# Massive RCI rental dumping on Cayman Islands



## Carolinian (Jul 4, 2007)

Some of RCI's self-appointed defenders like to contend that all RCI dumps in its rental program is ''dog'' weeks.  I would suggest that anyone concerned about the damage RCI's cheap rental program does to timesharing should consult a thread on the TUG Caribbean board where it is being reported that there are a lot of Morritts weeks on Grand Cayman being offered for rent over a three month period on at least two RCI rental sites at rates that work out to about $50 a night.

I hope that someone has reported this RCI rental dumping to the class action attorneys.


----------



## timeos2 (Jul 4, 2007)

*They can rent what they don't have*

Not that I think any rentals, especially by RCI, below annual fees are good, but someone had to put all those weeks into the RCI system if they have them to rent!  Thus the "supply and demand" that weeks people love to say controls it all would come into play. Too many weeks means the value is lower. The beloved secret valuation system must have declared them surplus and boom - cheap rentals!  The weeks system once again creates a nightmare for owners.  Who was silly enough to put those in if they are so valuable?


----------



## PerryM (Jul 4, 2007)

*Stupid is as stupid does...*



Carolinian said:


> Some of RCI's self-appointed defenders like to contend that all RCI dumps in its rental program is ''dog'' weeks.  I would suggest that anyone concerned about the damage RCI's cheap rental program does to timesharing should consult a thread on the TUG Caribbean board where it is being reported that there are a lot of Morritts weeks on Grand Cayman being offered for rent over a three month period on at least two RCI rental sites at rates that work out to about $50 a night.
> 
> I hope that someone has reported this RCI rental dumping to the class action attorneys.



This is great news - to those vacationers who now can visit beautiful locations and timeshares for just a few bucks.

I'm assuming that RCI did the research and decided to price the units correctly - cheap.  We can guess to their motives, desire to corner the cheap timeshare rental market, or pricing the units to move them quickly -  doesn't matter - take RCI up on their fire sale prices.

I'm sure the class action lawyers will see sinister motives behind all of this - I just see a stupid company.  I can't wait for the verdict of the class action lawsuit "Stupid as charged".


----------



## wbtimesharer (Jul 5, 2007)

PerryM said:


> This is great news - to those vacationers who now can visit beautiful locations and timeshares for just a few bucks.
> 
> I'm assuming that RCI did the research and decided to price the units correctly - cheap.  We can guess to their motives, desire to corner the cheap timeshare rental market, or pricing the units to move them quickly -  doesn't matter - take RCI up on their fire sale prices.
> 
> I'm sure the class action lawyers will see sinister motives behind all of this - I just see a stupid company.  I can't wait for the verdict of the class action lawsuit "Stupid as charged".



Great more greedy lawyers getting rich while the people get "porked" by the attorneys and the defendents.  I think everyone should just sue everyone and we can officially shut this country down.


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 5, 2007)

timeos2 said:


> Not that I think any rentals, especially by RCI, below annual fees are good, but someone had to put all those weeks into the RCI system if they have them to rent!  Thus the "supply and demand" that weeks people love to say controls it all would come into play. Too many weeks means the value is lower. The beloved secret valuation system must have declared them surplus and boom - cheap rentals!  The weeks system once again creates a nightmare for owners.  Who was silly enough to put those in if they are so valuable?



If the trade value was really that low, they should have been given as *exchanges* to pink, white, and blue owners seeking a Caribbean week, not rented out to the general public below maintenance fees.  The Weeks system did not declare them surplus.  Selfserving RCI did and looted them for rental.  RCI can rig the system to declare anything it wants as surplus, and that conflict of interest is why exchange company rentals of exchange deposits should be prohibited by law.

But what about your argument that warm weather locations like these have yearround demand?  Are you now changing that?  And, of course, the Caribbean has a better supply/demand curve than Florida.  When will we see similar dumping in Florida and what will your position be on that, I wonder?


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 5, 2007)

PerryM said:


> This is great news - to those vacationers who now can visit beautiful locations and timeshares for just a few bucks.QUOTE]
> 
> . . . but it is not great news to owners at Morritts who rent out their own week, which at least one Tugger in that position has noted in the thread on the Caribbean board.
> 
> Nor is it good news to owners at Morritts.  If this continues, these cheap rentals will be more appealing than owning, leading to bailouts, leading to even higher m/f's, leading to more bailouts, on so on.


----------



## PerryM (Jul 5, 2007)

Carolinian said:


> PerryM said:
> 
> 
> > This is great news - to those vacationers who now can visit beautiful locations and timeshares for just a few bucks.QUOTE]
> ...


----------



## Timeshare Von (Jul 5, 2007)

I've been told that sometimes the resorts will dump a big block of timeshare units into "the market" so as to fill heads in beds, and bring in big fish for the TS sales presentations.  I don't know anything about Morritts so that may or may not be the case with them.  It is probably a pretty cost effective method of marketing to "fresh meat" especially if the accommodations end up in rental inventory on RCI, Hotels.com or some other rental booking company. I would guess that that would send RCI inventory levels on tilt, they would offload to other outlets available to them . . . especially if the weeks are from the developer/resort and not acquired through RCI spacebank deposits.

I don't know how we will ever really find out or "know" how inventory goes into RCI and how it comes out . . . to follow weeks deposited and subsequently taken out presumably via an exchange but admittedly, perhaps by rental.

If I were an owner there, having my rental possibilities adversely affected by such practices, I would complain to the resort.  Bottom line, however, is that they will do whatever they must to keep their financial interests protected and not those of the owners.


----------



## johnmfaeth (Jul 5, 2007)

The units are spacebanked by the resort. Most are hurricane season projected excess capacity.

It still stinks badly that RCI rents these to third party brokers rather than have them in the exchange "pool".

PS to Perry, 

It's Morritt's, not Marriotts...


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 5, 2007)

The theory that those who rent cheap are good prospects for sales just don't make sense.  The cheap rentals have the effect of cheapening the product they are trying to sell, making it less attractive.  I know of several people who had had an interest in buying a resale to get into timeshare exchanging, then discovered RCI's cheap rental outlets, and afterward had zero interest in buying even cheap resales.  One friend of mine in that category did thereafter enjoy going on timeshare presentations, getting the gift, and informing the salesman of the low price they had rented for and laughing at them.  That is not a way to make a developer sale!




Timeshare Von said:


> I've been told that sometimes the resorts will dump a big block of timeshare units into "the market" so as to fill heads in beds, and bring in big fish for the TS sales presentations.  I don't know anything about Morritts so that may or may not be the case with them.  It is probably a pretty cost effective method of marketing to "fresh meat" especially if the accommodations end up in rental inventory on RCI, Hotels.com or some other rental booking company. I would guess that that would send RCI inventory levels on tilt, they would offload to other outlets available to them . . . especially if the weeks are from the developer/resort and not acquired through RCI spacebank deposits.
> 
> I don't know how we will ever really find out or "know" how inventory goes into RCI and how it comes out . . . to follow weeks deposited and subsequently taken out presumably via an exchange but admittedly, perhaps by rental.
> 
> If I were an owner there, having my rental possibilities adversely affected by such practices, I would complain to the resort.  Bottom line, however, is that they will do whatever they must to keep their financial interests protected and not those of the owners.


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 5, 2007)

johnmfaeth said:


> The units are spacebanked by the resort. Most are hurricane season projected excess capacity.
> 
> It still stinks badly that RCI rents these to third party brokers rather than have them in the exchange "pool".
> 
> ...



From the other thread, the period of these weeks is partly at the tail end of the hurricane season but mostly AFTER hurricane season.


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 5, 2007)

timeos2 said:


> Not that I think any rentals, especially by RCI, below annual fees are good, but someone had to put all those weeks into the RCI system if they have them to rent!  Thus the "supply and demand" that weeks people love to say controls it all would come into play. Too many weeks means the value is lower. The beloved secret valuation system must have declared them surplus and boom - cheap rentals!  The weeks system once again creates a nightmare for owners.  Who was silly enough to put those in if they are so valuable?



I believe that you have indicated elsewhere that you checked and found no availibility in either Weeks or Points for the time period that all of these cheap rentals are availible.  The question remains as to why they were not made availible as exchanges to RCI's dues paying members instead of rented at bargain basement prices to the general public.  If there is nothing there in the spacebank for exchangers, then they certainly could not legitimately be called ''excess''.

A Morritts owner has also indicated that Morritts has been bulkbanking to make up for weeks put up while the resort was down from hurricane damage, so these deposits would appear to be exchange related.


----------



## PerryM (Jul 5, 2007)

johnmfaeth said:


> The units are spacebanked by the resort. Most are hurricane season projected excess capacity.
> 
> It still stinks badly that RCI rents these to third party brokers rather than have them in the exchange "pool".
> 
> ...



Thanks, I apologize - too many things going on here on the 4th.  

Still, substitute Morritts for Marriotts and I stand by my words.

Why is it that the lawyers seem to know how to run the companies better than the management.  In this case the class action lawyers are saying exactly that - RCI is not running their company the way we would like it run.

I always chuckle when I see the crazy lawsuits out there - I think the judge is still suing his dry cleaner $65 M for misplacing his pants for 2 weeks.  This is the kind of crazy thinking that is now running our courts.


----------



## Jya-Ning (Jul 5, 2007)

Carolinian said:


> A Morritts owner has also indicated that Morritts has been bulkbanking to make up for weeks put up while the resort was down from hurricane damage, so these deposits would appear to be exchange related.



Let us say this is true.  That means, at one point, RCI pulled their rental inventory to help Morritts and its owners (I don't believe I read that the other HOA put extra space bank to help Morritts, and I am pretty sure RCI can not pull my deposit or ay tugger's deposit to help these owner).  Now, come back the the space bank.  Should it go back to RCI rent inventory?  Or should it go back to exchange?  Then there is always valuation problem.  RCI could give owner week of no or less value from our point of view, now when resort deposit, RCI ask to get better value from our point of view since it "helps" the resort, and put to rent.  Since RCI put the rent price low, so does it mean RCI value them low also?  It is in fact low value to RCI.

Jya-Ning


----------



## johnmfaeth (Jul 5, 2007)

PerryM said:


> Thanks, I apologize - too many things going on here on the 4th.
> 
> Still, substitute Morritts for Marriotts and I stand by my words.
> 
> ...



The Washington DC judge lost his case. Some sanity prevails. Plus he was only an administrative judge. Administrative judges hamdle cases such as traffic tickets and fines for not cleaning the sidewalk in from of your storefront.

I wonder if Morritts knew that RCI would spin these spacebanks off as cheap rentals. 

Carolinian is correct that a number are in November/December after the hurricane season. My point was at least they were not renting the super demand winter weeks.


----------



## ffxjack (Jul 5, 2007)

PerryM said:


> I always chuckle when I see the crazy lawsuits out there - I think the judge is still suing his dry cleaner $65 M for misplacing his pants for 2 weeks.  This is the kind of crazy thinking that is now running our courts.



I agree w/you about the frivolous lawsuits.  The judge ruled against the plaintiff (who, believe or not, is himself a judge) and ordered that he pay the court costs for the cleaners.  Most likely, he'll appeal this decision.  So the cleaners won the decision, don't have to pay millions for one misplaced pair of pants, and now have to figure out how to over $100,000 in legal costs.  Gotta love the justice system in this country!

Class action lawsuits really benefit the lawyers involved, IMHO.  Even if RCI loses a class action lawsuit, they'll probably pay some fines (most of which go to the lawyers) which are overall insignificant given the scale of their revenues and probably be forced to change some of their practices.  Meanwhile, RCI members have been unable to get their trades for sometime while RCI rents them away...


----------



## PerryM (Jul 5, 2007)

ffxjack said:


> I agree w/you about the frivolous lawsuits.  The judge ruled against the plaintiff (who, believe or not, is himself a judge) and ordered that he pay the court costs for the cleaners.  Most likely, he'll appeal this decision.  So the cleaners won the decision, don't have to pay millions for one misplaced pair of pants, and now have to figure out how to over $100,000 in legal costs.  Gotta love the justice system in this country!
> 
> Class action lawsuits really benefit the lawyers involved, IMHO.  Even if RCI loses a class action lawsuit, they'll probably pay some fines (most of which go to the lawyers) which are overall insignificant given the scale of their revenues and probably be forced to change some of their practices.  Meanwhile, RCI members have been unable to get their trades for sometime while RCI rents them away...




Well its good to hear that even our courts can be shamed into reality - will this open the flood gates for all kinds of nutty matters - that gate is already open.

RCI will never have to pay one penny to either settle these cases or fight it and lose - the members of RCI will be the ones to pay for all the new BMWs and summer homes the lawyers get out of this - we all know it.  We RCI members will get some worthless coupon on the next exchange.

If someone doesn't like RCI there are plenty of alternatives - that's what RCI will say and it's true.  To the jury it's squabbling among rich folks who own timeshares - they are more interested in what's on the lunch menu.


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 5, 2007)

There is not a scintilla of evidence that RCI ever pulled rental inventory to help the developer.  From the way RCI operates, anything they pulled would certainly be exchange deposits of someone.




Jya-Ning said:


> Let us say this is true.  That means, at one point, RCI pulled their rental inventory to help Morritts and its owners (I don't believe I read that the other HOA put extra space bank to help Morritts, and I am pretty sure RCI can not pull my deposit or ay tugger's deposit to help these owner).  Now, come back the the space bank.  Should it go back to RCI rent inventory?  Or should it go back to exchange?  Then there is always valuation problem.  RCI could give owner week of no or less value from our point of view, now when resort deposit, RCI ask to get better value from our point of view since it "helps" the resort, and put to rent.  Since RCI put the rent price low, so does it mean RCI value them low also?  It is in fact low value to RCI.
> 
> Jya-Ning


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 5, 2007)

The issue in such cases is whether they are running their companies in violation of consumer protection laws to cheat the consumer.  A company has a conflict of interest in making that determination, so is has to go to a court or some other neutral entity, such as arbitration.



PerryM said:


> Thanks, I apologize - too many things going on here on the 4th.
> 
> Still, substitute Morritts for Marriotts and I stand by my words.
> 
> ...


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 5, 2007)

PerryM said:


> RCI will never have to pay one penny to either settle these cases or fight it and lose - the members of RCI will be the ones to pay for all the new BMWs and summer homes the lawyers get out of this - we all know it.  We RCI members will get some worthless coupon on the next exchange.



You miss the point of class action lawsuits.  It is rarely about cash compensation to the plaintiff class.  It is about injunctive relief to stop some wrongful practice.  In the RCI class action, the key is injunctive relief to bring their practice of renting out our spacebank deposits to the general public to a screaching halt.  It doesn't matter if we all get 3 cents for damages for past rentals.  It matters that we get injunctive relief to halt the rentals in the future.  At least one of the lead plaintiffs is a dedicated timesharer who is in this thing for meaningful relief, and that is the best guarantee that any settlement will include meaningful injunctive relief.


----------



## PerryM (Jul 5, 2007)

Carolinian said:


> You miss the point of class action lawsuits.  It is rarely about cash compensation to the plaintiff class.  It is about injunctive relief to stop some wrongful practice.  In the RCI class action, the key is injunctive relief to bring their practice of renting out our spacebank deposits to the general public to a screaching halt.  It doesn't matter if we all get 3 cents for damages for past rentals.  It matters that we get injunctive relief to halt the rentals in the future.  At least one of the lead plaintiffs is a dedicated timesharer who is in this thing for meaningful relief, and that is the best guarantee that any settlement will include meaningful injunctive relief.




We have been involved with 10 or so class action suites over the years - they all resulted in some gobbley gook to the company and a coupon to us for basically a bag of peanuts.  I don't expect any RCI case to be any different.  RCI will easily change the rules again and more suites will spring up - there is just too much money in it for the lawyers involved.


----------



## Jya-Ning (Jul 5, 2007)

Carolinian said:


> There is not a scintilla of evidence that RCI ever pulled rental inventory to help the developer.  From the way RCI operates, anything they pulled would certainly be exchange deposits of someone.



Have you try to do exchange with their EV inventories?

Of course, you may find they do swap everyday, I believe that is the claim, they get the best deposit week and left with dog week.  

By the way, the deposit from me will need a equivently week back unless it is a RCI point deposit.  The week from HOA will demand the same.  The week from developers maybe loosely controlled since it usually get back some much less value AC.  Yes, you can claim they use the 15% of unused exchange week and overbook the whole exchange.  It will be very hard to prove though.

Jya-Ning


----------



## lawren2 (Jul 5, 2007)

_I will share my thoughts on this rental scenario here as I did on the original thread as it is pertinent to both.
I don't like double posting but did not see a way to hyperlink my post. My apologies to the moderators here at TUG._

 I will post some simple observations.

Morritts does indeed bulkbank. Usually but not always <we had a surprise for 2009 a little while ago> they will deposit an entire year of units approximately 16 months prior to January. As an example I booked my March 2008 in October 2006:

Exhibit A from my RCI Confirmation

MORRITT'S GRAND RESORT 
P.O. Box 496 GT 
345/947-7449 

Confirmation Information 
Transaction Date: 10/03/2006 
Check-In: 03/16/2008 04:00 PM 
Unit #: 2BEDROOM 
Maximum Occupancy: 6 
Private Occupancy: 6 
Unit Size: 2 
Kitchen: Full 

and yes the above is for Grand but both Tortuga and Grand tend to show up around the same time give or take 30 to 45 days. I could get exact dates if called to do so.

The current weeks that are renting so cheap on Redweek and at other outlets are 2007. Those weeks were deposited sometime in late 2005 as the Jan thru July weeks were reported on Aug 1, 2005.

Exhibit B
http://www.timeshareforums.com/forum...ly-2007-a.html

How they come about as cheap rentals at this time is a mystery to me BUT Morritts has already deposited the prime 2009 weeks in Bulk.

There have also been tons of ebay sales for Tortuga units that came with 2007 usage and maintenance fees. This may be a seller of those units looking to make some money/ any money on this liability.

Just thought I'd bring up the discrepency. I am no friend of RCI. In any case it is just my observation and opinion, take it for what it is worth.


----------



## timeos2 (Jul 5, 2007)

Carolinian said:


> There is not a scintilla of evidence that RCI ever pulled rental inventory to help the developer.  From the way RCI operates, anything they pulled would certainly be exchange deposits of someone.



But there is also no real evidence that it is exchange inventory or that they didn't, as Jya-Ning suggested, cover the Morritts owners with rental inventory in the past. The whole process is secret so it's up to the auditors to say are things OK or not. So far at the end of each year they say they are so thats all we have to go on.


----------



## "Roger" (Jul 5, 2007)

Carolinian said:


> There is not a scintilla of evidence that RCI ever pulled rental inventory to help the developer.  From the way RCI operates, anything they pulled would certainly be exchange deposits of someone.


???

About two or three years ago, you yourself posted a note to developers (or perhaps it was an ad in a newsletter sent to developers) that you somehow intercepted that was soliciting inventory to rent.


----------



## timeos2 (Jul 5, 2007)

PerryM said:


> We have been involved with 10 or so class action suites over the years - they all resulted in some gobbley gook to the company and a coupon to us for basically a bag of peanuts.  I don't expect any RCI case to be any different.  RCI will easily change the rules again and more suites will spring up - there is just too much money in it for the lawyers involved.



The best example has been and will likely remain the "fundamental changes" that Microsoft agreed to as part of their class action & government settlement. The competitors they hurt where already gone or bought out, the products they buried with unlawful actions where history too and, in the end, they changed nothing that a consumer could notice. But the lawyers got paid. RCI woud be as bad or worse and, just like Microsoft, nothing would change.  To think otherwise is ignoring a long and consistent history of this type of lawsuit.  You will pay, lawyers get rich(er) and nothing changes  that would be a positive impact on your timeshare ownership.


----------



## Timeshare Von (Jul 5, 2007)

Carolinian said:


> The theory that those who rent cheap are good prospects for sales just don't make sense.



May not make sense, but I believe it to be happening based on what I've been told by industry people.  Cheap rent, in and of itself, would seem to be counter productive to creating sales leads, but somehow they make it work.

I know of one major national TS company that will not even market to you unless you are staying in their resort either through a marketplace rental . . . or via an exchange.  They do not spend a dime on kiosks or storefront marketing efforts in Orlando.  Maybe that will change but that has been their marketing MO for at least the last year.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Jul 5, 2007)

Carolinian said:


> There is not a scintilla of evidence that RCI ever pulled rental inventory to help the developer.  From the way RCI operates, anything they pulled would certainly be exchange deposits of someone.



And is there a scintilla of evidence that RCI has never pulled rental inventory to help the developer?

***

And I propose that in fact there is evidence that RCI has pulled rental inventory to help a developer.  Namely, when large numbers of rentals are offered at resorts that have been open for only a few months (for the next six months you can rent any size unit and any check-in day) I think it's hard to assume those were deposits made by individuals hoping to receive and exchange.


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 5, 2007)

PerryM said:


> We have been involved with 10 or so class action suites over the years - they all resulted in some gobbley gook to the company and a coupon to us for basically a bag of peanuts.  I don't expect any RCI case to be any different.  RCI will easily change the rules again and more suites will spring up - there is just too much money in it for the lawyers involved.



One of the keys is whether the lead plaintiff in a class action is someone the class action attorneys can manipulate to agree to a deal that pays the lawyers and has injunctive relief that is only a minor inconvenience to the company.  I don't think that will happen with this class action, because I am aware that one of the lead plaintiffs is quite strong willed and in this thing to bring about real reform.  I just don't think he will sign off on any insider deal that doesn't bring real reform to RCI's practices.

I have always prefered that the issues be addressed by a consumer protection lawsuit by a state Attorney General, rather than as a class action.
The advantages:
1) The AG doesn't benefit personally from any cash, so there is no temptation to sell out.
2) The AG can bring the action under his own state's consumer protection law in his own state's courts and not have to go to New Jersey.
3) The AG has an array of useful pre-litigation tools not availible to private counsel in a class action.  Aggressive use of subpoenas and depostions before trial may achieve a solid settlement without ever having to file a lawsuit.
4) The AG will benefit politically by nailing the hide of a big out of state corporation to the wall for cheating local citizens, a good motivation to go for the jugular and go for real reform.  After all, some say that AG really stands for ''Aspiring Governor''.


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 5, 2007)

I find it interesting that some in this thread seem to have a lot more concern about poor lil' RCI being savaged by that big bad class action lawsuit than they do about RCI dumping Caribbean spacebank weeks as cheap rentals to the general public rather than making them availible for exchange for dues paying RCI members. 

If you want to discuss the lawsuit, lets break that off to another thread, and get back to the original issue, RCI's dumping of this Caribbean inventory.


----------



## timeos2 (Jul 5, 2007)

*So what do they do?*



Carolinian said:


> If you want to discuss the lawsuit, lets break that off to another thread, and get back to the original issue, RCI's dumping of this Caribbean inventory.



Fair enough. If I were an owner in that area - especially at Morritts - I would want to know how this could happen and where the inventory came from. How would an owner accomplish that?  What rights do they have to challenge RCI and/or the management at Morritts? Who answers for this?


----------



## PerryM (Jul 5, 2007)

Carolinian said:


> I find it interesting that some in this thread seem to have a lot more concern about poor lil' RCI being savaged by that big bad class action lawsuit than they do about RCI dumping Caribbean spacebank weeks as cheap rentals to the general public rather than making them availible for exchange for dues paying RCI members.
> 
> If you want to discuss the lawsuit, lets break that off to another thread, and *get back to the original issue, RCI's dumping of this Caribbean inventory*.



Dump away


----------



## Timeshare Von (Jul 5, 2007)

Carolinian said:


> . . . and get back to the original issue, RCI's dumping of this Caribbean inventory.



Do we know factually (as in with a papertrail) that the rental inventory seen is from spacebanked weeks from RCI members, thereby adversely impacting the membership's ability to trade for these weeks in question?  Or are we speculating a conspiracy theory that "of course they came from RCI's spacebanked inventory and the evil bastards offloaded them for rentals with other affiliated companies or subsidiaries?"

I'm not trying to defend RCI or appearance of this large rental block on Redweeks . . . I'm just trying to figure out what is fact and what has been assumed and speculated about.


----------



## lawren2 (Jul 5, 2007)

Carolinian said:


> I find it interesting that some in this thread seem to have a lot more concern about poor lil' RCI being savaged by that big bad class action lawsuit than they do about RCI dumping Caribbean spacebank weeks as cheap rentals to the general public rather than making them availible for exchange for dues paying RCI members.
> 
> If you want to discuss the lawsuit, lets break that off to another thread, and get back to the original issue, *RCI's dumping of this Caribbean inventory*.



OK I put my "facts" on the table. Will no one refute that these are 2007 weeks that were available to RCI members in 2005?

Or are you all so focused on the first thought that grabbed your imagination?


----------

