# attention Riverview owners - the plot thickens



## Laurie (Aug 1, 2010)

Having just read my newsletter from Riverview, I just posted this info to the Club of Cape Cod thread. (So this is duplicate info - mods feel free to delete, move, combine, whatever if you have to - but I wanted to bring attention to Riverview owners):

Vacation Internationale aka VI is also withdrawing from Riverview, VI owns 37% of Riverview and is its largest owner.  

The letter from the Board of Trustees says:

"Both VI and we believe that Riverview is not financially viable without assessment from VI's 735 intervals. But VI is firm in its resolve to terminate its interest in Riverview, even if it means calling for a vote of all Riverview owners to sell Riverview and distribute proceeds, if any, among all Riverview owners." 

Then, more about how there will be a vote called by VIt, Riverview may have to close, and how owners would still have to pay pro-rata share of expenses. 

It goes on to discuss situation at Club of Cape Cod.  So boards of Riverview, CCC and VRI are working together to accomplish this ownership swap.

I'm still reading this letter, trying to fiure out what it all means. Obviously they're hoping the CCC owners become Riverview owners. 

Annual Meeting Sept 11. We can't go. A proxy ballot is enclosed.


----------



## jlwquilter (Aug 1, 2010)

I own at other Cape Cod resorts so have a general interest in what is going on at the Cape.

What I hear you saying the newsletter says is: CCC is going under, come swap over to Riverview ownership, which by the way, is ALSO probably going under (VRI wants out)?? Why would anyone do that??


----------



## Mel (Aug 1, 2010)

Because if the CCC owners agree to trade ownership into Riverview, then VI would no longer hold such a large stake in Riverview.  This could be a good thing, if Riverview can identify a group of concerned owner to be on the HOA board.  It sounds like they need a Special Assessment to bring the resort back into shape, and VI doesn't want to sink money into it - but if CCC owners are willing to trade, this might be a viable option.  Particularly if VI is no longer involved, so the owners know the money is being spent in their own best interest.

To those at Riverview, another option is to convince VI to release their interest to the HOA, and then negotiate with another developer to take over that inventory, in exchange for funding any necessary improvements.  If you consider this option, it is possible to rewrite the condo docs to the effect that the developer will not have controlling interest, and can be limited in the number of seats on the HOA board.  This was done at Tropical Breeze Resort several years ago, when we "sold" our HOA inventory to Coopershare, which is now Escapes! Resorts.


----------



## timeos2 (Aug 1, 2010)

Mel said:


> Because if the CCC owners agree to trade ownership into Riverview, then VI would no longer hold such a large stake in Riverview.  This could be a good thing, if Riverview can identify a group of concerned owner to be on the HOA board.  It sounds like they need a Special Assessment to bring the resort back into shape, and VI doesn't want to sink money into it - but if CCC owners are willing to trade, this might be a viable option.  Particularly if VI is no longer involved, so the owners know the money is being spent in their own best interest..



Riverview already had their SA and did the work needed to regain RCI ranking so I don't think they feel another special assessment will be needed if the plan goes through.  It is CCC that is facing another big SA if they try to continue operation.


----------



## e.bram (Aug 1, 2010)

VI is probably stuck with off season weeks. What developer is going to take over and pay MFs for units you have to pay someone to(a la PC)to take.
Both TSes should be liquidated for whole ownership where the units are valuable.


----------



## Laurie (Aug 1, 2010)

jlwquilter said:


> What I hear you saying the newsletter says is: CCC is going under, come swap over to Riverview ownership, which by the way, is ALSO probably going under (VRI wants out)?? Why would anyone do that??


Well, they didn't say (and I don't infer) that Riverview is probably going under. What they did say is:

* Riverview needs the income from VI's 735 intervals. Actually the number 400 is in the letter, as the minimum number of CCC owners they need/want to convert to Riverview, in order to proceed with this plan.

* VI's call to liquidate: this would require 80% of the ownership to approve. 

* CCC currently needs renovations and repairs; CCC only has 55% members in good standing (I assume this is after VI withdraws); and CCC anticipates some other loss of income related to another vacation club aside from VI.

I do like owning my summer studio at Riverview, and hope it makes it thru this.  It would be helpful to know exactly which Riverview weeks are owned by VI.


----------



## timeos2 (Aug 1, 2010)

*VI and VRI are different organizations*



jlwquilter said:


> What I hear you saying the newsletter says is: CCC is going under, come swap over to Riverview ownership, which by the way, is ALSO probably going under (VRI wants out)?? Why would anyone do that??



Just to be clear:

VRI is NOT looking to get out - VI (Vacation Internationale - a club type trust system) is looking to sell/dispose of their weeks. VRI is the management for both Riverview and CCC.

Riverview is NOT in need of a special assessment nor is it facing bankruptcy / closure as CCC is. They are facing a vote to terminate the timeshare and a big hit on income if VI does sell/default on payments.  VI is a major owner (>10% of all weeks there). 

The plan is to combine the owner base of the two resorts at Riverview, which has already undergone major renovations/upgrades, to make one strong resort with an owner base not dependent on VI or any other single big owner of multiple weeks for a great amount of total income.


----------



## e.bram (Aug 2, 2010)

No matter what happens if either stay as a TS, most of the weeks will be LESS than worthless ie have a negative value that an owner will have to pay a PC to get out!!!
That is just the nature of seasonal TSes in this a economy, and the perception of off season weeks by the public, so I believe no turn around is possible. It is just the death spiral of off season TSes hastened by the present recession(depression).
However, I believe that these units have value to retirees as a low(relatively)cost residences near a major metro area(Boston/NYC).


----------



## jbercu (Aug 2, 2010)

*Just to be more clear:*



timeos2 said:


> Just to be clear:
> 
> VRI is NOT looking to get out - VI (Vacation Internationale - a club type trust system) is looking to sell/dispose of their weeks. VRI is the management for both Riverview and CCC.



VRI is the management for all three Riverview, CCC, and VI.


----------



## jbercu (Aug 2, 2010)

*VI at CCC?*



Laurie said:


> Vacation Internationale aka VI is also withdrawing from Riverview, VI owns 37% of Riverview and is its largest owner.
> 
> * CCC currently needs renovations and repairs; CCC only has 55% members in good standing (I assume this is after VI withdraws); and CCC anticipates some other loss of income related to another vacation club aside from VI.



Laurie:
Can you explain the connection between CCC and VI?  I do not think VI owns any units at CCC nor had any commitments at CCC to withdraw from.  Can you clarify your comments?
Thanks


----------



## jbercu (Aug 2, 2010)

*Who is the Patsy*

"If you've been playing poker for half an hour and you still don't know who the patsy is, you're the patsy." — Warren Buffett 

With that in mind, let’s examine the players:
CCC owners, Riverview owners, VI, VRI, Phantom CCC Buyer.

CCC Owners:  You were handed an ill advised refurbishment with a giant SA ultimatum that did not make sense given market conditions.  It looks like you rejected it and avoided being the patsy.  Now, you get plan B, and you are still playing at the table.

Riverview owners:  You survived multiple SA’s to get a resort that is in a good location and has some value after being fixed up.  In the process you got rid of the owners that refused the SA and convinced VI to buy into the 37% of the resort that has no value – First floor units with parking lot view.  You treated your majority unit holder as second class citizen, giving them off-season and worst units, and made them pay their appropriate share of the SAs.  Good for you.  You played your cards very well up to now.

VI:   You paid through the nose to fix up the Riverview resort, only to end up with the worst units in the place.  VRI promised that you could sell RCI points against the worthless Riverview off season units, and the economy turned!  What were you thinking?  You are clearly the Patsy!

VRI:  You managed to put CCC owners in check.  They managed to escape Plan A, will the escape Plan B?  Meanwhile you collect good management fees while the CCC owners may lose their deeds.  
You did good by Riverview.  You must be on the Board.  But now, there are still Riverview survivors of the SAs.  You just put them in check while collecting good management fees even as the resort may close.  
You are on your way to destroying VI while collecting good management fees, and VI can’t make HOA dues anymore.  
You are clearly, the high chip holder and best player at the table to date.

Phantom CCC Buyer:  You in fact maybe VRI or very closely related to VRI.  If you are not VRI, you will share your profits with VRI.  VRI is delivering to you CCC on a silver platter.  

How should Riverview owners and CCC owners play their cards next?

Riverview Owners:  Call VI’s bluff.  With 37% ownership they will not get 80% of the vote to dissolve.  Go to a vote, and force VI out.  They can’t pay dues, foreclose.   Then, you can sell the foreclosed units to CCC or anyone else.
CCC owners:  you have the tough choice of Plan B, or you can wait for plan C.  One thing is clear.  There is a Phantom buyer!  Now, you know why plan A was presented the way it was presented. So you have better cards than you thought.  Do your due diligence on the swap.  VI owns 266 studio weeks, 272 one bedroom weeks, and 199 two bedroom weeks.  I do not have the seasonal breakdown.  You want the high season two bedroom units on the River side on the second floor.  You want a position on the Board, and you want to be first class owners.  Note that Riverview is a small resort where the management knows the Riverview owners by name.  This may make you second class.  Since you got burned once by VRI, you might want VRI and the current resort management gone.  You might turn this into a win-win with Riverview owners, since they are also being burned, and let Phantom and VRI take CCC and go away.

In the interest of full disclosure I am a VI owner – The Patsy

IMHO


----------



## timeos2 (Aug 2, 2010)

jbercu said:


> You want a position on the Board, and you want to be first class owners.



The plan calls for former CCC owners/Board members to be on the Riverside Board.


----------



## theo (Aug 2, 2010)

*Not even a remote possibility...*



jbercu said:


> Phantom CCC Buyer:  You in fact maybe VRI or very closely related to VRI.  If you are not VRI, you will share your profits with VRI.  VRI is delivering to you CCC on a silver platter.



Utter nonsense. I have no dog in this fight, but am nonetheless compelled to point out some  relevant facts to counter and squash this very strange theory. Specifically:

VRI is a management company (and in my opinion and personal experience as an owner at several VRI managed facilities over the past two decades, a very good one). VRI currently manages 126 facilities in the U.S. alone, but does *not* own a single week at *any* of them. VRI certainly does not need CCC *or* Riverview and will be unaffected in any meaningful way if either (or both) go right down the drain. Rest assured that VRI is *not* looking to own or profit from developing events at either or both of these sinking facilities.

As John has already pointed out, Vacation Internationale (aka VI) and Vacation Resorts International (aka VRI) are distinctly different entities, with absolutely *no* affiliation with or connection to one another.


----------



## e.bram (Aug 2, 2010)

Theo: Where do you get your information about what relations exist between the various parties either explicit,  hidden or conspiratorial?
I think jbercu(or whatever) hit thew nail on the head. Someone will profit from the demise of one or both of the TSes. And I think a hidden agenda is in play among the various parties in control.

ps. VI could act as a PC company to get either TS owners out and make some money doing it.


----------



## theo (Aug 2, 2010)

*Making a rare exception...*



e.bram said:


> Theo: Where do you get your information about what relations exist between the various parties either explicit,  hidden or conspiratorial?
> I think jbercu(or whatever) hit thew nail on the head. Someone will profit from the demise of one or both of the TSes. And I think a hidden agenda is in play among the various parties in control.
> 
> ps. VI could act as a PC company to get either TS owners out and make some money doing it.



While I generally don't find your TUG "contributions" to even be worthy of acknowledgement or response, I'll make a rare exception in this instance merely to point out that my sole reference to VI (a vacation "membership" club) was to state, categorically, that there is no (and that there has never been) *any* connection or relationship between VI and VRI. One entity (VI) is a vacation club which owns weeks at various facilities. The other (VRI) is a long established management company in an entirely different and unrelated business, which doesn't own (and which doesn't want to own) weeks anywhere. It's quite simply a comparison of "apples to oranges". 

What VI does or intends to do, or how / if they might benefit in the situation at hand was not in any way a part of my post. As far as my knowledge about "relationships", however, I have at least learned a lot about VRI over many years as an owner and BOD member at facilities which VRI manages. That experience includes learning about VRI origins, corporate organization, meeting with their management personnel and examining their finances in the course of due diligence as a BOD member. My primary point, repeated once again (...and for the last time), is that I know for an indisputable fact that VRI has *absolutely no* affilation with or connection to VI ---and never did. *Try* to think logically about this for just a brief moment --- neither entity could possibly benefit in any way from any relationship with the other. They are, quite simply, unrelated entities engaged in entirely different businesses with entirely different business models and objectives.

You (and jbercu) are certainly entitled to harbor and express your opinions and conspiracy theories. 
Whether you wish to take into account a few relevant, indisputable facts is entirely up to you.


----------



## Laurie (Aug 2, 2010)

jbercu said:


> Laurie:
> Can you explain the connection between CCC and VI?  I do not think VI owns any units at CCC nor had any commitments at CCC to withdraw from.  Can you clarify your comments?
> Thanks


I don't know of any relationship, and apparently there isn't one - sorry, I shouldn't have used the word "also" in my post. I posted before I'd quite figured out the details of the CCC situation - I knew nothing about that resort before these TUG posts.


----------



## e.bram (Aug 2, 2010)

Double double toil and trouble,fire burn and cauldron bubble   Me thinks Theo is part of the BOD/ management company cabal.


----------



## timeos2 (Aug 2, 2010)

*Two clubs - same issue*



Laurie said:


> I don't know of any relationship, and apparently there isn't one - sorry, I shouldn't have used the word "also" in my post. I posted before I'd quite figured out the details of the CCC situation - I knew nothing about that resort before these TUG posts.



The problem of a large owner of weeks looking to get out is the same at CCC as at Riverview. But the owner groups are different. At Riverview it is VI looking to get out of the weeks they hold in inventory and pay for but are not being utilized by the membership. 

At CCC it is a Mexican based group called the Royal Holiday Club that took on the annual fees for nearly 250 weeks at CCC.  Like VI at Riverview the RHC members haven't reserved that time thus making it a bad situation for the club and the resort.   VI does not own at CCC. 

As a general statement not specific to these resorts this is a problem owners/resorts need to be aware of anytime a single entity controls (and pays) for a large percentage of a project. A problem in that groups operation can have a sudden and extremely negative impact on all owners at the resort. And no group can be said to be immune as even the biggest and best (such as Marriott) can make bad or untimely decisions that leave them in an exposed situation.


----------



## jbercu (Aug 2, 2010)

Laurie said:


> I don't know of any relationship, and apparently there isn't one - sorry, I shouldn't have used the word "also" in my post. I posted before I'd quite figured out the details of the CCC situation - I knew nothing about that resort before these TUG posts.



Laurie:

Thanks for your response.  
Theo and I are after indisputable facts.  TUG is an excellent place to share the facts and paint a good picture for the owners.  I think this will keep us owners from being Patsy.

I think John may have been right about VRI involvement in CCC and Riverview only.  There may have been a divorce between VI and VRI.  I cannot find any record of this divorce, but I can no longer find any proof that VRI is managing the VI Club.  I don’t think Theo or John would dispute that there was a relationship between VI and VRI and that is how VI acquired units at Riverview, The Cove at Yarmouth, The Village at Loon Mountain, and Cypress Point.
As far as Theo’s comment “As John has already pointed out, Vacation Internationale (aka VI) and Vacation Resorts International (aka VRI) are distinctly different entities, with absolutely no affiliation with or connection to one another.”, he is absolutely wrong.
Here is an excerpt from a PDF posted on the VI site for owners under “Public offering statement”
________________________
PUBLIC OFFERING STATEMENT FOR A STATE OF WASHINGTON TIMESHARE REGISTRATION
Name of Promoter: VRI Development & Sales, Inc.
Name of Timeshare Plan: Vacation Internationale Program
EACH PROSPECTIVE PURCHASER SHALL BE PROVIDED A PUBLIC OFFERING STATEMENT PRIOR TO THE EXECUTION OF ANY AGREEMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF A TIMESHARE
Purchasers who believe that conditions are not as stated in the Public Offering Statement are requested to
contact the Department of Licensing, Business and Professions Division, Timeshare Section, P.O.
Box 9015, Olympia, Washington 98507-9015.
NAME AND ADDRESS OF DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS
The Promoter of the Vacation Internationale Program is VRI Development & Sales dba VRI Development & Sales,
Inc. (“VDS”), a California corporation, whose mailing address is 1417 – 116th Avenue NE, Bellevue, WA 98004.
The directors and officers of VDS are as follows:
Director / President
Stuart C. Allen
1417 116th Avenue NE
Bellevue, WA 98004
Director / Vice President & Secretary
Michael A. Vasey
1417 116th Avenue NE
Bellevue, WA 98004
Chief Financial Officer
John Kehoe
1417 116th Avenue NE
Bellevue, WA 98004
--------------------------------------------------------
Stuart Allen is the President of  VRI Development & Sales, Inc. and also the General Manager of the VI Club.
If you send me a private message with you e-mail address, I can send you the full Public Offering document recorded with the state of Washington.
“VI and VRI absolutely no affiliation with or connection to one another” is Utter nonsense.


----------



## jlwquilter (Aug 2, 2010)

Laurie said:


> Well, they didn't say (and I don't infer) that Riverview is probably going under. What they did say is:
> 
> * Riverview needs the income from VI's 735 intervals. Actually the number 400 is in the letter, as the minimum number of CCC owners they need/want to convert to Riverview, in order to proceed with this plan.
> 
> ...



I'm sorry - I didn't mean to mis-interprete what you said. It gets confusing!

I am interested in watching what happens as I own at a Cape Cod resort in trouble and VRI was retained as a consultant (not as the hired management company - resort couldn't afford their mgt. fees) to come up with solutions. I can easily see what is playing out at these resorts soon being played out at mine.


----------



## timeos2 (Aug 2, 2010)

jbercu said:


> --------------------------------------------------------
> Stuart Allen is the President of  VRI Development & Sales, Inc. and also the General Manager of the VI Club.
> If you send me a private message with you e-mail address, I can send you the full Public Offering document recorded with the state of Washington.
> “VI and VRI absolutely no affiliation with or connection to one another” is Utter nonsense.



The organization that was VRI Development & Sales was shut down - or at least became inactive - when VRI partnered with InnSeason Resorts earlier this year (April I think). That group - InnSeason - now handles all sales that VRI used to be involved with. It is largely resales and disposal of foreclosures. There is little or no new development at this point. VRI is strictly an independent management company. 

As far as I know VRI remains the management side of VI.  Those are among the many players.


----------



## Laurie (Aug 2, 2010)

*Another misstatement*



Laurie said:


> Well, they didn't say (and I don't infer) that Riverview is probably going under. What they did say is:
> 
> * Riverview needs the income from VI's 735 intervals. Actually the number 400 is in the letter, as the minimum number of CCC owners they need/want to convert to Riverview, in order to proceed with this plan.
> 
> ...


Oops, another misstatement on my part - VI isn't withdrawing from CCC, because they're not in CCC. 

Sorry again, it *is* confusing.


----------



## jbercu (Aug 2, 2010)

What does VI Own at Riverview?


Laurie said:


> I do like owning my summer studio at Riverview, and hope it makes it thru this.  It would be helpful to know exactly which Riverview weeks are owned by VI.


Studio 266
One Bedroom 272
Two Bedrooms 199
Prime Time :  May 21 to October 7
Choice Time: March 26 to May 20, October 8 to 28
Value Time:  October 29 to January 6
Total VI points per year at Riverview: 54353
If all the points were in Prime Time, Total VI points would be 79275
If all the points were in Choice Time, Total VI points would be 57477
If all the points were in Value Time, Total VI points would be 28603
So while I do not have an exact answer, you can figure that the average ownership is somewhere close to choice time. 
Why did VI buy such a poor value inventory and pay all the Special Assessments?
Because VI is a west coast club, and the VI point owners like to travel off-season when Cape Cod is Quiet and the air fares are lower (Ha, Ha, Ha).  And now, they are not traveling anymore.(Ha, Ha, Ha)
But in fact, the VI club has a lot of units in Hawaii and Mexico.  Air fares are up and so are the VI Club members’ bookings.
The real reason is that VRI promised VI that VRI through VDS (VRI sales Arm) would sell RCI points memberships, and the less valuable weeks would be absorbed in the RCI points program.  The unsuspecting new VI points owner would pay  top dollar maintenance fees to VI, VI would pay Riverview annual Dues, And the VI points owner would convert the VI points to RCI points and get a last minute three bedroom Penthouse in Hawaii with points to spare.  The VI Points purchaser never intended to visit Riverview.
I don’t understand what went wrong.
Patsy


----------



## theo (Aug 2, 2010)

*I stand corrected...*



jbercu said:


> I don’t think Theo or John would dispute that there was a relationship between VI and VRI and that is how VI acquired units at Riverview, The Cove at Yarmouth, The Village at Loon Mountain, and Cypress Point.



I don't claim to know for one moment how VI acquired units at any of the above facilities, but...

VRI Development & Sales Inc. was incorporated in FL on October 25, 2006, with many of the same officers as found in Vacation Resorts International (the long established management company known as VRI). Vacation Internationale apparently does have a relationship with this relatively recently created arm of VRI called VRI Sales & Development, Inc. That is certainly news to me, so I humbly stand corrected.

Having had direct (but only) contact and involvement with VRI (the long establiashed management company) over many years now, I must admit that I had no knowledge at all of the existence of this relatively new (incorporated only in 2006) "offshoot" known as VRI Development & Sales, Inc. which, as it turns out, does indeed have an affiliation with Vacation Internationale of Bellevue, WA. My error, my bad, my apology.


----------



## e.bram (Aug 2, 2010)

Thanks Jbercu:
I think there is a lot that Theo doesn't know but pontificates as if  he does or makes it up to to justify his position.


----------



## theo (Aug 2, 2010)

*My thanks to jbercu as well...*



e.bram said:


> Thanks Jbercu:
> I think there is a lot that Theo doesn't know but pontificates as if  he does or makes it up to to justify his position.



There is indeed much that I don't know (..and, at least a bit that I do), but I *never* just "make anything up". When I'm wrong, I'm man enough to openly admit it, as I have done above, with an open apology to jbercu.

*Your* "contributions" to the TUG BBS, on the other hand, are consistently nothing but uninformed, argumentative, unhelpful drivel and contentious speculation, so please don't climb up on the soapbox to assume an unjustified position of omnipotence when, in truth, you actually know next to *nothing*.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On a positive note however, there is a silver lining here. I've just discovered that the TUG "User CP" has an "ignore" feature, to which I've happily added your user name, thereby making your past, present and future drivel entirely invisible to me. As good as (maybe even better than) an unexpected birthday present!


----------



## e.bram (Aug 2, 2010)

Theo:
How about some specificity in your accusations about my posts. You are hiding  behind some vague generality concerning my posts.
I guess disagreeing with you qualifies one as being an ignorant no-nothing. 
I suggest looking in a mirror to identify someone with that appellation.


----------



## Shiz (Aug 2, 2010)

e.bram said:


> Theo:
> How about some specificity in your accusations about my posts. You are hiding  behind some vague generality concerning my posts.
> I guess disagreeing with you qualifies one as being an ignorant no-nothing.
> I suggest looking in a mirror to identify someone with that appellation.



I don't think Theo is hiding anything at all. He's already explained his own personal experience, and it's obvious that jbercu is fairly educated as well. I'm also impressed that Theo was quick to apologize for his inaccurate statement regarding the relationship between VRI/VI/VDS. (i was unaware that VDS basically gave way to InnSeason, which makes sense as sales was one of the few things InnSeason was ever able to do right)

I personally doubt there is some sort of shadow company out there that VRI is either affiliated with or is a part of that will benefit from the demise of CCC. VRI makes their profit from charging management fees for resorts that are in operation and a property that is liquidated doesn't pay many bills. 

Trying to get CCC owners to purchase weeks at Riverview makes sense to me as well. I was amazed at the improvements that have taken place at that resort and it would be a shame for it go to waste if VI pulled out. If the maint. fees are similar then it would be a fairly easy transition for those CCC owners as well. 

I also personally am not a fan of companies having large ownership stakes in timeshare resorts such as the one with VI/RVR. Just because their business model fails shouldn't mean other owners should suffer for it.


----------



## e.bram (Aug 2, 2010)

Shiz:
What does Innseason have to sell? Off season weeks that cost money to get rid of?
Most CCC owners(off season) have a chance bail out for free and can pick a prime red week to buy which have some value(for now anyway) instead of being stuck with a Riverview dog week. I would be surprised if Riverview haS Many(any) Prime red weeks to swap even for CCC prime week owners.
It looks like Riverview might go belly up too, in which case their dog weeks owners could get out and buy a prime week someplace else.

ps Theo got personal first and I feel a need to defend myself.


----------



## jbercu (Aug 2, 2010)

theo said:


> When I'm wrong, I'm man enough to openly admit it, as I have done above, with an open apology to jbercu.



Apology accepted.

We all try to learn and inform.  I have learned more than I have informed on TUG.

Thanks


----------



## timeos2 (Sep 10, 2010)

*A stronger, owner controlled resort*

As I just posted on the CCC thread the vote to allow CCC to combine owners with Riverview has been successful. This is great news for owners at both resorts as Riverview is now a ranked, renovated resort that will have a strong individual owner base rather than depending on a club/trust type group for basic support. It solves a problem with having two, rather shaky resorts now combined into one strong resort with moneys in hand and expected in the future to keep it up at reasonable fees. 

This will allow VI to get out as they wanted and for the sale of CCC to benefit all owners as that money, whatever it may turn out to be, will go toward the reserve funds at Riverview to help it stay up to date with the funds needed. 

Assuming it all gets finalized this is a big win for owners at both resorts IMO.


----------



## tonyg (Sep 10, 2010)

Single season resorts will always be on the edge of trouble. One of the reasons that Cape Cod has such high fees, special assessments and major problems when economic times are bad. Many Cape Cod timeshares have the additional problem of no kitchens (local ordinances pushed by restaurants), so there are a lot of negatives about owning on Cape Cod.


----------

