with a bit of advance planning.

Either you (1) do some research beforehand and make sure you request a section that is closest to the pool and main house, etc.; (2) make sure you have everything you need when you get off the bus at the end of the day (picking it up on your way back so you don't need to make an extra trip); (3) use a service like Garden Grocer to deliver your goods right to your door for a very small fee, and the list goes on.

Perhaps the OP did not know of all of these options. I know that I didn't when we first started visiting Disney. But each trip I learn something new that makes my trips more efficient (and thus more relaxing). And maybe in time the OP will be willing to give SSR another try. And if not....well, then there is just more room for you and me, Brogan!

 

[Maistre Gracey]

I'm not quoting the POS. Heck, I barely know what I'm talking about!

Seriously though, there is something in the POS about Members being able to vote out DVC as the managing entity. I believe it requires a 60% vote to remove them. The likelyhood of that happening is nil. My guess would be if the Members voted DVC out as the managing company, then the resort itself would get the boot.

It's probably a Florida law of some sort that requires this as an option.

Don't take anything I've said here to be Gospel truth. I'm pulling this from memory.

MG

 

[Dean]

Absolutely certain about the "no legal jam"? The contracts do all refer to "Disney Vacation Club property(ies)". I could see a lawyer arguing fiercely that the de facto understanding of owners was that they were buying into a club and so valued the purchase as such. Something around class action lawsuit I would presume if Disney ever did drop a property.

Law suites can happen but there are some clearly spelled out reasons for the resorts and DVC to go separate ways and I believe at least one independent of the POS. Lawyers can argue but if DVC followed the rules in place, there would be no legal jam.

Don't the OKW contracts refer to the "vacation club"? If so, even then they were preparing for the possibility of future expansion and other locations. OKW ownership is therefore no different than ownership in other home resorts.

They were giving themselves options of course but made it very clear that it might or might not happen and even if a new resort was built that it might not be in "the club". DVC could even abandon the announced AKV phases not being sold if they wanted or make them a separate club.

To bring up Marriott again, while that is deeded property and part of a club, I do notice the home resort preferences are not as enticing as Disney. I can book 12-13 months out but then only in my season. That was a rude awakening when I wanted to book May this year at Grande Vista but own a Platinum week. Marriott flatly told me I couldn't do it but would have to go through II. And II inventory was not as available as Marriott. Took me until 7-8 mos out to book a reservation. (Now II is flooded with weeks.) Makes a body nonplussed. Because of this quirk, I'm in the habit of booking my DVC reservations first and then finding Marriott weeks later to supplement.

As far as clubs go, Disney is much easier to work with.

I think you're too hung up in the meaning of the word Vacation Club. It seems to have certain meanings to you but in the timeshare world it is used very variably. It seems you bought into Marriott not truly understanding their system as you can clearly only book during the time you own, the exception being at those properties that have Platinum Plus, those owners can book during platinum season but the reverse is not true. Trading back into GV using a Marriott week one can always get a week, with anything no even for Xmas and Easter. You can only book 13 months out for those that own multiple weeks and reserve concurrent or consecutive weeks.

 

[Dean]

Dean: Are you saying that BCV could, if determined by its members, withdraw from the DVC or at least decide it wanted to stop letting non-BCV members from booking?

I'm not yet a member, but am curious as to how much leeway the owners of any resort have to take actions to change the current DVC setup...

technically yes, it is all included in the POS. But DVC has set it up so it would be VERY difficult to do so by having the owners transfer their noting rights to a voting representative. The entire resort could be terminated by agreement of the owners or condemnation in addition to lease expiration. The list whereby a resort ceases to be in the club includes the owners voting DVCMC out as managing entity, mutual agreement, damaged units that are not replaced, eminent domain, bankruptcy of DVD or DVCMC, a material breach of contract by either side. BVTC can terminate it's participation in it's sole discretion by written notice. They could even delete a portion of a resort as in damaged and not rebuilt and thus some members would be out without deleting others. There are items required to be voted on by the members directly as listed in the POS, there is a list.

 

[WebmasterDoc]

Dean: Are you saying that BCV could, if determined by its members, withdraw from the DVC or at least decide it wanted to stop letting non-BCV members from booking?

I'm not yet a member, but am curious as to how much leeway the owners of any resort have to take actions to change the current DVC setup...

Yes, there is a provision which allows the owners of a resort to replace DVC as the managing entity. As Dean stated, it would not be an easy task - either to hold the vote or get the number of members to agree - but it could be done.

In that case however, the new management would then have the responsibility to handle ALL aspects of running the resort - beginning with a reservation system (owners at that resort could no longer use MS for anything) and extending to housekeeping, maintenance, staff, transportation, food service, landscaping, etc. That resort would likely be excluded from ME, DDP and all of the discounts and perks currently available to DVC members.

How would you like to be the one negotiating with Disney for bus/boat transportation, laundry service, etc. ?

Anyway, the provision it there allowing owners to install their own management if they feel DVC is not providing the desired level of service. Not likely, but possible!

 

[FreeTime]

Back to the OP's comments. Thanks for posting! I just returned from a stay at SSR this week. Originally we were booked at BWV, but I wanted to change to a 2BR and SSR was all that was available. I thought the room was very nice. The second BR in the dedicated 2 br felt much more spacious than the studio side at BWV. We were in a Paddock building and walked one day to the main pool, which was not too bad. However, I didn't like that I had to keep moving to keep my eye on the kids. We had a table by Donald as they wanted to use the slide. But then, they wanted to move to the 0 entry area. We used the Paddock pool once and enjoyed it. I felt that the resort as a whole was huge! But once we got our bearings it was not too bad. However, Nana, kept making comments while at Epcot that she could easily head back to the room if we were staying at the Boardwalk!

Regardless of my opinion of the resort, my family picked BWV because that is where we like to stay. We like the action, Epcot and the pool. Other families have different taste. I think that it is great that Disney hasn't created a Vacation Club section of their property that only houses DVC. This would prevent the variety that we love.

 

[Budshark]

Seriously though, there is something in the POS about Members being able to vote out DVC as the managing entity. I believe it requires a 60% vote to remove them. The likelyhood of that happening is nil. My guess would be if the Members voted DVC out as the managing company, then the resort itself would get the boot.

I'm also sure this is done like a public owned company - you vote your points. And I'm guessing that between resales in ROFR Disney could snatch up, current developer holdings for points, and Disney employee owned points - you'd have to get about 80-90% of the "public" owned points to vote out DVC. Which isn't going to happen. Heck, you'd probably have 20-30% non-vote to start with.

Chris

 

[crisi]

think many have missed the point. I look at this whole subject this way. I don't look at this like I own specific resort. I bought into a vacation club that allows me to stay at the properties that the club owns subject to availability. I get to book at my home resort at eleven months and the rest at seven months if there is room available. One resort is not better that the other just different. Some people myself included will like some properties better than others. .......



PF

Here is the tension....some people bought to try all the resorts. We bought and soon after decided it was unlikely we'd do anything other than book our home resort eleven months out. Home for us is BWV, and eleven months out means we get standard view or BW View rooms. So there is some innate tension between members who want to stay where they bought and members who want to move around. If everyone was like me, no one would be able to move around because people like me would book up the resorts early and not move around to free them up at the seven month window.

When people bought expecting to be able to not have a problem booking seven months out and want the high demand rooms (like those standard view rooms), there is some disappointment. If you understand the availability angle, and the supply demand curve at work here, no problem - maybe you'll be luckier next trip. Otherwise, disappointment - and the feeling you've been misled by your guide.

Add in the additional tension when someone owns a resort that they don't really like - the have a HIGH preference for a different resort. That means that at seven months they have a lot tied up in being able to switch. And, they are competing for rooms at that point with people who like or want to try their preferred resort, but don't have the HIGH preference for it.

Convincing more people that each resort is desireable and there is benefit to staying in them all accomplishes two thing for people. First, it validates their own decision - for most of us a fairly major cash outlay. People like to be validated. They like to think that what they have is something others want. Second, it increases demand for switching, which means more movement around seven months, which makes the flexibility more possible. When someone "bashes" a resort, it "invalidates" their decision - it shouldn't - if you think the rooms at SSR are beautiful it really shouldn't matter what I think - but it does. And, it (I believe minorly) impacts the demand for that resort, which in turn changes people's ability to switch out. For a lot of people SSR is a resort that they want to try. For others - and its still a lot - its the last resort on their list of options. For anyone sitting on the fence, poor room reports AT ANY RESORT may mean that resort moves further down their list, changing the demand profile. For at least one resort (BCV), bad room reports have been a blessing to its fans. I love the bad room at BCVs threads, because the BCVs defenders stopped getting defensive about them (for the most part) and started celebrating them for what they were - discouragement from competition at their favorite resort.

 

[alldiz]

Cant believe this thread is still going....

Ok everyone....suck it up....
Everyone plays by the same rules....

If someone buys in and dosent know the rules....SHAME ON YOU....
stop blaming your guide.....READ YOUR PAPERWORK....

Bottom line.....everyone is different.....everyone likes different
places.....which is why dvc is great....lots of choices....

If someone dosent get their home resort at 7 months.....
because "someone else"...got THEIR ROOM...AT THEIR RESORT.....
TOOOOOOOO BAAAAAAD.....
Stop whining.....and go where there is availability....
OR SELL YOUR DVC.....obviously not a good choice for you.....
Peace
Kerri

 

[Granny]

Convincing more people that each resort is desireable and there is benefit to staying in them all accomplishes two thing for people. First, it validates their own decision - for most of us a fairly major cash outlay. People like to be validated. They like to think that what they have is something others want. Second, it increases demand for switching, which means more movement around seven months, which makes the flexibility more possible. When someone "bashes" a resort, it "invalidates" their decision - it shouldn't - if you think the rooms at SSR are beautiful it really shouldn't matter what I think - but it does. And, it (I believe minorly) impacts the demand for that resort, which in turn changes people's ability to switch out. For a lot of people SSR is a resort that they want to try. For others - and its still a lot - its the last resort on their list of options. For anyone sitting on the fence, poor room reports AT ANY RESORT may mean that resort moves further down their list, changing the demand profile. For at least one resort (BCV), bad room reports have been a blessing to its fans. I love the bad room at BCVs threads, because the BCVs defenders stopped getting defensive about them (for the most part) and started celebrating them for what they were - discouragement from competition at their favorite resort.

Crisi...as always, a thoughtful and provocative response.

I responded early in this thread that the OP did a good job expressing an opinion without bashing SSR. But at the same time, I knew in my heart that many would consider any negative opinion to be bashing.

I happen to own at BWV and VWL, and both of these get negative comments from time to time. I couldn't care less, and unless I see a "fact" reported erroneously, I tend to ignore them.

And I agree with others that it is just a matter of time before we see the AKV "bashing" threads. Somewhere along the line in our politically correct society we made "not my cup of tea" = "bashing".

 

[UConnJack]

Convincing more people that each resort is desireable and there is benefit to staying in them all accomplishes two thing for people. First, it validates their own decision - for most of us a fairly major cash outlay. People like to be validated. They like to think that what they have is something others want. Second, it increases demand for switching, which means more movement around seven months, which makes the flexibility more possible. When someone "bashes" a resort, it "invalidates" their decision - it shouldn't - if you think the rooms at SSR are beautiful it really shouldn't matter what I think - but it does. And, it (I believe minorly) impacts the demand for that resort, which in turn changes people's ability to switch out. For a lot of people SSR is a resort that they want to try. For others - and its still a lot - its the last resort on their list of options. For anyone sitting on the fence, poor room reports AT ANY RESORT may mean that resort moves further down their list, changing the demand profile. For at least one resort (BCV), bad room reports have been a blessing to its fans. I love the bad room at BCVs threads, because the BCVs defenders stopped getting defensive about them (for the most part) and started celebrating them for what they were - discouragement from competition at their favorite resort.

So by this reasoning, if someone is concerned that SSR is affecting availability at other resorts, they should be playing up SSR instead of criticizing it. Hmmmm......you might be on to something.