WorldMark - Relative Use Value

Cathyb · Aug 23, 2009

Eric: I'll jump in here

We own 10,000 WM credits, bought thru Redseason about 4-5 years ago. We found using the 10K every other year gives us ample usage since we also own other non-WM timeshares incl 3 wks in Maui/Kauai. I am opposed to the high credit assignments to the new resorts; but actually our favorites are the old ones (Depoe Bay, Camlin, Victoria) therefore we don't get real upset -- so far. In our last trip we got a letter as we checked out of Seaside that came strictly from Wyndham, no mention of Worldmark on the letterhead -- now that makes me uncomfortable!!! Why did they not mention Worldmark -- is this a sign of the future???

To me it seems most Worldmark owners use the WMowners website much more than here. I have been on TUG since it started, so I use it more. IMHO WMowners like to be folksy and down-to-earth -- not controversial or with strong opinions -- so they can have all of that at WMowners site.

ecwinch · Aug 23, 2009

Cathyb said:
I am opposed to the high credit assignments to the new resorts; but actually our favorites are the old ones (Depoe Bay, Camlin, Victoria) therefore we don't get real upset -- so far.

Cathy,

Thanks for sharing that opinion. I am often accused of "picking" other peoples posts apart, so please forgive the following question, for I am just trying to understand your position better.

You mention that you are opposed to the high credit assignments to the new resorts, but the Camlin has a higher credit assignment than the standard "10k" that some have come to expect. How do you view the credit assignment for the Camlin as it pertains to this topic?

Thanks

Cathyb · Aug 23, 2009

ecwinch said:
Cathy,

Thanks for sharing that opinion. I am often accused of "picking" other peoples posts apart, so please forgive the following question, for I am just trying to understand your position better.

You mention that you are opposed to the high credit assignments to the new resorts, but the Camlin has a higher credit assignment than the standard "10k" that some have come to expect. How do you view the credit assignment for the Camlin as it pertains to this topic?

Thanks

Gosh, Eric -- I guess when I was planning our Worldmark trip (Victoria, Vancouver, Camlin, Seaside, Depoe Bay) in a linking mode to have a better chance to get into Depoe Bay in August -- it was more important to get that location since we were driving, than it was to notice the higher credits. My DH and I did spend a few days working out different scenarios with credits to get the most; i.e., staying on weekends in the lesser credit places if possible.

mtribe · Aug 24, 2009

cotraveller said:
In other words, you do not necessarily object to higher credit value resorts, you object to those who are setting the values.
.

Not exactly, I am opposed to the people approving the values being the same people as those setting the values. I believe that there should be some oversight from people who do not have a profit interest in the establishment of the credit values. I am not even opposed to the developer having a place on the BOD just not domination. If there were three Bob Morrison like directors and two developer directors and the developer representatives could convince the others that the pricing was good for the club I would accept it. But the self dealing and lack of transparency is just too much for me to believe they are even considering owners interests.

ecwinch said:
Fred,

I just want to add that based on the Travelshare deposition of Scott Grey, VP of Business Development, your comment is one he offers on the current credit valuation strategy:

"we want to price it high enough that the people that really want to go there can get in there. Not too low that you're going to get people -- we've got a lot of resorts that are getting used only because they can get in there."

Basically that credit pricing is used as a tool to moderate demand. Just FYI

Yeah right it is based on demand. That is why Taos and Red River and the Canmore ........ basically every one since Cendant/Wyndham came on board , all came in higher. The only thing it has to do with demand is Wyndham demanding more profit and more demand being placed on existing resorts to the detriment of existing owners. Scott Grey acknowledges that owners are choosing to go to cheaper resorts because they are cheaper. Oceanside and Sandiego are perfect examples. Ocean side fills up first because it is cheaper and SD fills as a last resort because if you want to go to so cal it is all that is left and you have to pay a premium for an inferior resort. This testimony does not jive with itself and the actual practices they have been using to set credit values.

PerryM · Aug 24, 2009

We have found the enemy and it's staring us in the mirror

Let me try to point out some of the Herculaneum tasks the developer of WM faces:

• Founding documents that don’t shed any light on how new villas enter the system
• Developer is NOT selling new villas – they are selling 20 year old resorts stuck away in the forest for the most part and new villas all at once
• A Credit Calendar that makes little sense but is the guideline for new resorts

When Wyndham invites Ma and Pa into a new resort they are NOT selling that resort – they are selling a club in which plywood condos with bad windows started the club off. If the developer wants to build modern concrete core buildings the cost is much more than old plywood. The developer has stopped asking for 10,000 WM credits per 2 BR Red weeks and gone to 15,000 – 20,000+ expect this to get higher with each new building.

Some folks can't understand this and the booing of Wyndham is the solution apparently.

The credit calendar was originally cooked up by window salesmen sitting at a bar doodling on a cocktail napkin. Christmas week costs the same as any other Red week there and thus the current over saturating of reservations by buying multiple days before the holiday week is the result. We have diluted credits all by ourselves without the developers meddling.

I can go on and on and demonstrate that all the hatred aimed at the developer is really not the developer’s fault at all. What is needed is a fundamental re-writing of the operating documents. I’ve not heard any person running for the WM BOD state this but simply “Wyndham sucks”.

I will agree that the developer, Wyndham, is insane with its viewing of resales – Wyndham owners are so hated by Wyndham that resales are but 5 cents on the dollar. WM is about 25 cents on the dollar and heading lower. This is worthy of action – Wyndham’s antagonistic view of the WM owners.

But on just about any other topic Wyndham is an easy scapegoat when the problem is the WM operating documents and theories – the WM BOD should be tackling those problems but not a single board member or candidate seems to care.

Oh well, Wyndham sucks; I feel so much better.

ecwinch · Aug 24, 2009

PerryM said:
Let me try to point out some of the Herculaneum tasks the developer of WM faces:

• Founding documents that don’t shed any light on how new villas enter the system
• Developer is NOT selling new villas – they are selling 20 year old resorts stuck away in the forest for the most part and new villas all at once
• A Credit Calendar that makes little sense but is the guideline for new resorts

When Wyndham invites Ma and Pa into a new resort they are NOT selling that resort – they are selling a club in which plywood condos with bad windows started the club off. If the developer wants to build modern concrete core buildings the cost is much more than old plywood. The developer has stopped asking for 10,000 WM credits per 2 BR Red weeks and gone to 15,000 – 20,000+ expect this to get higher with each new building.

Some folks can't understand this and the booing of Wyndham is the solution apparently.

The credit calendar was originally cooked up by window salesmen sitting at a bar doodling on a cocktail napkin. Christmas week costs the same as any other Red week there and thus the current over saturating of reservations by buying multiple days before the holiday week is the result. We have diluted credits all by ourselves without the developers meddling.

I can go on and on and demonstrate that all the hatred aimed at the developer is really not the developer’s fault at all. What is needed is a fundamental re-writing of the operating documents. I’ve not heard any person running for the WM BOD state this but simply “Wyndham sucks”.

I will agree that the developer, Wyndham, is insane with its viewing of resales – Wyndham owners are so hated by Wyndham that resales are but 5 cents on the dollar. WM is about 25 cents on the dollar and heading lower. This is worthy of action – Wyndham’s antagonistic view of the WM owners.

But on just about any other topic Wyndham is an easy scapegoat when the problem is the WM operating documents and theories – the WM BOD should be tackling those problems but not a single board member or candidate seems to care.

Oh well, Wyndham sucks; I feel so much better.

Perry, I generally find your posts to be enlightening and entertaining. But just like a good movie, playing a little fast and lose with the facts.

You know that the effort it would take to implement your suggestions would be almost insurmountable. It would require a 66% vote of the membership.

You also know that the governing documents, while flawed, are not completely out of line with the trends in the timeshare industry 20 years ago.

On some other points we agree.

Thanks

PerryM · Aug 24, 2009

ecwinch said:
Perry, I generally find your posts to be enlightening and entertaining. But just like a good movie, playing a little fast and lose with the facts.

You know that the effort it would take to implement your suggestions would be almost insurmountable. It would require a 66% vote of the membership.

You also know that the governing documents, while flawed, are not completely out of line with the trends in the timeshare industry 20 years ago.

On some other points we agree.

Thanks

My point is that you are absolutely correct - WM is not going to be changed at the core level and we must live with the existing rules - since many of them make little sense we must defer to the developer.

What's the alternative? Defer to rank amateurs who know nothing about WMs problems and that many can not be fixed?

That's why it makes little difference who sits on the WM BOD - I've said that for years now - folks get worked up over things they can't change. Better to have a money grubbing corporation running WM than amateurs who can only make things worse.

But this is old and I'm not going to change anyone's mind and they certainly won't change mine. Fear not, however, the attempt to take over the WM BOD will fail as it has for the past 5+ years.

The idea is to learn the rules and exploit them to your advantage - everyone else seems to want to change the rules in the middle of the game...

ecwinch · Aug 24, 2009

PerryM said:
My point is that you are absolutely correct - WM is not going to be changed at the core level and we must live with the existing rules - since many of them make little sense we must defer to the developer.

What's the alternative? Defer to rank amateurs who know nothing about WMs problems and that many can not be fixed?

That's why it makes little difference who sits on the WM BOD - I've said that for years now - folks get worked up over things they can't change. Better to have a money grubbing corporation running WM than amateurs who can only make things worse.

But this is old and I'm not going to change anyone's mind and they certainly won't change mine. Fear not, however, the attempt to take over the WM BOD will fail as it has for the past 5+ years.

The idea is to learn the rules and exploit them to your advantage - everyone else seems to want to change the rules in the middle of the game...

Perry,

I have learned a lot from you, and I know you are an intelligent person.

But you know that there are plenty of solutions to the current situation beyond the binary options that you seem to suggest. For the instance the concept of the Club self-funding new resort development by existing owners subscribing for new credits, thus avoiding a good portion of the huge sales markup. I first heard a similar idea from you.

So there are options. But we will never see those type of innovative solutions with the current leadership. And that is problem with WorldMark right now - it is the leadership of the board and not their composition. If they were providing effective leadership, few would care if they were Wyndham employees or gun toting beer pong players.

And I doubt that they are seeking to change the rules in the middle of the game as you suggest. Wyndham has already done that.

PerryM · Aug 24, 2009

Einstein beagles said it best...

ecwinch said:
Perry,

I have learned a lot from you, and I know you are an intelligent person.

But you know that there are plenty of solutions to the current situation beyond the binary options that you seem to suggest. For the instance the concept of the Club self-funding new resort development by existing owners subscribing for new credits, thus avoiding a good portion of the huge sales markup. I first heard a similar idea from you.

So there are options. But we will never see those type of innovative solutions with the current leadership. And that is problem with WorldMark right now - it is the leadership of the board and not their composition. If they were providing effective leadership, few would care if they were Wyndham employees or gun toting beer pong players.

And I doubt that they are seeking to change the rules in the middle of the game as you suggest. Wyndham has already done that.

Debate is great - the more the WM owners learn the better for all of us.

Replacing one WM BOD member with another, more "owner friendly" just isn't the solution. So many here and elsewhere think that WM will magically transform into something wonderful - that one BOD member will be an outcast and won't impact any votes. 3 or more would be needed to get anything rolling and I just don't see the candidates focusing on the foundations of the club which need to be changed.

If we think we have it bad now just wait until Wyndham declares a war against the owners and the BOD - this is a war we can't win. For this reason I chime in once in a while and point out Einstein's definition of insanity:

“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”.

Too many owners seem to get entertainment out of the hatred of the developer instead of just using what we have and enjoying WM as it stands.

The old saw "It can't get worse" has been proven to be wrong so many times - I fear it applies to WM too.

ecwinch · Aug 25, 2009

PerryM said:
Debate is great - the more the WM owners learn the better for all of us.

Replacing one WM BOD member with another, more "owner friendly" just isn't the solution. So many here and elsewhere think that WM will magically transform into something wonderful - that one BOD member will be an outcast and won't impact any votes. 3 or more would be needed to get anything rolling and I just don't see the candidates focusing on the foundations of the club which need to be changed.

If we think we have it bad now just wait until Wyndham declares a war against the owners and the BOD - this is a war we can't win. For this reason I chime in once in a while and point out Einstein's definition of insanity:

“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”.

Too many owners seem to get entertainment out of the hatred of the developer instead of just using what we have and enjoying WM as it stands.

The old saw "It can't get worse" has been proven to be wrong so many times - I fear it applies to WM too.

Perry,

In the interest of full disclosure, I think it would be more appropriate to state that you like to pop into wmowners.com and use this quote to rub their face in their previous failures.

And that quote is thought by some to be one of the dumbest things ever said by a smart person. For it ignores the factors of inertia, fatigue, experimentation, and practice. For how do you break a big rock into little rocks? You keep hitting it with a big sledge-hammer until fatigue is introduced, and the rock finally breaks. How do you become a better free throw shooter? By practice. By that definition, only insane people try something more than once. They should accept the initial results and then move on.

But you are correct. One independent BoD member is not the silver bullet, because there already is an independent BoD member.

Thanks

cotraveller · Aug 25, 2009

ecwinch said:
You know that the effort it would take to implement your suggestions would be almost insurmountable. It would require a 66% vote of the membership.

ecwinch said:
But you know that there are plenty of solutions to the current situation beyond the binary options that you seem to suggest. For the instance the concept of the Club self-funding new resort development by existing owners subscribing for new credits, thus avoiding a good portion of the huge sales markup. I first heard a similar idea from you.

In spite of what the documents say, and in spite of the difficulity in changing those documents, you propose a mode of operation that is in complete violation of the governing documents.

Like it or not, the governing documents give Wyndham exclusive right to develop new resorts for WorldMark. Like it or not, those same documents give Wyndham exclusive right to market the credits generated by those new resorts. So we'll just ignore those legal requirements and have WorldMark self-fund a new resort by selling credits. Then we will go out and find a contractor to build that resort?

Not to mention putting the club in debt to finance the up front development costs to do the planning for the new resort to reach a point where credits could be sold. No problem, I'm sure that changing the debt-free WorldMark model would go over well with the owners.

mtribe · Aug 25, 2009

PerryM said:
My point is that you are absolutely correct - WM is not going to be changed at the core level and we must live with the existing rules - since many of them make little sense we must defer to the developer.

What's the alternative? Defer to rank amateurs who know nothing about WMs problems and that many can not be fixed?

That's why it makes little difference who sits on the WM BOD - I've said that for years now - folks get worked up over things they can't change. Better to have a money grubbing corporation running WM than amateurs who can only make things worse.

But this is old and I'm not going to change anyone's mind and they certainly won't change mine. Fear not, however, the attempt to take over the WM BOD will fail as it has for the past 5+ years.

The idea is to learn the rules and exploit them to your advantage - everyone else seems to want to change the rules in the middle of the game...

I really like Eric's comment that there is more to it than the binary proposals you have made. One single independent BOD member probably will not immediately shift the balance back to the good old days. It is a very long process amd that is the perspective most are taking. There is not going to be a miracle cure, you have invented that straw man.

One BOD member CAN ask questions that are not currently being asked. Provide transparency that does not currently exist. demand communication taht is lacking. Provide an real owner perspective not currently represented in the BOD meetings. Each of these things will change the tone. IF Marci and Bob Morrison were both elected it would be a very significant shift. A strong BOD member would have an impact, not a revolutionary all at once impact, but things would change if only perceptually.

PerryM · Aug 25, 2009

mtribe said:
I really like Eric's comment that there is more to it than the binary proposals you have made. One single independent BOD member probably will not immediately shift the balance back to the good old days. It is a very long process amd that is the perspective most are taking. There is not going to be a miracle cure, you have invented that straw man.

One BOD member CAN ask questions that are not currently being asked. Provide transparency that does not currently exist. demand communication taht is lacking. Provide an real owner perspective not currently represented in the BOD meetings. Each of these things will change the tone. IF Marci and Bob Morrison were both elected it would be a very significant shift. A strong BOD member would have an impact, not a revolutionary all at once impact, but things would change if only perceptually.

Show me a WM BOD candidate that understands the fundamental problems with the club and wants to work with the developer in fixing them and they have my vote.

But the candidates I keep seeing from the websites just deal with "Wyndham sucks" - no understanding that we MUST live with a developer and try to work with the developer in addressing "relative use" - I'd bet the developer want's a better set of rules too.

But folks, I'm going to win the Powerball lottery before the above happens..

ecwinch · Aug 25, 2009

cotraveller said:
In spite of what the documents say, and in spite of the difficulity in changing those documents, you propose a mode of operation that is in complete violation of the governing documents.

Like it or not, the governing documents give Wyndham exclusive right to develop new resorts for WorldMark. Like it or not, those same documents give Wyndham exclusive right to market the credits generated by those new resorts. So we'll just ignore those legal requirements and have WorldMark self-fund a new resort by selling credits. Then we will go out and find a contractor to build that resort?

First the exclusive right provisions are not in the governing documents. They are in the Vacation Program Agreement that is a contract between the Club and the Developer. It can and has been amended by mutual consent.

And I did not say that Wyndham could not build the resort or even sell the credits. If the WM BoD came to Wyndham and said "here are 20,000 owners that have committed to purchasing 3,000 credits a 75 cents a credit in order to expand the Depoe Bay property. Would you please take our $45 million dollars and build that for us?". Given the current climate, do you think Wyndham would refuse that offer?

And Fred, what do you propose to do if Wyndham decides to stop building for WorldMark? If they reach the conclusion that Club Wyndham is a better use of their limited capital in today's credit markets.

And this is just one suggestion. Proactive Board leadership could easily develop other options. For instance, selling one of the frontier locations and reinvesting the proceeds in another resort.

And there is precedent in this case. Look at how Depoe Bay came into the WM system. The Club leased the property and Trendwest later purchased it.

Here is the entry:

DEPOE BAY Gene Hensley presented to the Board a proposal to have the Club enter into a lease of 84 condominium-quality units under construction on the Oregon coast at Depoe Bay. Construction is expected to be completed by September. The property consists of two and three bedrooms on the ocean, and has indoor and outdoor swimming pools and a recreation building. The property would fill a much-needed demand for resort units on the Oregon coast; however, Trendwest has too much inventory to purchase the property at this time. Because the property will not likely be available when Trendwest is able to purchase it, Trendwest proposes entering into an option to purchase the property in April 1999 with the Club leasing the property from the seller until then. The Club would operate the property and make it available to Club members for Bonus Time. The Bonus Time income would cover the $92,500 per month lease payments and return a nominal profit to the Club. The Board thereafter discussed the proposal.
Upon a MOTION TO HAVE THE CLUB ENTER INTO A
LEASE OF 84 UNITS AT DEPOE BAY, OREGON FOR
SIX MONTHS AT A MONTHLY LEASE PAYMENT OF
$92,500, duly made by Don Williams and seconded by John
Henley, the motion was unanimously approved.

Not to mention putting the club in debt to finance the up front development costs to do the planning for the new resort to reach a point where credits could be sold. No problem, I'm sure that changing the debt-free WorldMark model would go over well with the owners.

There is no "debt free" provisions in the governing documents. That provision says that WM can only borrow with the consent of Wyndham.

mtribe · Aug 25, 2009

I do not think one should base their opinion on the website that says "Wyndham sucks". Which I do not believe is the official stance of the website. I believe the official stance is that developer domination of the WorldMark the Club BOD is inappropriate and presents a conflict of interest. Base your opinion on the Candidate. Candidate get endorsements from all kinds of sources. www.marci4worldmark.com clearly lays out the positions. Read the candidate's statements not generalizations from thousands of varying posts.

If you go there and to the official worldmark site you will see that "understanding that we MUST live with a developer and try to work with the developer in addressing "relative use" " is exactly what she stands for. Marci believes that wyndham has a right to do business and to make a profit but that there must be a collaberative relationship between Wyndham and worldmark not an incestuous one.

ecwinch · Aug 25, 2009

PerryM said:
Show me a WM BOD candidate that understands the fundamental problems with the club and wants to work with the developer in fixing them and they have my vote.

But the candidates I keep seeing from the websites just deal with "Wyndham sucks" - no understanding that we MUST live with a developer and try to work with the developer in addressing "relative use" - I'd bet the developer want's a better set of rules too.

But folks, I'm going to win the Powerball lottery before the above happens..

Perhaps you should invest some time in some interaction with the candidates before you reach that conclusion, and not just rely on dated memories.

In terms of wmowners.com, of course there are some that think "Wyndham sucks". Just like there are here on TUG. Forums naturally attract a range of opinions, and at the edge of the range, some will be extreme.

But you should not characterize an entire group of people based on the fact that they allow free speech, and characterize them only based on the extreme opinions they permit on their site.

PerryM · Aug 25, 2009

Is that a black helicopter?

ecwinch said:
...
And I did not say that Wyndham could not build the resort or even sell the credits. If the WM BoD came to Wyndham and said "here are 20,000 owners that have committed to purchasing 3,000 credits a 75 cents a credit in order to expand the Depoe Bay property. Would you please take our $45 million dollars and build that for us?". Given the current climate, do you think Wyndham would refuse that offer?
...

The salesreps would not stand for this - Wyndham is a sales oriented company (what company isn't).

Better to just start a co-op and do it ourselves.

Really the WM owners stand a better chance of success building a co-op that would be built correctly. That co-op is easy to design - I've already designed it and made it public.

mtribe said:
I do not think one should base their opinion on the website that says "Wyndham sucks". Which I do not believe is the official stance of the website. I believe the official stance is that developer domination of the WorldMark the Club BOD is inappropriate and presents a conflict of interest. Base your opinion on the Candidate. Candidate get endorsements from all kinds of sources. www.marci4worldmark.com clearly lays out the positions. Read the candidate's statements not generalizations from thousands of varying posts.

If you go there and to the official worldmark site you will see that "understanding that we MUST live with a developer and try to work with the developer in addressing "relative use" " is exactly what she stands for. Marci believes that wyndham has a right to do business and to make a profit but that there must be a collaberative relationship between Wyndham and worldmark not an incestuous one.

Just read the website and it sounds like the typical Wyndham conspiracy website - old news.

As I've posted many times THE core problem with WM is that WM does not have 1 (one, uno) employee - think of that, a real estate organization with 5,000+ condos worth $1+ Billion and not 1 employee works there.

WM collects about $200 M each year that it then hands over to Wyndham to run everything - until we decide that we need our own CEO and employees we are whistling in the wind...

Replacing 1 WM BOD for conspiracy reasons is the reason this endeavor has failed for 5 years or so now. WM candidates needs to stop looking for black helicopters and start educating the WM owners that we need to have our own CEO and employees instead of paying a contractor to do the same for themselves.

The focus must change from getting 1 (one) WM owner replaced with another WM owner and hire 200+ employees to run our club. But I don't see one candidate pressing this just getting themselves on the BOD and then something magical is supposed to happen.

ecwinch · Aug 25, 2009

PerryM said:
The salesreps would not stand for this - Wyndham is a sales oriented company (what company isn't).

Better to just start a co-op and do it ourselves.

Really the WM owners stand a better chance of success building a co-op that would be built correctly. That co-op is easy to design - I've already designed it and made it public.

Just read the website and it sounds like the typical Wyndham conspiracy website - old news.

As I've posted many times THE core problem with WM is that WM does not have 1 (one, uno) employee - think of that, a real estate organization with 5,000+ condos worth $1+ Billion and not 1 employee works there.

WM collects about $200 M each year that it then hands over to Wyndham to run everything - until we decide that we need our own CEO and employees we are whistling in the wind...

Replacing 1 WM BOD for conspiracy reasons is the reason this endeavor has failed for 5 years or so now. WM candidates needs to stop looking for black helicopters and start educating the WM owners that we need to have our own CEO and employees instead of paying a contractor to do the same for themselves.

The focus must change from getting 1 (one) WM owner replaced with another WM owner and hire 200+ employees to run our club. But I don't see one candidate pressing this just getting themselves on the BOD and then something magical is supposed to happen.

Why not just hire a full-time employee and keep the current sub-contractor relationship. Or even just one employee to manage and monitor contract compliance. That person could even be a contractor.

PerryM · Aug 25, 2009

ecwinch said:
Why not just hire a full-time employee and keep the current sub-contractor relationship. Or even just one employee to manage and monitor contract compliance. That person could even be a contractor.

It's not that we don't get the money each year, we take in about $200 M in MFs each year to run WM.

WM then turns that $200 M over to Wyndham and folks whine and moan about Wyndham - this is insanity.

But for some reason folks love this arrangement - the collecting $200 M, turning it over to Wyndham, then sniveling about Wyndham.

I've given up trying to convince anyone that this is bass ackwards - I've come to the conclusion that this drama is just a side benefit of being a WM owner and that nothing will ever get done.

In 3+ years of making this forecast I've been proven correct each year - will this be year #4? I think so - Wyndham will win all WM BOD seats again.

ecwinch · Aug 25, 2009

PerryM said:
It's not that we don't get the money each year, we take in about $200 M in MFs each year to run WM.

WM then turns that $200 M over to Wyndham and folks whine and moan about Wyndham - this is insanity.

But for some reason folks love this arrangement - the collecting $200 M, turning it over to Wyndham, then sniveling about Wyndham.

I've given up trying to convince anyone that this is bass ackwards - I've come to the conclusion that this drama is just a side benefit of being a WM owner and that nothing will ever get done.

In 3+ years of making this forecast I've been proven correct each year - will this be year #4? I think so - Wyndham will win all WM BOD seats again.

You make me chuckle. I have yet to run across the person who "loves" that arrangement. I think it would be more appropriate to state that it represents the lesser of two evils. There is a distinction.

For there are many pitfalls to your suggestion, though it makes a great sound bite. The only advantage it would bring is an approximate 4% cost savings. For the additional headache and employer liability, I do not think that meets the cost/benefit analysis.

And the bulk of the complaints are in regard to the developer, and not the management function. That solution would do very little to address the developer concerns.

And obviously it represents a Catch-22. For it to be a possiblity, you have to have an independent board.

Rent_Share · Aug 25, 2009

PerryM said:
As I've posted many times THE core problem with WM is that WM does not have 1 (one, uno) employee - think of that, a real estate organization with 5,000+ condos worth $1+ Billion and not 1 employee works there.

WM collects about $200 M each year that it then hands over to Wyndham to run everything - until we decide that we need our own CEO and employees we are whistling in the wind...

Replacing 1 WM BOD for conspiracy reasons is the reason this endeavor has failed for 5 years or so now. WM candidates needs to stop looking for black helicopters and start educating the WM owners that we need to have our own CEO and employees instead of paying a contractor to do the same for themselves.

The focus must change from getting 1 (one) WM owner replaced with another WM owner and hire 200+ employees to run our club. But I don't see one candidate pressing this just getting themselves on the BOD and then something magical is supposed to happen.

How would you propose this change take place since the BOD of Worldmark the Club determines whether to hire or contract club management and choses to contract with the firm they draw their paycheck from (Wyndham)

To make matters worse they have craftly worded an amendment with the "privacy" buzzword in it making it virtually impossible to communicate any dissenting opinion. A couple of years ago they added a pet amendment which had the effect of canceling any previous proxies granted to an independent.

Please enlighten me

mtribe · Aug 25, 2009

Man you must have the powers of Nostradomus. Predicting that the BOD will win. Don't go out on a limb. Independents have increased their showing every year. They are still a ways off and in all likelyhood won't win this year but more and more owners are being educated and once they learn will likely stay independent.

How about this for a prediction. Gene Hensley will win re election and then retire before his term is up. This way Wyndham can appoint his replacement and then run as an incumbent. Gene has publicly stated that his just now ending term would be his last and that he was looking forward to retirement. He is tired of the friction from owners and that it did not used to be that way. Then all of a sudden he is running again. How interesting......

PerryM · Aug 25, 2009

ecwinch said:
You make me chuckle. I have yet to run across the person who "loves" that arrangement. I think it would be more appropriate to state that it represents the lesser of two evils. There is a distinction.

For there are many pitfalls to your suggestion, though it makes a great sound bite. The only advantage it would bring is an approximate 4% cost savings. For the additional headache and employer liability, I do not think that meets the cost/benefit analysis.

And the bulk of the complaints are in regard to the developer, and not the management function. That solution would do very little to address the developer concerns.

And obviously it represents a Catch-22. For it to be a possiblity, you have to have an independent board.

The problem that apparently will never be solved is the fact that WM outgrew the HOA model 20 years ago. The HOA, run by owners on a part time basis, is fine for a single timeshare resort or condo - the HOA runs everything and meeting once every 6 months is just fine.

WM needs about 200 folks to run 5,000+ condos spread around the world. We pay for those 200 folks now but they have no allegiance to WM but to Wyndham the company that writes their checks.

WM will get nowhere until it signs their paychecks - that's how the world works folks.

Rent_Share said:
How would you propose this change take place since the BOD of Worldmark the Club determines whether to hire or contract club management and choses to contract with the firm they draw their paycheck from (Wyndham)

To make matters worse they have craftly worded an amendment with the "privacy" buzzword in it making it virtually impossible to communicate any dissenting opinion. A couple of years ago they added a pet amendment which had the effect of canceling any previous proxies granted to an independent.

Please enlighten me

I don't see anything EVER changing with WM - the systemic problems are so deep that they will never be fixed in reality. Replacing even all 5 BOD members will mean little - I can't convince anyone that WM needs employees who are loyal to us versus a contractor who is loyal to their stockholders.

That's why I'm not upset with what Wyndham does to the operations of WM - there is no alternative that the owners will agree to.

Just go on vacation folks or sell your WM credits and do something else with the money. But fighting them is a total waste of time - the outcome will be no different.

P.S.

Here is my description of a Destination Club, the natural successor to timeshares, that can be implemented by members and works 100 times better than WM - if you guys really want something different then do it for yourselves.

But expect no change, whatsoever, from Wyndham no matter who gets on that WM BOD. The focus should NOT be on replacing 1 of 5 part time advisers but of replacing Wyndham employees with WM employees.

I've done all the leg work for you guys - I don't sit around squawking, I find solutions.

In my definition of a Destination Club you will see the many components missing from WM's founding documents and realize that WM is stuck where it is and will never evolve.

PerryM · Aug 26, 2009

mtribe said:
Man you must have the powers of Nostradomus. Predicting that the BOD will win. Don't go out on a limb. Independents have increased their showing every year. They are still a ways off and in all likelyhood won't win this year but more and more owners are being educated and once they learn will likely stay independent.

How about this for a prediction. Gene Hensley will win re election and then retire before his term is up. This way Wyndham can appoint his replacement and then run as an incumbent. Gene has publicly stated that his just now ending term would be his last and that he was looking forward to retirement. He is tired of the friction from owners and that it did not used to be that way. Then all of a sudden he is running again. How interesting......

Control over the WM BOD is THE most critical item Wyndham has when it runs WM (yes it runs WM). They will do ANYTHING to keep control - we have only seen but a trick or two - wait until they really feel threatened and you will see lawyers and investigators digging into the past of the person challenging them. Oh you won't ever see it in the daylight but it will be done.

Replacing 1 of the 5 WM BOD members is just a quirky thing we owners are up to but to Wyndham its a grave matter.

To suggest that we are close to winning a position ignores just how desperate Wyndham will get if it truly feels it is being threatened by a bunch of amateurs wanting to run their company through the WM BOD.

Count on it - we are not even close to scaring them this year or next year. Most of the WM owners are just scared bringing home a steady paycheck for them to be concerned with a mundane matter of who's running for the WM BOD.

mtribe · Aug 26, 2009

I will not argue with you on this, Wyndham will do anything in their power to prevent losing control. I do not argue that we are close to winning this year, I would be shocked if we did but that is no reason not to try.

However I think they are more scared than you might think. They can see unfettered control slipping through their fingers. If the proposed By-law fails and the appeal is upheld owners will be able to communicate for the first time in the history of the club. What will happen with an informed owners base is anyones guess.

And the "amatures do not want to "run their company" (wyndmah) they want to oversee the impact of their company (wyndham) on worldmark the club (a seperate legal organization). It may make it more difficult for them to run their own company and may create more work for them but we will not be running their company nor do we have any business in doing so.

WorldMark - Relative Use Value

Cathyb

Tug Review Crew: Rookie

ecwinch

Cathyb

Tug Review Crew: Rookie

mtribe

PerryM

ecwinch

PerryM

ecwinch

PerryM

ecwinch

cotraveller

mtribe

PerryM

ecwinch

mtribe

ecwinch

PerryM

ecwinch

PerryM

ecwinch

Rent_Share

mtribe

PerryM

PerryM

mtribe