The secret to ROFR is to avoid any resort/system that has it as it is no friend to an owner. If you choose to ignore that important advice and go ahead with a potential ownership of such a place then simply ignore the existence of ROFR AS A BUYER. It only hurts the seller to the sole benefit of the developer. Just make your low offers (for what you feel it is worth - NOT EVER what the artificially inflated ROFR number could be. IF you play that losers game you too will end up the loser) and eventually you'll get your ownership or you'll find a much better deal - either way you win. The seller only gets whatever low price he accepts if/when the developer decides to exercise the ROFR - they don't get a minimum or base price they simply get whatever low value you offered (plus costs to them) and you just move on to the next deal. Eventually (often first try) you'll get your deal. That is the only way to go with a ROFR place as otherwise you'll be the one stuck with a purchase price the market won't suppor and you'll take the loss on resale. Don't get suckered in.
Usually you'll find that ROFR resorts are also run by the Developer as management long after they should be gone and the resort /Association should be taken over by the real owners. If it is not that is strike two against owning there. Best to avoid both issues - ROFR and Developer management by looking for another resort.
ROFR and Developer management of resorts are problems you can easily avoid. Look elsewhere as there are literally hundreds of resort options many can be cheaper to own & can easily obtain this type of resort via trade or you can simply rent for less than you will spend to buy/own. No timeshare is worth much over $5K today - no matter where or what resort. While a few (VERY FEW) may get more than that in the long run you are better off renting vs taking on an excessive annual fee and a hefty purchase price. Eventually the resale price will get to $5K or less and then, if you still want it (you'll probably find you don't anymore) you can buy wisely. If it doesn't avoid it. Far too many great resorts out there for much less. It's a pure buyers market - make sure you use that to your advantage and don't get fooled into any ROFR nonsense.
John, while I generally believe there is much merit to your perspectives and many truthes to your often, and well articulated viewpoint, I disagree that for some, it is an, to paraphrase, easily avoided problem.
ROFR is something that seems to be in place at many of the higher end ( hotel associated) resorts. These happen to be the resorts where I prefer to stay. I like the amenities and flexiblitly and they work best for my travel style and personal needs. I agree that ROFR is not always in the seller's interest. I also agree that one should always ignore the presumed ROFR price and just pay what its worth to you. that applies to any purchase; you should never pay more due to some presumed influence on its value, but only its intrisic value to the purchaser. However, I cannot fully subscribe to the belief that it offers NO protection to the seller. These have been EXTREME times in these troubled economic environment and while you say that NO timeshare is worth more than $5k, that is inconsistent with the fact that, albeit, selectively, MArriot had chosen to exercise ROFR at 9K. This in fact provides some protection to a seller. Perhaps, if the seller unrealistically thought they could get 18K or pick a randomly inflated number, inappropriate to this market, but indeed, certain high demand, higher end, prime timeshares are infact still selling and even being ROFR'd at very high prices. No, it doesn't mean you will get your money back, but they just don't necessarily drop like the resorts without it, if you have the most prime weeks. no one ever claimed that ROFR was rock-solid-impervious-to-market-downturns-at-all-times protection.
i hesitate to print this and my intent is by no mean to dredge up this debate. it is not not one i reallty have time to debate or one that i feel i can sway yours ar anyone's mind who disagrees. i dont think the proof statement is really there either way, so it is actually a useless debate as far as I am concerned. Somehow, I am up late and this time, just wanted to voice my view.
Anyone is free to agree, or disagree. Its all good.