# Marriotts new policy



## davis6

I chated with a salesman yesterday as I was going to pull the trigger on purchasing a Marriott resale Platinum @ NCV 2 weeks 2bdr for $34,000.  I figured I would call to see if the resort had any unbeliviable deals and chated for a bit then the salesman told me that Marriott was going to adopt a new policy.

*  If you were to purchase a resale that you would not be able to reserve any more than 6 months in advanced.!!!   WHAT??*

This would kill anyone trying to resale.  Would this effect all the previousley bought resales.  Is this a bunch of BS from a salesman or what??

Any thoughts??


----------



## pointsjunkie

it is not good news but it's interesting to see all the hotel based TS's are trying to screw it's loyal customers.


----------



## Icarus

At this point, yes, it is a bunch of BS from the salesman.

This thread, specifically the first post, is what we know so far.

http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=60528

Note that salesman do not know how the new program will be implemented and should not be telling you that they do. If a salesman tells you this press him for details and written statements. If they can't/won't provide it in writing, it's a lie.

Also note that any resale weeks already owned or purchased prior to the implementation date will probably be grandfathered in under the new program.

There's a bunch of threads over in the Marriott forum full of conjecture and complaints about this, even though nobody really knows what Marriott is or is not going to do yet. There are at least 3 other reports of Marriott TS salesman saying the same thing. You can have fun reading those posts if you want to.

As of this moment, the only difference between buying resale and buying from the developer (besides price, of course) is that resale owners cannot participate in the "trade for Marriott points" option.

My opinion? Don't worry about the new program since you are buying in before the change and try to buy the week at resale. The only thing that all current and future Marriott owners need to be concerned with here, regardless of who they purchased from, is if the new changes will hurt the independent resale market and make it harder to sell in the independent resale market.

-David


----------



## Bill4728

As previously said this is pure speculation of a new Marriott policy which hasn't been announced yet. 

But your idea of buying two plat week at NCV for $34K sounds like a great deal. Anything under $18K/week is a good deal, getting 2 week at $17K /week is great!


----------



## pwrshift

The infamous Florida Club only allows booking 6 months ahead and all the prime weeks are long gone by then.  It's better to just book your home weeks 12-13 months out and deposit with II for best results.  And Marriott has the nerve to have an annual fee for the FC!!

Brian


----------



## camachinist

Next time have the salesman fax that claim to you on resort letterhead. As a developer owner there, these are things I need to know 

BTW, 2@17K is getting close to ROFR, IMO. Don't be surprised...

Pat


----------



## CMF

*Aruba, Newport Coast, Hawaii*

It concerns me that these reports are exactly the same and come from all over the map.

Charles


----------



## dioxide45

pwrshift said:


> And Marriott has the nerve to have an annual fee for the FC!!
> 
> Brian



The fee for the FC actually only works out to be $4 a year extra.


----------



## thinze3

CMF said:


> It concerns me that these reports are exactly the same and come from all over the map.
> 
> Charles



I tend to agree. Maybe it was discussed in generalities at a sales convention or the like. Makes yoy want to go ahead and make that one last purchase just in case you are grandfathered in, doesn't it?


----------



## timeos2

Fairfield (now Wyndham) had a similar rumor for 3+ years before they pulled the trigger.  Now 5 years later they are "ungrandfathering" the resale times....

Watch out - the big guys will do anything to make a buck.


----------



## Lawlar

*Is Marriott Damaging the Rights of Its Customers?*



davis6 said:


> I chated with a salesman yesterday as I was going to pull the trigger on purchasing a Marriott resale Platinum @ NCV 2 weeks 2bdr for $34,000.  I figured I would call to see if the resort had any unbeliviable deals and chated for a bit then the salesman told me that Marriott was going to adopt a new policy.



A few thoughts about what this Marriott salesperson said, if this is true:

_Damage to Seller_:  If the salesperson’s comments discourage Davis6 from purchasing from a Marriott customer, then Marriott has caused one of its customers to lose a sale and suffer an economic loss.  The customer may now have to sell at a substantially lower price – if he can find a buyer.

_Fraud_: If this salesperson is lying, Marriott should instruct its salespersons to stop lying about this issue – otherwise Marriott is allowing its employees to commit fraud.

_Lower Resale Value_: If Marriott allows this rumor to persist, and its salespersons to perpetuate it, then Marriott is hurting all of its customers.  Marriott TSs will now be harder to sell and they will be less valuable because of this uncertainty.

If Marriott does change the rule to restrict resale purchasers from selecting dates until 6 months in advance, then one has to wonder if Marriott has its own economic problems that would cause it to implement changes that damage its own customers.  Is Marriott being affected by the credit crises?  What is motivating this possible change?

Marriott should let its customers know if this is all false speculation so that the resale market doesn’t freeze up because of this uncertainty.


----------



## thinze3

What would it hurt if ALL of us sent emails to Marriott Owner Services to let them know that their sales people are making these statements, and that we, as owners of MVCI properties, demand to know the truth, as these rumors are affecting the value of our properties. We should also demand that the rumors be stopped if indeed they are not fact. IMO  

Just a thought - Could it be possible that ONE of the Marriott sales persons read Dave's post and that the rumor has now spread like a virus through the Marriott sales force? 

.


----------



## Icarus

Here we go again. At least we're consistent. Over the next two years is there going to be yet another new thread about this with the outcry from new people and the typical posts from the retractors that post to every Marriott thread?

READ THE OTHER THREAD. POST THERE. (unless, of course, you are posting advice or comments about the OPs NCV question.)

In case you missed the link in post #3 of this thread, here it is again:

http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=60528

-David


----------



## cigarboo

I'm usually a lurker, but figure I might as well chime in to all the speculations floating out there. It seems so many of the salesmen are starting to say the same things about resales only having the ability to book six months in advance. It would not surprise me if there is a little truth to it. Seeing that the info is coming from salesmen trying to make a sale, I think that little bit of info might be the worst thing about the internal exchange system that they can come up with to discourage resales. 

So this is my take on what this 6 months thing is all about. I think it will be sort of an expanded Florida Club thing where only Marriott direct purchases can have the ability to internally exchange into other Marriott resorts at the 6month point as if it were their home resort. Something like DVC and the 7 month rule. Owners, whether they bought directly or resale would still have the ability to book at their own resort with the current guidelines. At six months, the buy direct folks would be able to book at any of the Marriotts directly as long as space is available. Of course, the most premium weeks will all be taken already by owners. It wouldn't be totally useless as it may work out great for people who like to travel off-peak so they don't have to pay an II exchange fee or for people who like to get out of the regional blocks(Example:Orlando to try to get into DVC). It's a feature that would sound great in their sales pitches, but not actually work that well, just like the FC. 

Since many(most?)of the resorts are not owned by Marriott, it would be very surprising to me if Marriott has the right to make each resort treat their owners differently based on how the unit was purchased. I don't think the resort itself really cares how the unit was purchased as both direct and resale owners pay the same maintenance fees. I think legally, Marriott can't monkey around too much with owners at their own resort, but they can certainly exclude resale folks from certain exchange programs administered by Marriott, just like they exclude resale folks from the points exchange program. 

Yes, this is all speculation. Until the cat's out of the bag, they'll be many more attempts to figure out what's around the corner for us. But it's probably not nearly as bad as the picture the salesman's going to be painting for resale folks. They have to do what ever it takes to make a sale.


----------



## PerryM

*Pure BS*

Come one guys, you know this is BS.

Just because the salesreps talk to each other is no reason the believe any of this.

Right now a bunch of them are looking at this thread and laughing so hard that they are falling off their bar stools.

How many times to we need to put any credence into these timeshare salesrep rumors?

Once is too much.


----------



## winger

As mentioned before numerous times, ask for written proof. Keep it simple.

OP - you have the salesman's card, right? Email and call him for this proof tomorrow!


----------



## davis6

The salesman did not say it was a fact as it is happening today, however  he did mention that he was in the ear of one of the VPs and he said there was definantely going to be a change towards the resale purchases.  It was definantely an attempt to get me to buy direct.  

The thing that frustrates me the most is that some day I am going to be the seller and I am going to have to compete against these salespeople who try and lure prospects away:annoyed: 

How fair is that.?

I purchase 2 weeks for the price of one and take my chances or the one week and feel more secure??


----------



## Icarus

Did he make the statement in bold in your first post or not? Nobody knows how they are going to handle existing resales yet. See the other post. Nobody knows exactly what the changes will be. See the other post.



> The thing that frustrates me the most is that some day I am going to be the seller and I am going to have to compete against these salespeople who try and lure prospects away
> 
> How fair is that.?



What was the salesman response to that point? I'm sure you must have mentioned it to the salesman since he had more information than we do about the new program. 

Honestly, the salesperson doesn't know the answer to any of these questions any more than we do, and they shouldn't be mentioning this since they really have no idea how, if or when any change will be implemented.

But if anybody is told by a salesman that resale buyers rights are going to be restricted, please, get out their card and call them back and ask them why you should buy a Marriott timeshare that might be harder to resell on the open market under unforeseen circumstances if resale buyers rights are going to be impacted by this new program. Ask them how this new program is going to benefit owners.

-David


----------



## dougp26364

I agree with a previous assessment about the situation. Marriott salesman are making stuff up, reading it on these forums and ROFLTAO.


----------



## m61376

davis6 said:


> I purchase 2 weeks for the price of one and take my chances or the one week and feel more secure??



If it were me, I'd definitely buy the 2 weeks for the price of one, with no reservation. Look at it this way:
-these statements are rumors at best; at worst they are the overactive imaginations of salespeople desperate to make a sale
-Marriott , IMHO and that of many here who certainly know a lot more than me, would be stupid to shoot itself in the foot. Many Marriott owners are repeat customers; even resale owners are prime prospects for pre-construction purchases at the new resorts they are anticipating building. Furthermore, any changes to existing owners which would affect use of their current ownership would be ripe for litigation; Marriott would be stupid to put themselves in such a position and would be sure to avoid the negative publicity that this would incur. As DaveM has postulated on the other thread (and I quote him, because he has some reliable resources and differentiates between fact and fiction) grandfathering of current resale owners is the most likely scenario. Frankly, it is the only one which makes business sense for Marriott, again in my opinion.
-if resales in the future are negatively impacted by a new system, one will naturally expect the resale market to wither and values to decline, because buyers will not have as many benefits (hence, the product would be worth less). You are already seeing that buying from the developer immediately means that the value of the product being purchased will diminish by half for your particular property (since you can buy 2 for the price of 1). Thus, IF there were to be any adverse effects from the new policy, you would stand to lose less, because all owners would take a bath on reselling. 
-the likely scenario, as stated in the other post on this topic, is that present resale owners will retain the same rights and that ownership benefits would likely only change for future resale buyers. 
-keep in mind that Marriott does not have a monopoly on exchanging. The more they exclude from their internal exchange program, the more business they lose- to II and elsewhere. If, for instance, they were to enact the internal exchanges at 6 months only for developer purchases, I would venture to guess that many owners (including developer purchasers) would opt to deposit into II to try their luck at earlier exchanges.

On fact, these rumors would, if anything, make me nervous about buying direct from the developer, because it would kill the resale market. One of the great things about Marirott is that due to their price structuring and retention of value, many people have posted that after 5-10 years they have sold their units for at or, in many cases, above their original purchase price. I think instead of allowing the salespeople to intimidate us and get frightened by spreading this rumor (and, who knows, maybe it is pervasive because some "smart" PR person wants to test the waters and see what impact this might have) *we should counter by asking why we would ever want to purchase a Marriott timeshare in this case because it would adversely affect the resaleability of their product and thus negatively impact our "investment."* 

I would love to see the salesperson's reaction to that- they tout these purchases as investments, and emphasize how the values keep on going up. Under this scenario, why would it make sense for anyone to buy?


----------



## PerryM

*Mums the word...*

I just got a super secret memo from Marriott (somehow I got on the distribution list) that states any Marriott salesrep that talks about Marriott’s resale plans is to be immediately terminated.

Gee, I hope this doesn’t get to the Marriott salesreps and ruin their new year.  God forbid that happen.

Mums the word…..


----------



## thinze3

Icarus said:


> ...... Nobody knows how they are going to handle existing resales yet. See the other post. Nobody knows exactly what the changes will be. See the other post....
> 
> -David



And you know this to be fact or are you just basing your judgement on this "other post" by another Tugger. Truth is, where there is smoke there is usually fire, and right now there is smoke coming from different locations of the MVCI system.

"Nobody knows" - I totally disagree, somebody knows. 

Because of the consistency and broad spread nature of this rumor, it is now very possible that it may come to be sooner than not. IMO
.


----------



## capjak

PerryM said:


> I just got a super secret memo from Marriott (somehow I got on the distribution list) that states any Marriott salesrep that talks about Marriott’s resale plans is to be immediately terminated.
> 
> Gee, I hope this doesn’t get to the Marriott salesreps and ruin their new year.  God forbid that happen.
> 
> Mums the word…..




I got the same e-mail regarding Starwood Vacation Ownership


----------



## PerryM

*Trust me on this....*



thinze3 said:


> And you know this to be fact or are you just basing your judgement on this "other post" by another Tugger. Truth is, where there is smoke there is usually fire, and right now there is smoke coming from different locations of the MVCI system.
> 
> "Nobody knows" - I totally disagree, somebody knows.
> 
> Because of the consistency and broad spread nature of this rumor, it is now very possible that it may come to be sooner than not. IMO
> .



Good grief; don't fall for the rumors.

I've been hearing Marriott rumors since I bought our first one in 1999:


*"Marriott charges 25% commission to resell your unit - hasn't changed in 10 years"*


*"Marriott hasn't changed the Marriott Reward Points for 10+ years - you can bank on that"*


*"Marriott is about to introduce an Internal Exchange System - resales can't use it"*



Making decisions based upon rumors is no better than getting a hot stock tip from your barber.

If something happens it happens and then that's the time to start new plans.

Falling for these rumors is what the salesreps hope will happen - don't reward their lies with action.

*If something does happen Marriott will grandfather in ALL owners at that instant.*  This you can bank on or there will be so many class action lawsuits that Marriott will be sued back to the stone age.  That you can count on too.

Every month there is a new rumor here and if some of you want to make decisions on these rumors maybe I've got a new source of revenue I should pursue.


----------



## saturn28

PerryM said:


> Good grief; don't fall for the rumors.
> 
> I've been hearing Marriott rumors since I bought our first one in 1999:
> 
> 
> *"Marriott charges 25% commission to resell your unit - hasn't changed in 10 years"*
> 
> 
> *"Marriott hasn't changed the Marriott Reward Points for 10+ years - you can bank on that"*
> 
> 
> *"Marriott is about to introduce an Internal Exchange System - resales can't use it"*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Making decisions based upon rumors is no better than getting a hot stock tip from your barber.
> 
> If something happens it happens and then that's the time to start new plans.
> 
> Falling for these rumors is what the salesreps hope will happen - don't reward their lies with action.
> 
> *If something does happen Marriott will grandfather in ALL owners at that instant.*  This you can bank on or there will be so many class action lawsuits that Marriott will be sued back to the stone age.  That you can count on too.
> 
> Every month there is a new rumor here and if some of you want to make decisions on these rumors maybe I've got a new source of revenue I should pursue.




What are the chances that some Marriott salespeople come on here to start rumors.


----------



## CMF

*Hmmm?*

The thought did cross my mind that, if the intent is to chill secondary market sales, rumor and innuendo will be nearly as effective as the real thing.  The only ones that will be wise to the rouse will be us Tuggers - a speck in Marriott's world.

Charles


----------



## thinze3

Perry,
I agree that rumors are just rumors, and I am not one to fall for rumors. I try to do due diligence first, which is why I have already emailed a couple of people at Marriott asking about this. But there comes a time when people should be smart about their decisions. Wouldn't you hate to buy two new NCV timeshares and find out that you had trade limitations 12 months later? Wouldn't you hate to then hear someone say to you, "You knew this was happening as it had been discussed for months?"

How do you suppose these rumors got started throughout the Marriott system? Did the guy in MVCI's home office in Florida email the guy in Hawaii who in turn emailed the guys in California and Aruba?

Your posts are usually thought provoking, as such, please give me your take on this.  



_To keep the OP's thread alive. Yes, it's a great deal. Buy both NCV units for $34K._
.


----------



## AmyL4408

I am not sure why you all think this would cause legal implications for Marriott.


You purchased a week stay at a particular resort, in which you can make reservations 12 months in advance.    Nobody said that would change.


If they were to make an internal trading system, that only owners who purchased from developers could take adavantage of......     what exactly did they steal away??   Nothing!

They simply would be adding a benefit to those who bought direct, and I see no problem with that...    Other than some pissed off jealous people on this board who wouldn't be able to cash in on the new system due to them having bought resales only.



True or not,  it wouldn't take any of your owner rights away...    No matter how you purchased your week.


----------



## Icarus

thinze3 said:


> And you know this to be fact or are you just basing your judgement on this "other post" by another Tugger.



You know who posted the information because you can read like the rest of us, and I posted a link to the source not once, but twice in this thread. If you choose not to believe it or not to believe the source, that's your prerogative, but you should go directly to the source for that.

At least you are completely consistent with your negativity.

-David


----------



## hipslo

AmyL4408 said:


> You purchased a week stay at a particular resort, in which you can make reservations 12 months in advance.    Nobody said that would change.



I think you need to re-read the thread.


----------



## CMF

*Uncertainty*



thinze3 said:


> I try to do due diligence first, which is why I have already emailed a couple of people at Marriott asking about this.
> .



Much like the stock market, this Tugger hates uncertainty.  I hope that many of us ask Marriott the same question to try and force the issue.

Charles


----------



## suenmike32

That's an interesting concept.  Sometimes I wonder if salespeople actually start rumors…just to see where they go.
In any event, sales personnel that propagate statements regarding re-sales are really shooting themselves in the foot. I would think that the first thing out of any potential prospect's mouth would be to ask "why on earth I would buy from the developer, if in fact I'm going to be hurt should I decide to sell it"  (unless of course I sold it to Marriott). 
That might hurt just a wee bit also.

In that the salespeople seem to be using this as a tool…I would have to re-tool the statement and toss it right back at them.

This is starting to sound like a sequel to Ryan O'Neal's comment in Love Story…"Buying from Marriott means never having to say your sorry".


----------



## thinze3

Icarus said:


> ...At least you are completely consistent with your negativity.
> 
> -David



Sorry, I am not negative toward Marriott at all. You obviously have not read any of my posts before this thread, nor would I have expected you to. *I love Marriott timeshares!* As a matter of fact I just traded my non-Marriott TS for a Marriott for my summertime '09 vacation. Hate to disappoint you but I am wanting to BUY more Marriott TS's not SELL. I just think that at this time, I would like to know if there is any truth to these rumors, that's all.


----------



## divenski

m61376 said:


> If it were me, I'd definitely buy the 2 weeks for the price of one, with no reservation. ....  I think instead of allowing the salespeople to intimidate us and get frightened by spreading this rumor (and, who knows, maybe it is pervasive because some "smart" PR person wants to test the waters and see what impact this might have) *we should counter by asking why we would ever want to purchase a Marriott timeshare in this case because it would adversely affect the resaleability of their product and thus negatively impact our "investment."*



I agree, as the salesperson is hoping that the prospective buyer isn't looking at the long term picture and wondering how a future resale price of his investment would be affected by such a policy.

IMO, I doubt that Marriott could limit access to a home resort, but could limit access to other properties in a new internal exchange program. Starwood has such a system, see posts re Mandatory vs Voluntary, and guess what, the Voluntary properties, which don't have access to the internal exchange system, sell for a LOT less than the ones that do.

The bad news is that all new Starwood properties will be Voluntary, so there is a trend out there. For SVO, this distinction is part of the deed/CCCRs and can't be changed after the fact, so the hope should be that if MVCI follows suit, it would only affect resales of NEW properties which have the needed language in the docs.


----------



## sdtugger

PerryM said:


> Good grief; don't fall for the rumors.
> 
> ...
> *If something does happen Marriott will grandfather in ALL owners at that instant.*  This you can bank on or there will be so many class action lawsuits that Marriott will be sued back to the stone age.  That you can count on too.
> ...



OK.  Since DaveM said that his understanding was the existing owners would be grandfathered, I think you are correct.  But, the real question is what does that mean.  If the rumored change includes a penalty for all future resale owners (as DaveM guessed), then everyone (retail and resale, even if grandfathered) will immediately lose resale value.  That hurts and grandfathering is useless for that purpose.

A few days ago I offered part of one of my weeks to my father-in-law.  He wanted more details.  So, I told him about our Marriott weeks and the great trades and use we've made so far.  He immediately wondered whether he should purchase a week too.  What would you say to someone in that position today?  If they buy now and then lose a huge percentage of their resale value next January, that would be a foolish purchase.  But, if the rumors are true, they could lose the right to be grandfathered if they don't purchase before the grandfather date.  My answer:  I mentioned the rumors and explained that they were rumors.  My father-in-law basically said maybe it would be better to wait . . . .


----------



## Icarus

thinze3 said:


> Sorry, I am not negative toward Marriott at all. You obviously have not read any of my posts before this thread, nor would I have expected you to. *I love Marriott timeshares!* As a matter of fact I just traded my non-Marriott TS for a Marriott for my summertime '09 vacation. Hate to disappoint you but I am wanting to BUY more Marriott TS's not SELL. I just think that at this time, I would like to know if there is any truth to these rumors, that's all.



I've read many of your posts.

I'm glad we agree that we should be asking for more information about this.

-David


----------



## PerryM

*Why worry, be happy....*



sdtugger said:


> OK.  Since DaveM said that his understanding was the existing owners would be grandfathered, I think you are correct.  But, the real question is what does that mean.  If the rumored change includes a penalty for all future resale owners (as DaveM guessed), then everyone (retail and resale, even if grandfathered) will immediately lose resale value.  That hurts and grandfathering is useless for that purpose.
> 
> A few days ago I offered part of one of my weeks to my father-in-law.  He wanted more details.  So, I told him about our Marriott weeks and the great trades and use we've made so far.  He immediately wondered whether he should purchase a week too.  What would you say to someone in that position today?  If they buy now and then lose a huge percentage of their resale value next January, that would be a foolish purchase.  But, if the rumors are true, they could lose the right to be grandfathered if they don't purchase before the grandfather date.  My answer:  I mentioned the rumors and explained that they were rumors.  My father-in-law basically said maybe it would be better to wait . . . .




First I don’t believe Marriott would ever punish resale owners with a 6 month maximum reservation.  It makes NO sense to me but sounds like something the salesreps would cook up at a bar.

The industry standard is 1 sale in 7 sales tours.  I suspect with the average Marriott salesrep its 1 sale in 4/5 sales tours.  The reps that make $250k+ its 1 sale in 1.5/2.  These guys aren’t bothered with resales that much.

But, when you spend 90 min – 120 min with Ma and Pa and they say no and just want their free gift the temptation by the salesreps is to blame something but their own skills.  Blame the economy, blame the weather, blame the damn resale market.

I would encourage folks who like Marriotts to buy Marriotts and ignore these unfounded rumors - they pop up ALL the time.  I have no problems with folks who don’t own a timeshare to buy from the developer unless they have someone to lean on and ask questions who have done this before.

So just ignore the rumor of the month and learn how to exploit Marriott to the hilt.


----------



## CMF

*And what bar would that be?*



PerryM said:


> It makes NO sense to me but sounds like something the salesreps would cook up at a bar.



Perry,  how do you account for the fact that salesmen are saying the same thing in California, Aruba, and Hawaii?

Charles


----------



## JimIg23

Salespeople talk also, there could be rumors about the new system within the sales circle and this was one of the ideas that were floated (or someone got it wrong and it still floated).  I have not read my deed, so I dont know if they could do that to current resale owners, or if would they have to actually start changing new deeds to reflect resale changes.


----------



## PerryM

*SMUG knows....*



CMF said:


> Perry,  how do you account for the fact that salesmen are saying the same thing in California, Aruba, and Hawaii?
> 
> Charles




I have no doubt that the salesreps have their own TUG; maybe it's called *SMUG*: *S*imple *M*oron *U*sers *G*roup.

The last blabbermouths in the world the hot shots at Marriott would tell are the salesreps - all day long they talk and talk and talk....

It costs about $100 per year to have one of these sites.  Maybe they eBayed some of the freebee goodies they give away to marks////customers to pay for the web site.


----------



## CMF

*Funny.*



PerryM said:


> I have no doubt that the salesreps have their own TUG; maybe it's called *SMUG*: *S*imple *M*orons *U*ser *G*roup.
> 
> The last blabbermouths in the world the hot shots at Marriott would tell are the salesreps - all day long they talk and talk and talk....
> 
> It costs about $100 per year to have one of these sites.  Maybe they eBayed some of the freebee goodies they give away to marks to pay for the web site.



To give this a grain of plausibility, a tugger would have stumbled across such a bbs on the net eons ago.

Charles


----------



## CMF

*Point Counter Point*

A few post have said that the reply to a sales rep statement to the effect that there will be restrictions on resale buyers would be something like "Then why would I buy something that I'll have a hard time selling?" or, "Why would I buy something that will loose value because of these restrictions?"  But I'm thinking that Marriott may not voluntarily disclose this in the sales presentation.  It may come up if and when the potential buyer brings up the subject of resales.  But otherwise, the rep may be silent and the restriction will be buried in the paper work somewhere; and, I bet that many buyers don't read their contracts.  This will hiding in the contract, like snake in the grass, waiting to bite folks when they try reserve their week, or sell it to a savvy buyer, who is aware of the restriction and is offering pennies on the dollar for the week.

Charles


----------



## thinze3

Boy, you guys are up bright and early. Happy New Year!

I really did send three emails about this to various Marriott people including my last salesman, who was actually a GOOD guy - no BS from him. But then again, he did know that I knew as much, if not more, about the Marriott system than he did. I do not expect to receive anything but indirect answers, because, even if they do know, most likely they can not and will not divulge.

I have one higher ranking contact in Marriott that I am contemplating asking. Don't want to put him in a situation, so I ahve to think a bit more about it.

I really am not all that concerned, because most likely this will apply only to future TS sales. Those will probably have something different written in thier contracts/deeds if any changes are made. imo


----------



## PerryM

*It will pass like gas....*

Timeshare salesreps don’t talk about resales.  They talk about “Passing the timeshare to your heirs”, and this gets around talking about the other half of ownership – the selling part.

*If Marriott would put a 6 month reservation on resales they will kill the resale market* – I mean totally kill it.  Why?  To piss off ALL Marriott timeshare owners?  That makes no sense at all.

Nope, this is just a wild rumor that will pass like gas – just you wait and see.

It will be replaced by another wild rumor – probably a better one spread around at the Marriott sales convention that is hosted for the top Marriott salesreps each year.  You know they get together and swap rumors and tricks to get folks to buy from them and to plant the seed of doubt.

So I recommend that folks put this rumor in the same group as Space Aliens, Big Foot, The Bermuda Triangle, Global Warming….

P.S.

As an investor these kinds of rumors just have me fascinated.  Folks are ready to make decisions based upon NO truth at all.  I just marvel at how folks want to believe something that can’t be proven or is totally false but they want to believe it.

I’m a pilot and it just fascinates me and as an investor sometimes it's like a pilot who is flying blind in a snow storm.  I can only trust what my instruments tell me what is happening and forget about what my body’s false signals say is happening.

Same here, Marriott would turn ALL their loyal owners into fierce enemies hell bent on revenge – that makes no sense at all.


----------



## Dean

I agree with Perry, it makes no sense for Marriott to do this (limit the reservation window for resales), and contractually I don't think they could, even with good lawyers.  But they could, if they wanted, limit or prevent participation in any other program including an internal exchange program though I'm doubting that's a major risk as well.  For those worried about consistency from different sales people, we've seen consistent incorrect information over the years that was wrong and seems somewhat coordinated.  Things like no internal exchange or you couldn't use the Marriott desk at II.


----------



## timeos2

*Maybe there is a plan - maybe not*



cigarboo said:


> Since many(most?)of the resorts are not owned by Marriott, it would be very surprising to me if Marriott has the right to make each resort treat their owners differently based on how the unit was purchased. I don't think the resort itself really cares how the unit was purchased as both direct and resale owners pay the same maintenance fees. I think legally, Marriott can't monkey around too much with owners at their own resort, but they can certainly exclude resale folks from certain exchange programs administered by Marriott, just like they exclude resale folks from the points exchange program.



This is a key.  Since the Marriott buyer is getting only a single resort & not a system of multiple resorts like Diamond (Sunterra) and some others Marriott may be able to restrict use of non-home resorts without stepping on any legal issues. They would be fools to try to restrict HOME resort use based on retail/resale as the rights are basically carved in stone but they may not have any limitations once that week is being used for exchange elsewhere.  Especially if the new internal system comes as an option & with an additional cost.  Again look at Club Diamond for one way it could work.


----------



## sdtugger

Dean said:


> I agree with Perry, it makes no sense for Marriott to do this (limit the reservation window for resales), and contractually I don't think they could, even with good lawyers.  But they could, if they wanted, limit or prevent participation in any other program including an internal exchange program though I'm doubting that's a major risk as well.  For those worried about consistency from different sales people, we've seen consistent incorrect information over the years that was wrong and seems somewhat coordinated.  Things like no internal exchange or you couldn't use the Marriott desk at II.



I agree with Perry too.  As I've stated elsewhere, changing the system so that ALL weeks are worth pennies on the dollar, is guaranteed to result in costly litigation.  If resale weeks can only reserve at 6 months, then they would be worth the equivalent of a bronze or silver season week at each resort, and that means a drop in value of around 90%.  And, by definition, every single week that ANY owner tried to resell to anyone other than Marriott would be a resale week.  

I agree that Marriott could probably get away with selling weeks with the new system because most of their retail buyers are uninformed (otherwise they would be very unlikely to purchase retail).  These same buyers would still be uninformed and would be very unlikely to be worrying about resale value (or even understand the concept).  But, I don't think that would solve the problem.  All it takes is an enterprising plaintiffs attorney making contact with all of the Marriott owners and explaining that Marriott is making their ownership worth 90% less.  Result = huge lawsuit, huge legal fees, and I think a likely costly loss by Marriott.  

Marriott is too smart for this.  There are so many other things they can do that won't have this impact, but that will make retail weeks more attractive.  An internal exchange would easily fit this bill and not have the impact on resale weeks that any reservation restriction would have.  And, they could even create a new income stream by allowing resale owners to buy into the internal exchange system.


----------



## Dave M

*My latest info....*

The sales "rumor" about a six-month restriction on making reservations for owners of resale weeks is no longer a rumor. It comes from Marriott's highest levels. That six-month restriction is the most likely scenario. As I stated earlier, the change would likely grandfather from the new policy those resale weeks as of the date the new policy is announced or implemented.

I can't stress enough that _no definitive policy has as yet been decided upon._ There are still a number of issues being worked out. When? What are the details? Still being worked on. Ultimately, the actual change might look much different from this six-month proposal, but _there will be a change_.

However, Sales has been given the advance info that some change is coming so that they can respond to the question we might ask: "Why buy from Marriott when I can buy the same resale week for much less?"

I have posted a link to this in the OP of the other thread on this general topic.


----------



## PerryM

*Shooting oneself in the foot....*



Dave M said:


> *My latest info....*
> 
> The sales "rumor" about a six-month restriction on making reservations for owners of resale weeks is no longer a rumor. It comes from Marriott's highest levels. That six-month restriction is the most likely scenario. As I stated earlier, the change would likely grandfather from the new policy those resale weeks as of the date the new policy is announced or implemented.
> 
> I can't stress enough that _no definitive policy has as yet been decided upon._ There are still a number of issues being worked out. When? What are the details? Still being worked on. Ultimately, the actual change might look much different from this six-month proposal, but _there will be a change_.
> 
> However, Sales has been given the advance info that some change is coming so that they can respond to the question we might ask: "Why buy from Marriott when I can buy the same resale week for much less?"
> 
> I have posted a link to this in the OP of the other thread on this general topic.




Since I use II to exchange into Marriotts this would have little impact on my usage of Marriotts.

Let the carnage begin....probably massive class actions too.  At least some folks will look forward to this; those lovable lawyers who will look out for us.

I still don't think a 6 month restriction will ever happen.  *I'll back it up with one of my bets - $25 to the Toys for Tots charity (In the name of TUG, not me) if Marriott does this in the next year.*  That's how confident I am that Marriott isn't about to shoot itself in the foot!

If anyone wants to see my bet - just pick a charity of your own...


----------



## thinze3

Thank you Dave.
I was begining to feel like the Lone Ranger by simply stating that there was just TOO MUCH smoke for there not to be fire.

Let's hope that Marriott's new policy is only going to affect those TS units which are currently still in Marriott's possession and not ours. 
.


----------



## davis6

PerryM said:


> As an investor these kinds of rumors just have me fascinated.  Folks are ready to make decisions based upon NO truth at all.  I just marvel at how folks want to believe something that can’t be proven or is totally false but they want to believe it.
> 
> I’m a pilot and it just fascinates me and as an investor sometimes it's like a pilot who is flying blind in a snow storm.  I can only trust what my instruments tell me what is happening and forget about what my body’s false signals say is happening.
> 
> Same here, Marriott would turn ALL their loyal owners into fierce enemies hell bent on revenge – that makes no sense at all.





As a pilot would you rely strictly on your instrumatation even if someone looking at a radar screen tells you there is a mountain in your path.  Would you look into that  a bit closer.  I very much want to buy  a Marriott T.S. but I think it is fair to know if they are going to change the rules.

I have read that other companies had a change similiar to this and if we dont think that Marriott could do the same we have our eyes closed.  

On the other hand if they do change the rules and current owners are grandfathered with there current deeds could that make them have even more value???


----------



## jimf41

*The hot skinny*

Well here it is folks, the hot skinny, the real deal, the absolute truth straight from the horses mouth! I've got a cousin who drives a cab in NYC. He was talking to the parking garage attendant at the Marriott Marquis who is best friends with one of the livery drivers in Central Park. Bill Marriott himself was in his carraige taking a ride around Central Park and this is what he overheard.

*First:* Marriott is only going to let resale owners book 3 weeks out. All current resale owners will receive $150 in Marriott bucks to  make up for this inconvenience. There will be no grandfathering. Too much of that going around already.

*Second:* Marriott is going to eliminate ROFR. Evidently with the first item enacted resale prices will go in the toilet and Marriott can buy them back cheaper on E-Bay.

*Third:* All sales contracts in the future will be done orally. You'll just have to believe what the salesman told you. No recording devices will be allowed in the sales gallery.

Fourth: All these changes will be implemented on 1 APR 08.

Now I realize that these changes will cause some financial hardships so out of the goodness of my heart I've decided to make *thinze3* an offer on that  Marriott Waiohai. Your going to lose your shirt on it when the new plan goes into effect so I'll offer you $3000 now to ease the pain. This offer is only good till midnight tonight. 

Jim Freeman


----------



## thinze3

jimf41 said:


> .....Now I realize that these changes will cause some financial hardships so out of the goodness of my heart I've decided to make *thinze3* an offer on that  Marriott Waiohai. Your going to lose your shirt on it when the new plan goes into effect so I'll offer you $3000 now to ease the pain. This offer is only good till midnight tonight.
> 
> Jim Freeman



Make it $2750 with MLE and you have a deal!
.


----------



## timeos2

*And so it starts. Rumors do have a basis in fact*



jimf41 said:


> Well here it is folks, the hot skinny, the real deal, the absolute truth straight from the horses mouth! I've got a cousin who drives a cab in NYC. He was talking to the parking garage attendant at the Marriott Marquis who is best friends with one of the livery drivers in Central Park. Bill Marriott himself was in his carraige taking a ride around Central Park and this is what he overheard.



Read Dave M's post above yours. The action is for real - the impact unknown but unlikely to be good. 

Seems that Marriott has really started down the Wyndham Road of devaluation of owner resales.  Not a bad thing as it leads to GREAT deals for resale buyers (Wyndham is one of the greatest values in resale timeshares thanks to that sales centric approach). Except that Marriott also has ROFR at many resorts thus locking out the deals from buyers, grabbing the time for themselves and paying only the deep discounted prices this is likely to lead to the sellers.  A double whammy for any Marriott owner that has to sell but, hey, it helps Marriott so I guess all is well.  Oh - don't forget that Wyndham "grandfathered" owners that bought prior to the date they made changes but now, 5 years later, they are actively "un-grandfathering" them.  What they change or bless you with they can also take away. Beware and make your decisions based not on what they promise but what they do.  And protect yourself - Marriott sure won't.


----------



## jimf41

I did read Dave M.'s post. I'll quote it for you.



Dave M said:


> *My latest info....*
> I can't stress enough that _no definitive policy has as yet been decided upon._




Jim Freeman


----------



## kjd

*Question about new policy proposal.*

If you bought direct from Marriott and they limited the rights of resale owners to six months advanced reservations why wouldn't that benefit the direct owners?  That assumes that you were not interested in selling.  It would seem to me that with two classes of owners the direct owners would have a better chance of getting their desired reservations and therefore have a substantial benefit.


----------



## mariawolf

I have to say that I think I agree with the last poster--maybe it will drive prices down but we all know timeshares aren't a good investment so if those of us who bought direct now have a better ability to make reservations I am not sure it is a bad thing.  Like a car, timeshares de value as soon as you "drive" off the lot so at least they are giving owners something of value while they own--unlike Starwood who took away any benefit to being an elite!  
Maybe I am the exception but I don't plan to sell--plan to pass on to my kids/grandkids and all I care about is whether I can use mine when I want to and if this helps me do that I don't think it is all bad.  I was trying to talk myself in to another one to get the 13 month advantage but seems to me this would help me without buying another one!


----------



## m61376

Admittedly, my brain is a bit fuzzy these days...but I don't understand how Marriott could implement such a drastic change. Not to sound morbid, but realistically we have to accept that sometimes the unexpected happens, and there are many life changes which force owners to sell. I would venture to guess that the majority of Marriott timeshares on the market for resale are being sold by people who have sufferred a loss or illness, had a downturn in their financial circumstances, a change in their family situation and/or a change in residence due to their job situation.

Most buyers buy timeshares expecting to use them for the rest of their lives, but there wouldn't be so many for sale if things always worked out as planned. Up to now, resale prices remained high because the buyer was obtaining the same product and the same use, with only the inability to trade for points. So, a buyer who just wanted to use his/her timeshare essentially bought an equivalent product. By changing the rules, useage opportunities for resale buyers would be dramatically affected. Thus, even original purchasers would see a dramatic decrease in the value of their "investment." All those nice new units, just bought for $$$, would be difficult to unload if the need arises, since buyers would be relegated to only the least desirable weeks in a season.

Personally, I am shocked that Marriott would implement such a change. Maybe I am missing something, but I just don't understand the busioness rationale behind it. All it will take is a few really angry lawyers who just bought some expensive Maui or Marco Island weeks, for example, to realize that they'll take a bath if/when they decide to sell, to institute a class action suit and the negative publicity would be, IMHO, extremely detrimental.

Effectively, Marriott will be telling people buy our product, enjoy using it, but accept that it will be virtually worthless if you ever want to sell it.


----------



## CMF

*On the other hand . . .*

. . . if the restriction is put in place going forward, that is, for weeks bought directly from Marriott and sold after the change is in place, wouldn't that be a boon to sellers and buyers of weeks that were originally sold by Marriott before the modification? To put it another way, anything that Marriott sold before the change would carry the original benefits in perpetuity. This would allow me to pass on the rights as a grandfathered resale owner to a buyer should I decide to sell my weeks.

The decent thing for Marriott to do is grandfather existing rights in perpetuity.  I think I read somewhere that the resale market is about 7%.  The number will diminish in the future as Marriott continues expand and the modification tips the scales all the more to Marriotts favor.  Only new Marriott direct buyers will be affected by the change.  The rest of us will own weeks that have all the rights of weeks sold by Marriott and the value of our weeks will increase dramatically.

Charles


----------



## sdtugger

*Depends on what "is" is . . . .*

What does "grandfather" mean in this situation?  If Marriott is planning to make this change apply ONLY to weeks sold by Marriott after the implementation date, then I don't see a risk of lawsuits.  Could this be what they mean by grandfather?  In other words, resales of current weeks would remain grandfathered?

I'm trying to figure out what Marriott is thinking based on DaveM's posts.  Could this be a possibility?  If not (i.e., if Marriott says that any resales by anyone after the implementation date lose rights to reserve at 12-13 months), then I can't see how Marriott avoids a costly legal battle.  And, no rational company intentionally jumps into that kind of situation.


----------



## kjd

*Marriott's business approach*

Let's face it.  Marriott knows its' own business.  Until I hear it from Marriott, I would not jump to any conclusions about the new policy.  I happen to think that the talked about changes might benefit existing owners who bought direct.  

The problem with the entire discussion about this issue is that somehow some owners have considered these timeshares an investment.  They are not.  They are merely a membership that allows owners a license to use the Marriott Vacation Club.  Something like tennis or golf memberships that often become worthless as well.  If you wanted an investment you should have bought Marriott stock.  It has done rather well.

As far as the resale folks on this board are concerned I have noticed that there is a great amount of gloating about how wise they were for purchasing resale instead of us dummies who bought direct.  They often counsel posters to buy resale.  Owners buy at their own peril and cannot assume that  changes will never be made.  We may very well end up with two classes of MVCI ownership.

It's probably wise to forget any hope about a class action suit helping resale owners.  Most trial lawyers who take these cases get large fees from any settlement and will leave the owners with very little money.  It happens all of the time with securities litigation.  Besides, Marriott has a legal department that could drag any litigation out for years.  Your heirs will probably see a resolution.


----------



## thinze3

*To: Dave, David, Perry, Charles, Pat, Bill & Brian (and others)*

We all know that Marriott's stock has not been doing all that well recently (down 40%)  . But here is some very discouraging news.

MAR's net tangible assets look like this: (yahoo finance)

$2.64B in '04
$1.86B in '05
$1.12B in '06
$0.11B in '07 (sept)

*YIKES!!*  

With the real esate depression and credit crunch sweeping the nation, maybe Marriott's coming changes are an *act of desperation*. Maybe they are in a *cash flow crisis* and cannot afford to continue to develop new properties or finish the ones they have started. Maybe they realized that it would be cheaper to buy TS's back through ROFR at 10-20 cents on the dollar and make their money in the resale market. At the rate and direction they are going with their net assets Marriott may have to *file bankruptcy* before long 

Hey, what's wrong with a few more rumors at this point. 
Terry
.


----------



## CMF

kjd said:


> It's probably wise to forget any hope about a class action suit helping resale owners.  Most trial lawyers who take these cases get large fees from any settlement and will leave the owners with very little money.  It happens all of the time with securities litigation.  Besides, Marriott has a legal department that could drag any litigation out for years.  Your heirs will probably see a resolution.



It's not about the money. It's about protecting a purchase.  And I would not give the Marriott legal department credit just because they are a big company and can hire competent counsel.  Good legal counsel is no guarantee that a company will not do something foolish.

Charles


----------



## m61376

But the issue here is not just that it is bad for resale buyers, it is bad for those who bought direct as well. Imagine having plucked down some of those big $$$'s for some of the new resorts and then finding that, if you need/want to sell, your unit is virtually worthless because resale buyers would be relegated to only the worst weeks for reservations. Many direct buyers have bought with the feeling that they could break even 5-10 years down the road (esp. ones buying early pre-construction). Such a change in rules would devalue their investment.

Even if you don't consider it an investment, most people do feel purchasing a timeshare retains some value. Otherwise, it would be no different than a destination club, but with lower priced properties available for visiting. By making such a change, Marriott would be effectively removing most of the inherent value and I can see a basis for litigation here...I'd be interested to see what the lawyer owners have to say on the subject.


----------



## thinze3

CMF said:


> It's not about the money. It's about protecting a purchase.  And I would not give the Marriott legal department credit just because they are a big company and can hire competent counsel.  Good legal counsel is no guarantee that a company will not do something foolish *in an act of deperation!*
> Charles (not)



How dare you write something like that!! :ignore:


----------



## PerryM

*Seems clear to me...*

I buy a car worth $40k and 2 years later the dealer informs me that today they implemented a new policy:

Unless the car is sold back to the dealer for a healthy discount the resale owner I find can only use the car 3 days a week.   A computer chip installed when the car was built will be activated when a change of owner on the title occurs that did not go thru the dealer.

The Blue Book value of my 2 year old car was 60% of the current selling price.

Oh, the dealer now gives only 25% back on a 2 year old car too.

So how much is my car worth now?

This to me smacks of restraint of trade, but I’m no lawyer.


----------



## thinze3

*Global warming is dead??*

US: July 3, 2007


"NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - An increase in summertime heat waves from global warming could mean more deaths among Americans each year, a study by Harvard researchers suggests.  

Using weather data and death rates for 50 US cities between 1989 and 2000, researchers found that, on average, a two-day cold snap increased death rates by 1.6 percent. Heat waves, on the other hand, triggered a 5.7 percent increase."
*
Perry - Global warming is dead??  Rumors!! Don't believe it!! :hysterical:

Gotcha!
.*


----------



## Eric

Since you are new, the way it goes is people on here mock people who bought developer as dumb or heaven forbid, tricked. Now those same resale buyers( me included) can turn out to be the dumb ones. At least I am not whinning about the change screaming lawsuit ( good luck with that ). I knew what I was getting my self into and will just keep my resale week. The reale market is 5% people. Thats means 95% of the people could care less about this change. 





kjd said:


> Let's face it.  Marriott knows its' own business.  Until I hear it from Marriott, I would not jump to any conclusions about the new policy.  I happen to think that the talked about changes might benefit existing owners who bought direct.
> 
> The problem with the entire discussion about this issue is that somehow some owners have considered these timeshares an investment.  They are not.  They are merely a membership that allows owners a license to use the Marriott Vacation Club.  Something like tennis or golf memberships that often become worthless as well.  If you wanted an investment you should have bought Marriott stock.  It has done rather well.
> 
> As far as the resale folks on this board are concerned I have noticed that there is a great amount of gloating about how wise they were for purchasing resale instead of us dummies who bought direct.  They often counsel posters to buy resale.  Owners buy at their own peril and cannot assume that  changes will never be made.  We may very well end up with two classes of MVCI ownership.
> 
> It's probably wise to forget any hope about a class action suit helping resale owners.  Most trial lawyers who take these cases get large fees from any settlement and will leave the owners with very little money.  It happens all of the time with securities litigation.  Besides, Marriott has a legal department that could drag any litigation out for years.  Your heirs will probably see a resolution.


----------



## CMF

*Not true.*



Eric said:


> I knew what I was getting my self into and will just keep my resale week. The resale market is 5% people. Thats means 95% of the people could care less about this change.



I honestly doubt that you saw this one coming Eric.  If you did, it would have been nice of you to clue everyone else in.  I hope that Marriott is big enough to let bygones be bygones and let the 5% of us that bought resale alone and clue in future direct buyers.  Also, there is a big difference between whining and complaining.  There can be legitimacy attached to the later. The initial stage of a lawsuit is called a complaint - not a whine.  Further, the folks that will be hurt the most if this change does not take the benevolent route I attempted to describe, are the the 95% full freight buyers who need to sell their week(s) due to unforeseen personal circumstances.

Charles


----------



## Icarus

Dave M said:


> *My latest info....*
> 
> The sales "rumor" about a six-month restriction on making reservations for owners of resale weeks is no longer a rumor. It comes from Marriott's highest levels. That six-month restriction is the most likely scenario. As I stated earlier, the change would likely grandfather from the new policy those resale weeks as of the date the new policy is announced or implemented.
> 
> I can't stress enough that _no definitive policy has as yet been decided upon._ There are still a number of issues being worked out. When? What are the details? Still being worked on. Ultimately, the actual change might look much different from this six-month proposal, but _there will be a change_.
> 
> However, Sales has been given the advance info that some change is coming so that they can respond to the question we might ask: "Why buy from Marriott when I can buy the same resale week for much less?"
> 
> I have posted a link to this in the OP of the other thread on this general topic.



Dave,

Thanks for the update.

So is the implication that any week sold at resale after the new policy goes into effect (no matter how the seller purchased their week) going to have the new restriction?

Yes, I realize this isn't definitive yet. It's hard to see how they can make this work from both a legal and moral view. (Remember, Marriott was supposed to be "different".)

Thinze: It seems you were right to be more concerned about this than I was.

I was going to look at picking up a Phuket BC EOY or maybe EY on resale after my KBC sale, but now, I'm not so sure about that. Situations change. They did for me. I knew I would loose a fair amount of my purchase price when selling it if I had to sell it. Of course, when I went in, I had no plans to sell, but things change.

-David


----------



## Eric

Again, a very small number resell their weeks and most can sell thru Marriott and live with the 60%. 
As far as whinning, I still say it's whinning. Buying resales is a gamble and that gamble doesn't always pay off. The same people that are whinning love to brag about how they traded there week that they paid 50% of developer into Maui or something. It's only money, enjoy the week and it won't effect 98% of the owners. 




CMF said:


> I honestly doubt that you saw this one coming Eric.  If you did, it would have been nice of you to clue everyone else in.  I hope that Marriott is big enough to let bygones be bygones and let the 5% of us that bought resale alone and clue in future direct buyers.  Also, there is a big difference between whining and complaining.  There can be legitimacy attached to the later. The initial stage of a lawsuit is called a complaint - not a whine.  Further, the folks that will be hurt the most if this change does not take the benevolent route I attempted to describe, are the the 95% full freight buyers who need to sell their week(s) due to unforeseen personal circumstances.
> 
> Charles


----------



## PerryM

thinze3 said:


> US: July 3, 2007
> 
> 
> "NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - An increase in summertime heat waves from global warming could mean more deaths among Americans each year, a study by Harvard researchers suggests.
> 
> Using weather data and death rates for 50 US cities between 1989 and 2000, researchers found that, on average, a two-day cold snap increased death rates by 1.6 percent. Heat waves, on the other hand, triggered a 5.7 percent increase."
> *
> Perry - Global warming is dead??  Rumors!! Don't believe it!! :hysterical:
> 
> Gotcha!
> .*



My only reply, as not to turn this away from the OP's thread.  Click


----------



## Icarus

Eric said:


> Again, a very small number resell their weeks and most can sell thru Marriott and live with the 60%.



As far as I understand the current resale program:

If you want to sell in a new development where there are still new sales going on, there is no resale program.

If you want to use Marriott's resale program if it's available, you get on the end of a long waiting list. When I put my KBC unit on the waiting list I was told the waiting list was four years long. I sold at resale and got at least 60% of the current developer price in a few months instead of waiting for four years and getting the same or less.

Marriott may also offer to buy your unit outright, but the offered prices have been ridiculously low. (I was offered 12k less $400 closing costs to sell a KBC EY 1BR OV to sell outright to Marriott.)

So, no, it doesn't really work out Eric. It's not the same thing at all.

Edited to add:

It's quite easy to post numbers and generalizations without a source as if they are true. Many people will take those numbers and generalizations as facts.

Why exactly is purchasing at resale a gamble? You are purchasing a warranty deed. A deed is no different no matter where it is purchased. The rules at the time of the purchase were known, and the only difference today is that resale buyers cannot participate in the trade for Marriott Rewards points program, and that is well-known and disclosed at the time of the original purchase. As far as I know, the warranty deed does not provide for less rights to reserve and occupy your own unit depending on how you purchased it.

-David


----------



## CMF

*Maybe tempest in a tea kettle.*



Eric said:


> Again, a very small number resell their weeks and most can sell thru Marriott and live with the 60%.
> As far as whinning, I still say it's whinning. Buying resales is a gamble and that gamble doesn't always pay off. The same people that are whinning love to brag about how they traded there week that they paid 50% of developer into Maui or something. It's only money, enjoy the week and it won't effect 98% of the owners.



I hope you are right Eric and we are just making a big deal about this because we love to talk timeshares.  But, let's keep the puzzle on the table - this is not just about resale buyers. Those that bought directly from Marriott have something to loose as well.  And, with respect to your money down the drain gamblers attitude, for some of us, getting a good deal and playing the system is part of the fun.  I hate to loose, so I'll go down kicking and screaming (for fun of course) if Marriott turns on me.

Charles


----------



## thinze3

CMF said:


> .... I hate to loose, so I'll go down kicking and screaming (for fun of course) if Marriott turns on me.
> Charles



EEEK!  
_
*
Added:
By the way, the figures I wrote above about Marriott's net assets value, was not a rumor!*_
.


----------



## hipslo

Eric said:


> Again, a very small number resell their weeks



If this is in fact accurate, why is Marriott so threatened by the resale market that they would need to take these sorts of steps?  Ok so they lose a handful of sales to a few buyers who discover the resale market and find available resale inventory and make it past rofr.  It seems like that ought to be but a drop in the bucket in the overall scheme of things, so why fight what seems like a fairly small problem by taking steps that would seriously (further) devalue resale weeks? 

On a somewhat related note -if a particular resort is already sold out, how would there be any rational justification for taking these steps?  If Marriott no longer has anything to sell, why would they be at all concerned about competition from resales?


----------



## thinze3

*This is starting to excite me!*

Legends Edge is part of the Florida Club. That means that all those BeachPlace and Ocean Pointe resale owners just gave me a great a chance to steal their rooms at six months out. Hmm?

I can see it now. I book a 2BR President's Week unit at Ocean Pointe and lock it off. I turn them both in to II and get TWO weeks at Waiohai. I pray that Waiohai still has availability at six months so that I can book my own unit which I bought resale. THREE WEEKS AT WAIOHAI!!

After Charles gets through with Marriott, it is very likely that I'll get some sort of a settlement from the class action suit. Now I have spending money in Hawaii!

Like Dr. Hook says, *"I can see it now. Ahh, it's beautiful."*

.


----------



## Palguy

If only 5% of owners bought resale and the 95% that bought from the developer have little or no knowledge of resale value, then Marriott can use the ROFR to pick up that 5% at an even cheaper price than they are paying now and sell them to the other 95%. If they are paying 50% of developer price currently for ROFR properties and they can cut the resale prices in half they have in effect increased their markup by 50%. They may just want to drive down resale value to provide cheaper inventory for themselves. After all, once they re obtain the properties they can add back whatever they want to it.  And if you want the same privileges as the people that bought from the developer, they could sell it to you, for a price.


----------



## hipslo

Palguy said:


> If only 5% of owners bought resale and the 95% that bought from the developer have little or no knowledge of resale value, then Marriott can use the ROFR to pick up that 5% at an even cheaper price than they are paying now and sell them to the other 95%. If they are paying 50% of developer price currently for ROFR properties and they can cut the resale prices in half they have in effect increased their markup by 50%. They may just want to drive down resale value to provide cheaper inventory for themselves. After all, once they re obtain the properties they can add back whatever they want to it.  And if you want the same privileges as the people that bought from the developer, they could sell it to you, for a price.



I wouldn't think that would go over too well on, for example, a Dateline NBC expose.  Though that's probably just wishful thinking....

Though I can understand, perhaps, taking steps to deal with your sales competition, taking those same steps, to the direct detriment of your existing customers, SOLELY to make a profit off of THEIR units, at THEIR expense, without sharing any of that profit with them, seems a much more difficult practice to defend.


----------



## divenski

Wow, what a way to start out the New Year. Haven't seen such an active thread in awhile.

Even though I tend to be skeptical that Marriott will add a 6 month limit for any resale purchases, one thing that gives me pause is the 13 month benefit for multiple week owners. Arguably, this negatively affected all single week owners after they bought their week, but that didn't stop it from being implemented.

I know this _potential_ change is much different, but the 13 month example shows that Marriott feels it has the right to monkey around with the reservation system.


----------



## arlene22

Dave, to clarify: are you saying that there will be a 6 month restriction on reservations at one's home resort? or a 6 month restriction on reservations using the soon-to-be-implemented internal trading system?


----------



## Icarus

An alternate theory?



Dave M said:


> *My latest info....*
> 
> The sales "rumor" about a six-month restriction on making reservations for owners of resale weeks is no longer a rumor. It comes from Marriott's highest levels. That six-month restriction is the most likely scenario. As I stated earlier, the change would likely grandfather from the new policy those resale weeks as of the date the new policy is announced or implemented.
> 
> I can't stress enough that _no definitive policy has as yet been decided upon._ There are still a number of issues being worked out. When? What are the details? Still being worked on. Ultimately, the actual change might look much different from this six-month proposal, but _there will be a change_.
> 
> However, Sales has been given the advance info that some change is coming so that they can respond to the question we might ask: "Why buy from Marriott when I can buy the same resale week for much less?"



I wonder if Marriott is sending this out as a feeler to find out what they can get away with. Let's say they end up implementing a restriction that is far less restrictive than the so-called 6-month thing. Maybe it will be 12 months for resale owners, 13 months for developer purchased weeks including any resale weeks prior to the implementation date of the new program and 14 months for owners of more than one week making reservations for 2 consecutive weeks?

Would there be a sigh of relief if they did something like that? From their viewpoint, you would still have the right to reserve at your home resort at the 12-month mark, except that the pool of available weeks will be far more restricted for purchasers on the resale market after the new program is implemented.  As with the current 13-month program, developer sold weeks (and maybe resale weeks grandfathered in) would be getting new rights.

Why would they leak this information when they don't even know what they are going to do yet, and why would they leak it to us and the sales force? Clearly it is not being kept internally within the group that is working on the internal trading program, and usually proprietary information is kept internally unless the company has no control over its own information. Maybe they allowed the information to be leaked on purpose.

I have to assume that the management and implementation team for the new internal trading program is not stupid, and if they wanted the information to remain proprietary and confidential until they figured out all the details of the new program, they would have made sure that it wasn't leaked.

Personally, I think this is a far more likely scenario and the leaks are intended to soften the blow to existing owners. But it's still just a smoke screen, in my opinion. At the end of the day, clearly the plan is to reduce the rights of resale buyers to make resale less attractive than it is, and that should have an effect on resale pricing. Depending on the implementation, that could affect any current owner, no matter where the unit was purchased.

So, what is the "evidence"? Well, it's clearly subjective, but I look at this way: For one, Marriott sales have always been about only committing in writing and not providing false verbal information. They were supposed to be "different" than the rest of the industry. Has that policy now changed officially so that sales is now permitted to dangle a new as yet unimplemented program in front of buyers when they ask why they shouldn't buy resale? The rumor even includes a grandfathering clause for anybody that has bought resale prior to the new program being announced or implemented. If, as Dave said from his source, that sales is being given the new information so they can respond to the "why buy at retail instead of at resale" question, but at the same time, the rumor includes the "grandfathering" clause, that makes no sense to anybody considering buying now at resale or retail, but it could make a difference to anybody buying now no matter where they buy. It seems to me that unless the salesperson lies about it and doesn't include the "grandfathering" in their statements, that an informed buyer would ask how that new program would affect them in the (unlikely) event that they want to sell their week on the resale market after the new program is implemented. Of course, in that event, sales can mention Marriott's resale program without mentioning the downsides: No resales at resorts with new sales and the waiting list at resorts that do have resales.

So have at it, folks. What do you think?

-David


----------



## sdtugger

kjd said:


> It's probably wise to forget any hope about a class action suit helping resale owners.  Most trial lawyers who take these cases get large fees from any settlement and will leave the owners with very little money.  It happens all of the time with securities litigation.  Besides, Marriott has a legal department that could drag any litigation out for years.  Your heirs will probably see a resolution.



We'll have to agree to disagree on this point.  Marriott will be the big loser in any class action litigation.  And, the court will set the legal fees of the plaintiffs attorneys based on result and effort.  It is very likely that any settlement and/or verdict would include some kind of injunctive relief (that is a court order or an agreement that Marriott will not do whatever it is that is the subject of the suit).  That's all any of the current owners would want to hear.

And, it is a fallacy to suggest that direct purchasers would not be impacted by this change.  If resale means any resale, then ALL current owners would be impacted as soon as they tried to resell.  Of course, if you keep your unit you will not be impacted.  And, with grandfathering that sounds like it will be true for all owners.  But, that misses the point.  No one purchased their weeks with the understanding that they would lose 95% of their value.


----------



## m61376

David-
I have to agree with both you and the previous poster. This "leak" may very well be a PR "testing of the waters," so to speak.

Contrary to what a few others have posted, any such new policy would be bad for ALL owners, Why would I buy something that would be virtually unsellable, or that would retain little value? 

When Marriott gives their sales presentation, especially at new properties, they make a point of talking about how prices keep on going up. How many people on this Board have contentedly mentioned that they bought early on and could sell now at a break even point, or even make a profit, 4 or 5 years down the road. True, timeshares are not an investment. However, when plucking down 30,40,50, $60,000, or more in some cases, one likes to think in terms of it as being some sort of investment and not just a membership in a club. Marriott touts its weeks as being just that- an investment. 

Look at the luxury car market. Everyone knows and accepts that cars depreciate in value as soon as the tires hit the road. Higher end cars, generally speaking, retain their value better and depreciate less, and buyers depend on that when making a purchase. If they keep the car for a set period of time, that factors into their annualized cost. On a similar basis, if Marriott severely restricts the useage of a unit to resale buyers (much akin to Perry's analogy of a resale car buyer only being allowed to use the car on certain days of the week), the retained value will sharply decline. That means that the annualized cost of any week I buy from Marriott will sharply increase, because the retained value becomes minimal.

So, when deciding whether or not to purchase a unit for $30,000, let's say for argument's sake, the nightly costs would look something like this:
Assume the same 10 year useage that salespeople like to tout as a "break even" point (actually, they broke it down to 7-10 years for me, at least):
initial outlay: 30,000
value at the end of 10 years (who knows, but with such onerous restrictions I would think that the value would plummet to maybe 25%, but it could even be less in a lot of locations where season really makes a difference): 7,500
10 year cost in initial outlay: 22,500, or $2,250/year
Lost opportunity of investment cost @ a conservative 5%/year: $1500/year
Annual MF's: ~$1000
Annualized cost: 2250 + 1500 + 1000 = $4750 per week.

WHY WOULD ANYONE BUY? 

I know I read Bill's threads on HCC over the past year with a lot of interest. The big downside to joining the club was that it was an unsecured investment, and I couldn't rationalize plucking down that sort of money just to join a club. I liked the security of feeling that I owned something. I know there are many others who share my sentiments. Buying into something that, by virtue of their rules, will make that purchase have very limited value, will make buying a Marriott timeshare like buying into a destination club, but one with high upfront fees relative to properties offerred.

So, as far as I am concerned, it is more than just bad for resale buyers, it is bad for all buyersd and owners. No one can just be smug and say "I'm never going to sell." Life evolves and lifestyles and needs change.

If Marriott is testing the waters it behooves us to make cogent arguments as to how this would impact ALL owners and prospective buyers. How many of those who bought from the developer would have bought if they knew that if they wanted to sell down the road they'd get little back? Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd venture to guess that a lot of people would have rethought their purchases.


----------



## CMF

*Sales Rep. at Grande Vista*

Will anyone volunteer the name of a veteran sales rep at Grande Vista that they trust? I want to buy them a cup of coffee.

Charles


----------



## Dave M

arlene22 said:


> Dave, to clarify: are you saying that there will be a 6 month restriction on reservations at one's home resort? or a 6 month restriction on reservations using the soon-to-be-implemented internal trading system?


I tried to avoid ambiguity. 

Reservation (which is what I posted about) = booking your home resort week.

Exchange = trading the use of your week for a week elsewhere, whether through Marriott's internal exchange system, through II or through an independent exchange company.


----------



## Dave M

m61376 said:


> David-
> I have to agree with both you and the previous poster. This "leak" may very well be a PR "testing of the waters," so to speak.


Although the details of this plan are far from finalized, one thing I can guarantee is that testing the waters is not what this is about. I believe I have posted the reason that Sales was given this info before the details have been finalized.

Also, I disagree that "any such new policy would be bad for ALL owners." The reservations process will improve for some owners. Ultimately, there will be a lot of owners who will have a better shot at reserving the week of their choice. 

Yes, resale values will likely be adversely impacted, but it's hard to tell exactly what market forces will do to values. And I believe most owners are more concerned about how the program works than what resale values are. I'm one of those. I have no plans to ever sell any of my weeks. But I worry every year about whether I'll be able to reserve my first-choice weeks.

Perhaps more importantly, keep in mind that TUG is a tiny blip on the Marriott map. There are perhaps fewer than 5,000 of Marriott's 300,000+ owners who even know that TUG exists. And probably fewer than 1,000 owners know how to tweak the Marriott system because of TUG. When Marriott eventually announces that it will be easier for owners who bought from Marriott to make reservations, I'm guessing there will overwhelming appreciation for the change. Not here at TUG, but Marriott doesn't - and shouldn't - cater to TUG owners. 

Lastly, Marriott is in the business of selling timeshares. Anything that makes it easier to make that initial sale is something Marriott should consider. This change will give Sales another selling point. Will declining resale values counter that? Be realistic. Resale values have always been substantially below Marriott's prices. The typical Marriott purchaser doesn't have a clue about the resale market. So even if resale values tank, there's no reason to believe that this change would adversely impact most decisions as to whether or not to buy from Marriott.


----------



## hipslo

Dave M said:


> Also, I disagree that "any such new policy would be bad for ALL owners." The reservations process will improve for some owners. Ultimately, there will be a lot of owners who will have a better shot at reserving the week of their choice.



If existing owners are to be grandfathered, and if the new program is effective in essentially shutting down the resale market (other than through Marriott), how would the reservations process improve for some owners, who you say would have a better shot at reserving their weeks of choice?


----------



## saturn28

Dave M said:


> Although the details of this plan are far from finalized, one thing I can guarantee is that testing the waters is not what this is about. I believe I have posted the reason that Sales was given this info before the details have been finalized.
> 
> Also, I disagree that "any such new policy would be bad for ALL owners." The reservations process will improve for some owners. Ultimately, there will be a lot of owners who will have a better shot at reserving the week of their choice.
> 
> Yes, resale values will likely be adversely impacted, but it's hard to tell exactly what market forces will do to values. And I believe most owners are more concerned about how the program works than what resale values are. I'm one of those. I have no plans to ever sell any of my weeks. But I worry every year about whether I'll be able to reserve my first-choice weeks.
> 
> Perhaps more importantly, keep in mind that TUG is a tiny blip on the Marriott map. There are perhaps fewer than 5,000 of Marriott's 300,000+ owners who even know that TUG exists. And probably fewer than 1,000 owners know how to tweak the Marriott system because of TUG. When Marriott eventually announces that it will be easier for owners who bought from Marriott to make reservations, I'm guessing there will overwhelming appreciation for the change. Not here at TUG, but Marriott doesn't - and shouldn't - cater to TUG owners.
> 
> Lastly, Marriott is in the business of selling timeshares. Anything that makes it easier to make that initial sale is something Marriott should consider. This change will give Sales another selling point. Will declining resale values counter that? Be realistic. Resale values have always been substantially below Marriott's prices. The typical Marriott purchaser doesn't have a clue about the resale market. So even if resale values tank, there's no reason to believe that this change would adversely impact most decisions as to whether or not to buy from Marriott.



I own both resale weeks as well as weeks purchased from Marriott. If all that Marriott does is restrict resale owners from booking at their home resort to 6 months in advance, personally it wouldn't bother me. I know a lot of people who post on here seem to be so concerned about getting one of the high demand weeks for trading, but personally I have been able to get good trades with whatever week I have deposited. 

I may not get a bonus week with my deposit, but even if I did I own enough weeks that I probably wouldn't use it anyways. In addition, the bonus weeks are not like a regular deposit costing $89.  The price to use a bonus week can be as high as $299 for a two bedroom. That is still a good deal but when you own more than one week why would I use that bonus week before one of my regular weeks to trade. So for me its not a big deal.

The fact that prices may fall a bit because of the restriction is probably true. However, once the price reaches the new level and people become aware of what they can still do by buying resale I think the price will stabilize and may even rise a bit. Then it will be business as usual. People will still be able to buy and sell resale and the market will continue at the new price levels. So, I think all the speculation is probably worst than the reality will be if this happens.


----------



## PerryM

*Where's the round filing cabinet?*

Say I owned a Platinum Week at Summit Watch – I can’t go weeks 51 & 52 but I can go the week of Sundance and Week 7 (President’s Week).  Say I owned 4 Platinum weeks and used to lock in 2 Sundance and 2 President’s Week, used one an rented the others for mega bucks.

My Platinum Week is worth about $28k to me just about anytime I want to sell it.

Marriott now implements the 6 months reservation policy on resales.  The guy I would sell the week to can NO LONGER get Sundance or President’s week but week 1 or 2 in Park City and that’s it.

Anyone here want to say that my week is still worth $28k?

Of course not, its worth a fraction of that – say half of it or $14k.

Now I need some cash and list the week at 14k and find a buyer – 10 minutes later I get the ROFR and Marriott steps in and snaps up the week for $14k and it sells it for $50k this afternoon.  This is worthy of a 3rd world dictator’s tactics.  Marriott would have to dump the ROFR instantly to make this work.

This would become such a huge class action lawsuit as to make Marriott’s lawyers smile since they will be spending many more billable hours on the job for the next 10 years.  It wouldn’t take much to find 12 folks from Utah to find Marriott guilty of unscrupulous and predatory business activities.  I wouldn’t be surprised if the auditors and lawyers cover their butts and issue warnings to the marketing guys that this half baked idea needs to be filed in the round filing cabinet today.

P.S.
Over a 40 year period just about EVERY unit at EVERY Marriott is going to be sold - that's a lot of business for the lawyers; bless their hearts.

P.P.S.
ARDA reports that of all timeshare transactions 7% are resale.  All this for that 7% Marriott?  Are you nuts?


----------



## timeos2

kjd said:


> As far as the resale folks on this board are concerned I have noticed that there is a great amount of gloating about how wise they were for purchasing resale instead of us dummies who bought direct.  They often counsel posters to buy resale.  Owners buy at their own peril and cannot assume that  changes will never be made.  We may very well end up with two classes of MVCI ownership.
> 
> It's probably wise to forget any hope about a class action suit helping resale owners.  Most trial lawyers who take these cases get large fees from any settlement and will leave the owners with very little money.  It happens all of the time with securities litigation.  Besides, Marriott has a legal department that could drag any litigation out for years.  Your heirs will probably see a resolution.



This merely points out that what you buy - big doallar retail or more reasonable resale - is a base right to ownership. Anything you or the Marriott (or any other) developer feels they maintain control of is fair game for change and may (will) be used to squeeze more money out of you later. Today resale buyers get 6 months while retail get 13 - tomorrow 3 week owners get 17 and all others get 6. Once the door opens to such one sided manipulation look out - they feel you bought in and they can play all you want with what should be your use rights. If this does go through, as now seems likely, Marriott has slipped below Wyndham for respect of owners rights and value.   At least there was no smoke and mirrors with DVC. They say from the start they cntrol it all and you buy only a RTU what they decide to give you. Here Marriott supposedly sold you deeded rights but now, nope, they have near total control and your deed has virtually no meaning. They change the rules to fit their wishes and serve sales.   

It make me feel better and better about not currently ownong any Marriott - now I am less likely to ever buy more. It also make me feel MUCH better about the accidental concentration of directly owner controlled resorts our portfolio is heavy with as they offer the security of deeded rights - including reservation/use rights in those deeds - as well as no ROFR, as that means people who care about the resorts - not sales profits - call the shots.  They could care less how you bought as the Associations get ZERO from sales and work only to make the ownership experience as good as possible. What a great change form this type of near total Developer to benefit only their bottom line. Owners be damned.


----------



## Dave M

hipslo said:


> If existing owners are to be grandfathered, and if the new program is effective in essentially shutting down the resale market (other than through Marriott), how would the reservations process improve for some owners, who you say would have a better shot at reserving their weeks of choice?


As I said, 





> Ultimately....


----------



## urple2

This has been an interesting thread, especially with me just getting into the Marriott world of timesharing. ( hopefully soon. Have not had the best of luck with trying to close on a Marriott)

Even though I surely don't want any timeshare I own to devalue, I look at it as merely a vehicle to get me a cheaper vacation in the long run, then shelling out thousands of dollars for a one week stay. If what I purchased gets me to places I like and a break even point within a reasonable time, I look at it just like others have used as their analogy,buying a car then selling it.

Whatever does happen,this Site and the people within will be a big help to all of us on getting the best value out of our timeshare,whether we bought from the Developer or resale. 

I bought Wyndham timeshares resale for what I thought was cheap, and they now sale for half that amount now. The interesting thing is they did very little to differentiate from the resale buyer but still the value has tanked.
Even so, I have already got more than my investment out of these for the vacations had.

It's great reading on here and very much in appreciation for all the info and knowledge shared.


----------



## Icarus

Dave M said:


> I believe I have posted the reason that Sales was given this info before the details have been finalized.



This is what you said, Dave:



> However, Sales has been given the advance info that some change is coming so that they can respond to the question we might ask: "Why buy from Marriott when I can buy the same resale week for much less?"



And you also said:



> As I stated earlier, the change would likely grandfather from the new policy those resale weeks as of the date the new policy is announced or implemented.



And together, that gives retail sales no current advantage over buying a resale unit right now. Am I missing something?



> Also, I disagree that "any such new policy would be bad for ALL owners." The reservations process will improve for some owners. Ultimately, there will be a lot of owners who will have a better shot at reserving the week of their choice.
> 
> Yes, resale values will likely be adversely impacted, but it's hard to tell exactly what market forces will do to values. And I believe most owners are more concerned about how the program works than what resale values are. I'm one of those. I have no plans to ever sell any of my weeks. But I worry every year about whether I'll be able to reserve my first-choice weeks.



I don't think I used the word ALL in all caps, but ok. Situations change. I never planned on selling my KBC unit either. I think you should be concerned about the resale value of your unit and your ability to sell it relatively quickly in the event life changes. I hope it doesn't change for you, but you never know, Dave. I didn't plan on moving to Kauai after I bought a KBC timeshare. I didn't plan on a storm drain problem costing me over 2k in MFs and SAs last year either. And I didn't plan on getting divorced either (but that had nothing directly to do with the sale of my unit). But life goes on.



> Lastly, Marriott is in the business of selling timeshares. Anything that makes it easier to make that initial sale is something Marriott should consider. This change will give Sales another selling point. Will declining resale values counter that? Be realistic. Resale values have always been substantially below Marriott's prices. The typical Marriott purchaser doesn't have a clue about the resale market. So even if resale values tank, there's no reason to believe that this change would adversely impact most decisions as to whether or not to buy from Marriott.



I guess it remains to be seen if this change affects resale values or not. I think it might. Not everybody agrees with your view here. I don't. At a good property, what is a fair resale price? Well, to me, it removes the marketing and sales costs from the equation, and what you are left with is close to what I would personally consider a fair resale value for a top notch resort. I think my assumption is that the resale has the same ability to reserve the week that they own as anybody else does, because without that, the value is diminished if you want to reserve a specific week for whatever reason you want that week.

I disagree that taking rights away from current owners is the right thing to do. Once you start down that path, where does it end? (The "rights" that I refer to is the ability to sell your unit with the current rights that you enjoy and expected as part of your purchase, no matter where you purchased it .. excluding the right to trade for MR points.)

Thanks for responding with your opinion.

-David


----------



## Eric

Whatever rule they change, MVCI will have their butts covered so please stop sounding uninformed as a class action law suit will never happen. Companies like Westgate and others jerk their customers around alot more and they don't exacly make headlines with lawsuits. Yes, I will bet on that. 
Does that mean one pissed off lawyer owner won't file a suit ? probably not but it will never get to any big level. 



PerryM said:


> Say I owned a Platinum Week at Summit Watch – I can’t go weeks 51 & 52 but I can go the week of Sundance and Week 7 (President’s Week).  Say I owned 4 Platinum weeks and used to lock in 2 Sundance and 2 President’s Week, used one an rented the others for mega bucks.
> 
> My Platinum Week is worth about $28k to me just about anytime I want to sell it.
> 
> Marriott now implements the 6 months reservation policy on resales.  The guy I would sell the week to can NO LONGER get Sundance or President’s week but week 1 or 2 in Park City and that’s it.
> 
> Anyone here want to say that my week is still worth $28k?
> 
> Of course not, its worth a fraction of that – say half of it or $14k.
> 
> Now I need some cash and list the week at 14k and find a buyer – 10 minutes later I get the ROFR and Marriott steps in and snaps up the week for $14k and it sells it for $50k this afternoon.  This is worthy of a 3rd world dictator’s tactics.  Marriott would have to dump the ROFR instantly to make this work.
> 
> This would become such a huge class action lawsuit as to make Marriott’s lawyers smile since they will be spending many more billable hours on the job for the next 10 years.  It wouldn’t take much to find 12 folks from Utah to find Marriott guilty of unscrupulous and predatory business activities.  I wouldn’t be surprised if the auditors and lawyers cover their butts and issue warnings to the marketing guys that this half baked idea needs to be filed in the round filing cabinet today.
> 
> P.S.
> Over a 40 year period just about EVERY unit at EVERY Marriott is going to be sold - that's a lot of business for the lawyers; bless their hearts.


----------



## PerryM

Eric said:


> Whatever rule they change, MVCI will have their butts covered so please stop sounding uninformed as a class action law suit will never happen. Companies like Westgate and others jerk their customers around alot more and they don't exacly make headlines with lawsuits. Yes, I will bet on that.
> Does that mean one pissed off lawyer owner won't file a suit ? probably not but it will never get to any big level.




If, in my example I can show that Marriott, who is NOT on the HOA at Summit Watch, changed their sales techniques and their computer reservation system that cost me big bucks reselling the unit.  That would not be hard to prove.


Marriott is impeading my ability to resell my property and it doesn't take a genius to see its to benefit Marriott over the owners at the resort.

I just don't think is will take much for hundreds of lawsuits to pop up instantly.

Maybe Marriott has envied FF/Wyndham over the years and wants resale prices 15% of current sales prices.  If so a new CEO of Marriott timeshares is needed.


----------



## AwayWeGo

*Do Premium Timeshare Brands Deliver Premium Timeshare Experience ?*

At Home Depot recently, I bought a (new, closeout) basic model dishwasher as a replacement for my brother's defunct dishwasher.  I got it installed OK.  It works.  I took the deadster out to Mt. Trashmore.  No problem. 

Before settling on the basic-model closeout, I asked the store guy whether the midrange model that costs 3 times more than the basic model gets the dishes 3 times cleaner.  He paused a half-beat then said that the more expensive models have more convenience features but they all get the dishes equally clean. 

That, plus the recent TUG-BBS back & forth over Marriott timeshare policies & prices & ROFR (i.e., ROFL) got me to wondering whether something similar applies to timeshares, challenging some of my own operating assumptions. 

For example, I contend that there is no such thing as a new timeshare & so therefore it is senseless to pay new prices for non-new timeshares.  Apparently some of the timeshare companies are trying mightily to change that -- not by making ever-nicer & fancier & more spacious & better furnished timeshares, but by revising the rules & regulations so that people who buy new are on a value-added 1st class track & resale buyers aren't -- resale = 2nd class citz. in effect.  

That being the case, is it a wiser market response for me (as consumer) to see the light & pay big bux for 1st class access within a premium timeshare system on the 1 hand?  Or on the other hand to subtract all consideration of tracks & classes, etc., & stay away from the premium timeshares altogether, spending my timeshare bux instead on resales at high-quality non-premuim timeshares? 

Would my full-freight Marriott timeshare vacation be 20 times more enjoyable than my vacation at a high-quality independent resale timeshare?  If so, I can whip out my checkbook & pay 20 times more for Marriott than for a high-quality independent resale timeshare.  If not -- if the extra money buys more sizzle but no more steak & no better steak -- then why should I do it?   For the prestige of the premium brand name? 

To this point, all our timeshare ownership is resale at non-premium timeshares.  Some of our timeshare vacations have been in our own deeded high-quality non-premium units -- & were outstanding.  Other timeshare vacations we've taken have been at other people's timeshare units on exchange -- ranging from premium (HGVC) to no frills (TaraNova ImperiaLakes).  Even so, I cannot honestly say that the top-name premium timeshare experience was twice as good as the base model -- though maybe that's because I haven't gone on enough timeshare vacations yet (but I'm working on it). 

By contrast, I can attest via years of (amateur) experience that the top-quality premium quality horns are superior where it counts to the no-name _el cheapo_ models.  It's not automatic, however.  Paying 10 times more does not guarantee I'll get 1 that plays 10 times better.  And there are some humble "student" model horns out there that play as well as some premium-price "professional" horns if not better.  But that's not automatic, either. 

At this point, I have pretty much figured out the horn biz.  It's going to take a while longer to master the timeshare biz.  (Meanwhile, don't get me started on the dishwasher biz.) 

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​


----------



## CMF

*You are always right Dave.*



Dave M said:


> Although the details of this plan are far from finalized, one thing I can guarantee is that testing the waters is not what this is about. I believe I have posted the reason that Sales was given this info before the details have been finalized.
> 
> Also, I disagree that "any such new policy would be bad for ALL owners." The reservations process will improve for some owners. Ultimately, there will be a lot of owners who will have a better shot at reserving the week of their choice.
> 
> Yes, resale values will likely be adversely impacted, but it's hard to tell exactly what market forces will do to values. And I believe most owners are more concerned about how the program works than what resale values are. I'm one of those. I have no plans to ever sell any of my weeks. But I worry every year about whether I'll be able to reserve my first-choice weeks.
> 
> Perhaps more importantly, keep in mind that TUG is a tiny blip on the Marriott map. There are perhaps fewer than 5,000 of Marriott's 300,000+ owners who even know that TUG exists. And probably fewer than 1,000 owners know how to tweak the Marriott system because of TUG. When Marriott eventually announces that it will be easier for owners who bought from Marriott to make reservations, I'm guessing there will overwhelming appreciation for the change. Not here at TUG, but Marriott doesn't - and shouldn't - cater to TUG owners.
> 
> Lastly, Marriott is in the business of selling timeshares. Anything that makes it easier to make that initial sale is something Marriott should consider. This change will give Sales another selling point. Will declining resale values counter that? Be realistic. Resale values have always been substantially below Marriott's prices. The typical Marriott purchaser doesn't have a clue about the resale market. So even if resale values tank, there's no reason to believe that this change would adversely impact most decisions as to whether or not to buy from Marriott.



No one will realize how bad the modification may/will be than us.  The less knowledgeable masses may never now what they had or what may be taken away.  Most [an understatement] people don't know we exist. And, Marriott can do what ever it wants to.  

But, I'm making it my hobby to do whatever I can to make sure that Marriott does the RIGHT thing.  

I don't feel bad for those that willingly and happily said goodbye to their money when they bought for Marriott.  But I do feel bad for the folks that [in their own opinion] made poor decisions and wished they had bought resale.  They should get something more for their money than me.  I'm sure that Marriott can think of a way to entice or compensate retail buyers that will not   be a detriment to the resale minority.

Charles


----------



## PerryM

*I've got it!!!*

I think I know what is happening.

The same genius that cooked up the Florida Club is now running Marriott Timeshares!

The Florida Club is a whopping flop and that's all that is needed to change the complete Marriott way of doing business.  Just implement the Florida Club within each Marriott and allow resellers to belong at no charge!

Ta Dah........


----------



## Dave M

PerryM said:


> Marriott is impeading my ability to resell my property and it doesn't take a genius to see its to benefit Marriott over the owners at the resort.
> 
> I just don't think is will take much for hundreds of lawsuits to pop up instantly.


I generally agree with your comments, Perry. But my guess is that there will be only a few lawsuits and they will go nowhere. Here's an analogy, which you can say (accurately) is different, but there are similarities....

My favorite airline enticed me way back in 1981 to be loyal to it by offering me FF miles for flying with them. They told me I could use 15,000 of those FF miles for a free ticket. Oops! They arbitrarily increased the requirement to 20,000 miles and then again to 25,000 miles. They also reduced the number of free seats available, especially on the convenient flights for which I am most likely to want such free tickets. Thus, the value of the FF miles I had already earned was significantly devalued and I could no longer use them as effectively as previously. 

Result? There was a single successful lawsuit in the 1980s and it was successful only because American and other airlines had not given sufficient notice of the changes to the program rules. Subsequent lawsuits over other devaluations have gone nowhere. The key to the airlines' successful defense was that their program rules clearly stated that they could change any of the terms of the program or even the very existence of the program at any time.

How does that impact the forthcoming reservation restriction? Several points:

1) Just as with the airline programs, Marriott says it can change its program rules at any time. It has made numerous changes over the years, some with an outcry from this forum, but none that failed when it came to Marriott's legal right to make such changes. As just one example, when Marriott disenfranchised (to a certain extent) single week owners by adding the 13-month reservation policy, there was no successful action against Marriott. 

2) Nowhere in any of the Marriott materials is there any written guarantee that Marriott won't take actions that adversely impact the value of what we own. In fact, Marriott, just like the airlines, takes frequent action that affect our timeshare value and other actions that devalue the Marriott Rewards points that we own. Life goes on.

3) Marriott undoubtedly has the best legal minds that money can buy looking at every aspect of this forthcoming change. And no matter how incensed we might get about the change, the task of anyone who believes that Marriott will be ordered by a court to pay for adversely impacting our resale value will be to prove that those legal opinions that Marriott is getting are flawed. Yes, a lot of people will likely be unhappy. But none of those here who claim what Marriott is doing can't be legally supported has done 1% as much legal research on the issue as Marriott has.

As for who is likely to be successful in a possible legal battle on this issue, I would give overwhelming odds to Marriott. I think its wishful thinking to suggest otherwise.


----------



## thinze3

Dave M said:


> ....My favorite airline enticed me way back in 1981 to be loyal to it by offering me FF miles for flying with them. They told me I could use 15,000 of those FF miles for a free ticket. Oops! They arbitrarily increased the requirement to 20,000 miles and then again to 25,000 miles. They also reduced the number of free seats available, especially on the convenient flights for which I am most likely to want such free tickets. Thus, the value of the FF miles I had already earned was significantly devalued and I could no longer use them as effectively as previously....
> 
> How does that impact the forthcoming reservation restriction? Several points:
> 
> 1) Just as with the airline programs, Marriott says it can change its program rules at any time. It has made numerous changes over the years, some with an outcry from this forum, but none that failed when it came to Marriott's legal right to make such changes. As just one example, when Marriott disenfranchised (to a certain extent) single week owners by adding the 13-month reservation policy, there was no successful action against Marriott.....



Dave
I have not looked on my deeds, but do they mention reservations at all?
What about the contracts, do they mention anything about reservations?

I believe that the comparison to FF miles is apples and oranges. I believe that the comparison to the 13 month rule for multi-week owners is more realistic. Marriott specifically limited the number of weeks available to multi-week owners to be able to get past any litigation problems. I can only believe that there would also be some sort of compromise on the 6 month reservation changes as well. Obviuosly grandfethering the old weeks in would do it.  IMO

.


----------



## divenski

Dave M said:


> .....And I believe most owners are more concerned about how the program works than what resale values are. I'm one of those. I have no plans to ever sell any of my weeks. But I worry every year about whether I'll be able to reserve my first-choice weeks.
> 
> Perhaps more importantly, keep in mind that TUG is a tiny blip on the Marriott map.



Dave,

If resales are only 5% of the TS market, then this proposed change shouldn't have much of an effect on your ability to get a first-choice week? Seems like a big change for a 5% effect.

Unless maybe, the resale market is growing, and/or the effect of places like TUG have more of an impact than the raw numbers suggest.

I still have to think that this change will apply to only NEW properties and sales. After all, for properties that are sold out, how many of them does Marriott still sell in any way? Even if Marriott is still selling a few units here and there, for any of the older properties, it will take many years for any existing owners to see any real benefit from this change.


----------



## ladycody

PerryM said:


> Say I owned a Platinum Week at Summit Watch – I can’t go weeks 51 & 52 but I can go the week of Sundance and Week 7 (President’s Week).  Say I owned 4 Platinum weeks and used to lock in 2 Sundance and 2 President’s Week, used one an rented the others for mega bucks.
> 
> My Platinum Week is worth about $28k to me just about anytime I want to sell it.
> 
> Marriott now implements the 6 months reservation policy on resales.  The guy I would sell the week to can NO LONGER get Sundance or President’s week but week 1 or 2 in Park City and that’s it.
> 
> Anyone here want to say that my week is still worth $28k?
> 
> Of course not, its worth a fraction of that – say half of it or $14k.
> 
> Now I need some cash and list the week at 14k and find a buyer – 10 minutes later I get the ROFR and Marriott steps in and snaps up the week for $14k and it sells it for $50k this afternoon.  This is worthy of a 3rd world dictator’s tactics.  Marriott would have to dump the ROFR instantly to make this work.
> 
> This would become such a huge class action lawsuit as to make Marriott’s lawyers smile since they will be spending many more billable hours on the job for the next 10 years.  It wouldn’t take much to find 12 folks from Utah to find Marriott guilty of unscrupulous and predatory business activities.  I wouldn’t be surprised if the auditors and lawyers cover their butts and issue warnings to the marketing guys that this half baked idea needs to be filed in the round filing cabinet today.
> 
> P.S.
> Over a 40 year period just about EVERY unit at EVERY Marriott is going to be sold - that's a lot of business for the lawyers; bless their hearts.
> 
> P.P.S.
> ARDA reports that of all timeshare transactions 7% are resale.  All this for that 7% Marriott?  Are you nuts?



Are you serious???    :hysterical:


----------



## PerryM

*Whew!!!*



Dave M said:


> I generally agree with your comments, Perry. But my guess is that there will be only a few lawsuits and they will go nowhere. Here's an analogy, which you can say (accurately) is different, but there are similarities....
> 
> My favorite airline enticed me way back in 1981 to be loyal to it by offering me FF miles for flying with them. They told me I could use 15,000 of those FF miles for a free ticket. Oops! They arbitrarily increased the requirement to 20,000 miles and then again to 25,000 miles. They also reduced the number of free seats available, especially on the convenient flights for which I am most likely to want such free tickets. Thus, the value of the FF miles I had already earned was significantly devalued and I could no longer use them as effectively as previously.
> 
> Result? There was a single successful lawsuit in the 1980s and it was successful only because American and other airlines had not given sufficient notice of the changes to the program rules. Subsequent lawsuits over other devaluations have gone nowhere. The key to the airlines' successful defense was that their program rules clearly stated that they could change any of the terms of the program or even the very existence of the program at any time.
> 
> How does that impact the forthcoming reservation restriction? Several points:
> 
> 1) Just as with the airline programs, Marriott says it can change its program rules at any time. It has made numerous changes over the years, some with an outcry from this forum, but none that failed when it came to Marriott's legal right to make such changes. As just one example, when Marriott disenfranchised (to a certain extent) single week owners by adding the 13-month reservation policy, there was no successful action against Marriott.
> 
> 2) Nowhere in any of the Marriott materials is there any written guarantee that Marriott won't take actions that adversely impact the value of what we own. In fact, Marriott, just like the airlines, takes frequent action that affect our timeshare value and other actions that devalue the Marriott Rewards points that we own. Life goes on.
> 
> 3) Marriott undoubtedly has the best legal minds that money can buy looking at every aspect of this forthcoming change. And no matter how incensed we might get about the change, the task of anyone who believes that Marriott will be ordered by a court to pay for adversely impacting our resale value will be to prove that those legal opinions that Marriott is getting are flawed. Yes, a lot of people will likely be unhappy. But none of those here who claim what Marriott is doing can't be legally supported has done 1% as much legal research on the issue as Marriott has.
> 
> As for who is likely to be successful in a possible legal battle on this issue, I would give overwhelming odds to Marriott. I think its wishful thinking to suggest otherwise.



I see what you are saying, but class action lawsuits have a life of their own and I can see where 12 folks could be convinced that Marriott harmed hundreds of thousands of owners who, just like a homeowner, has the heavy hand of the developer squashing the ability of the little guy to get the resale price that used to be available.

I've presented my opinion and my 1 Gold week at Summit Watch isn't about to be hurt and my ability to exchange into wonderful Marriotts isn't about to change.

So let's see if I win or lose my bet against myself (what?).  I believe that some grown up at Marriott will come to their senses and stop this.

I am glad I did sell my 5 Marriotts - whew!!!!!


----------



## PerryM

ladycody said:


> Are you serious???    :hysterical:




Well WM owners will have no problems with Marriott's attack on their resale market.

Maybe Marriott and Wyndham are looking at a merger?


Makes sense to me...


----------



## divenski

*5% of what?*

Many people have stated that the resale market is about 5-7%, but the question is of what?

Does 5% represent the total of all TS units owned at the moment by resale owners or the amount of sales each year that are resale? If the latter, then it is likely that older properties have a much higher % of resale owners, which of course means that a lot of original owners sold resale without Marriott's "help".


----------



## Icarus

Dave M said:


> My favorite airline enticed me way back in 1981 to be loyal to it by offering me FF miles for flying with them.



That's not even close. You didn't pay for the miles and sign a contract for them and receive a deed for them guaranteeing you use of those miles at a specific rate in perpetuity.

-David


----------



## PerryM

divenski said:


> Many people have stated that the resale market is about 5-7%, but the question is of what?
> 
> Does 5% represent the total of all TS units owned at the moment by resale owners or the amount of sales each year that are resale? If the latter, then it is likely that older properties have a much higher % of resale owners, which of course means that a lot of original owners sold resale without Marriott's "help".



ARAD quote:

Vacation owners are savvy travelers who shop around.

57.4% of recent buyers purchased directly from a developer; 24.9% purchased from a home owners’ association; 10.5% acquired their timeshare as a gift, inheritance, or from some other source; *7.2%purchased from a pervious owner.*

The average recent buyer attended 2.6 sales presentations before making a purchase.


I did find the ARDA link!


----------



## wuv pooh

Icarus said:


> That's not even close. You didn't pay for the miles and sign a contract for them and receive a deed for them guaranteeing you use of those miles at a specific rate in perpetuity.
> 
> -David



I think it is pretty close.  Program rules are subject to change.  What you buy from Marriott is a deed to one week of time per year.  You will always receive that.  Everything else is subject to change including exchanging, reservation timeframes, trading for points, floating vs. fixed weeks, renting, locking off, who manages the property, etc, etc.  Some changes require the cooperation of the HOA, or the amendment of the condo documents, but everything is potentially up for grabs except the occupancy of the specific week you are deeded in a specific building.  That is why the advice/disclosures is to buy where you want to go and not based on current program rules or investment potential.

I think it will be interesting to see how things work out.  I would be interested in seeing greater benefits to people who buy direct vs. resale and have made several suggestions to Marriott in the past on the issue.  It should be an eventful year.


----------



## timeos2

Icarus said:


> That's not even close. You didn't pay for the miles and sign a contract for them and receive a deed for them guaranteeing you use of those miles at a specific rate in perpetuity.
> 
> -David



Agreed. Clearly FF miles are a bonus program subject to the whims and rules of the issuing airline.  With Marriott (and others) we are talking about a legal contract for property or RTU with specific rights & obligations. Completely different thing.


----------



## Palguy

If my deed states a specific unit for a specific week (which is does for the purpose of insuring the same week is not continuously resold by the developer) and Marriott picks it up for say 25¢ on the dollar because it is a resale with restricted reservation rights. They then turn around and sell the exact same unit, is it not if fact a resale? Would not any jury in the country consider it so? That being said, shouldn't Marriott be held to the same standard they set for current owners as resellers? I understand they can add purchase bonuses and the such, or create a new in house trading program, but to sell the exact same deeded unit under a different set of conditions and saying it is not also a resale? I am no legal expert by any means, and they may very well be able to do it, but if I were setting on a jury and I would assume a majority of the people who would could see very well what they are doing. It will be interesting to see what  they finally decide to do, but I would be surprised to see such a major change. 

But then again, what do I know, little or nothing. Marriott holds all the cards and it is like playing Yu-Gi-Oh with my 9 year old grandson. He knows everything about the game and I don't, he stacks the deck well in advance, he makes the rules as he goes along, the same rules don't apply to me and I haven't beat him yet.


----------



## Dave M

timeos2 said:


> Agreed. Clearly FF miles are a bonus program subject to the whims and rules of the issuing airline.  With Marriott (and others) we are talking about a legal contract for property or RTU with specific rights & obligations. Completely different thing.


...and....


Icarus said:


> That's not even close. You didn't pay for the miles and sign a contract for them and receive a deed for them guaranteeing you use of those miles at a specific rate in perpetuity.
> 
> -David


Nor did anyone here sign a contract or receive a deed that guaranteed any particular resale value. Nor will any future resale buyer get any guarantee from Marriott about how far in advance that buyer can reserve a week. So I'm missing your point. 

My point is that my airline enticed me to spend money in expectation of getting a specific benefit that was in a written program that has a provision allowing changes. That program changed. No foul, according to the courts. Similarly, Marriott enticed us to spend money in expectation of getting certain benefits that were in a written program that has a provision allowing changes. That program has changed and will change. Likely, no foul. That's the similarity.

To clarify, because the question has come up previously, I'm not on Marriott's side on this issue. I'm not taking sides. I'm merely trying to look at possible or logical outcomes from an objective - not emotional - standpoint.


----------



## timeos2

Dave M said:


> ...and....
> Nor did anyone here sign a contract or receive a deed that guaranteed any particular resale value. Nor will any future resale buyer get any guarantee from Marriott about how far in advance that buyer can reserve a week. So I'm missing your point.
> 
> My point is that my airline enticed me to spend money in expectation of getting a specific benefit that was in a written program that has a provision allowing changes. That program changed. No foul, according to the courts. Similarly, Marriott enticed us to spend money in expectation of getting certain benefits that were in a written program that has a provision allowing changes. That program has changed and will change. Likely, no foul. That's the similarity.
> 
> To clarify, because the question has come up previously, I'm not on Marriott's side on this issue. I'm not taking sides. I'm merely trying to look at possible or logical outcomes from an objective - not emotional - standpoint.



It is similar to the degree that the original purchase documents included wording that they could be altered.  Through no grand plan (simply dumb luck of buying what we liked at that time) all of our existing ownerships are based on a deed that clearly spells out a unit, size and use procedures. None of which are subject to change as they are defined in the recorded deed right down to reservation periods and how they are used. On top of that is a set of maulable Association rules and regulations (how many people in each size unit, what time check in can start and checkout occurs, if smoking is or isn't allowed, etc) but none of those impact the ability to occupy, reserve or sell the rights attached to the deed. If the deeded time Marriott offered, and buyers agreed to, included the right to change those use / ownership /sale rights then it wasn't very protective of the buyer (I'm surprised it passed state review) but it is what it is.  In that case Marriott can do as they please just like those FF mile programs and you really don't have much if any say or control.  Not much of a deed IMO but again it is what the buyer agreed to and now must live with.


----------



## Icarus

Dave M said:


> .So I'm missing your point.
> 
> ...
> 
> To clarify, because the question has come up previously, I'm not on Marriott's side on this issue. I'm not taking sides. I'm merely trying to look at possible or logical outcomes from an objective - not emotional - standpoint.



I guess we'll simply have to agree to disagree.

The Marriott Rewards program has changed too, and those changes affected the value that we all got for the option to exchange for MR points, but that also was expected as with all rewards programs. But, I don't think the changes to the MR program are comparable to the changes in the reservation policy for reserving a week at your home resort no matter how you purchased the unit. And it has nothing to do with a "guaranteed resale value" either.

I wonder if there's some line that they might cross that might get you to change your mind. What if they just changed the program so that resale weeks could only reserve their weeks one month out? How about changing it so that you can't reserve any week if you purchase resale? Would that be ok?

-David


----------



## Icarus

wuv pooh said:


> I think it is pretty close.  Program rules are subject to change.  What you buy from Marriott is a deed to one week of time per year.  You will always receive that.



We're not talking about resorts/deeds with fixed weeks. We're talking about resorts/deeds with one (or more) seasons of all floating weeks. KBC has a single season, like most, if not all the Hawaii resorts. A few offer some fixed weeks that will not be affected by the change being discussed in this thread.

-David


----------



## Dave M

The key in my mind is the specific language that allows Marriott to change the reservation program. It's tough to get around that, no matter how much we dislike changes.

Yes, there are some changes that would upset me more than others. But if they completely dumped the current program and implemented an entirely new reservations system, that would appear to be Marriott's right to do so.


----------



## timeos2

Icarus said:


> I guess we'll simply have to agree to disagree.
> 
> The Marriott Rewards program has changed too, and those changes affected the value that we all got for the option to exchange for MR points, but that also was expected as with all rewards programs. But, I don't think the changes to the MR program are comparable to the changes in the reservation policy for reserving a week at your home resort no matter how you purchased the unit. And it has nothing to do with a "guaranteed resale value" either.
> 
> I wonder if there's some line that they might cross that might get you to change your mind. What if they just changed the program so that resale weeks could only reserve their weeks one month out? How about changing it so that you can't reserve any week if you purchase resale? Would that be ok?
> 
> -David



Or simply reverse the plan. The HOA suddenly gets controlled by owners and they decide that only RESALE buyers get to reserve at 13 months while Developer buyers going forward (newbies - they deserve less) get a 6 month window. See any issue with that?  Fair is fair no matter who makes the rules and anytime one group gets favored unfairly over another no matter what the rational at least the perception of an unfair game becomes a problem.  If you happen to be on the "winning" side it's great but remember that the next change may hurt you and favor someone else.  Best to simply work to keep everyone whole and no one with a "favored" status.  

For what its worth I think its clear Dave M isn't saying he agrees (or disagrees) with the plan but is merely providing the most factual details available at this time.  A classic don't shoot the messenger situation.


----------



## hipslo

Dave M said:


> As I said,



"Ultimately"

I am not sure I understand.  Are you suggesting that "ultimately" any grandfathering of EXISTING resale owners would no longer apply?  Or that "ultimately", once there are a lot of new resale owners that are not grandfathered, others would have an easier time making reservations?  If the former, is that just a hunch or is it something more?  If the latter, implicit in that is that buyers would continue buying resale, at prices that would not cause Marriott to trigger rofr, even if they are subject to a new 6 month reservations window. That seems like a pretty darn small universe of people, but I suppose you never know.

I almost hate to ask this one, but assuming the worst, and that existing resales are not grandfathered, any idea what sort of arrangement Marriott might care to work out with resale owners who wouldnt want to be treated as second class owners, for those of us who might consider throwing good money after bad (or perhaps bad money after good might be a more apt characterization).


----------



## Icarus

Dave M said:


> The key in my mind is the specific language that allows Marriott to change the reservation program. It's tough to get around that, no matter how much we dislike changes.
> 
> Yes, there are some changes that would upset me more than others. But if they completely dumped the current program and implemented an entirely new reservations system, that would appear to be Marriott's right to do so.



I don't believe I've argued that they don't have the right to make changes to the program.

What I have said is that I don't think that the proposed changes benefit current or future owners. I also hypothesized about the reason for leaking the proposed changes, but we've already discussed that part of it, and that was just a theory.

-David


----------



## thinze3

timeos2 said:


> Or simply reverse the plan. The HOA suddenly gets controlled by owners and they decide that only RESALE buyers get to reserve at 13 months while Developer buyers going forward (newbies - they deserve less) get a 6 month window. See any issue with that? ....



That's a good point. But don't forget, by that time the resort would not have Marriott's name in front of it.

I would, however, like more resorts to play hardball in their negotiationswith Marriott similar to what one of the Aruba resorts is doing at this time.

.


----------



## hipslo

Dave M said:


> The key in my mind is the specific language that allows Marriott to change the reservation program. It's tough to get around that, no matter how much we dislike changes.




My recollection of that language, at least at Mountainside, is that changes can be made so as to more equitably allocate reservations among owners.  No distinction is drawn between developer and resale owners.  Marriott would need to show that it is "fair" to discriminate against resale owners in this way.  This could be difficult (not impossible, but difficult) to do, at least as to existing resale owners who purchased in reliance upon the existence of a system that did not discriminate in this way.


----------



## timeos2

hipslo said:


> I almost hate to ask this one, but assuming the worst, and that existing resales are not grandfathered, any idea what sort of arrangement Marriott might care to work out with resale owners who wouldnt want to be treated as second class owners, for those of us who might consider throwing good money after bad (or perhaps bad money after good might be a more apt characterization).



You already have that plan. You would have to find a buyer, most likely at a greatly reduced price as the changes will negatively impact resale values,  then Marriott will grab the week from you and your buyer at the greatly reduced price with ROFR.  Is the power plant to light the street lamps on line yet?  Developer control, unfettered rights to make changes, ROFR, etc are all negatives and none help owners. None of them.  Basically continued Developer control/management of resorts is a negative no matter what brand name we may be speaking of.  Sales always trumps owners in those cases.


----------



## thinze3

*lost trading power*

Everyone seems to be looking at the reservation system only and how it relates to furue resale value. What about the lost value in trading through II or through Marriott if Marriott developes an internal trading system. Depositing a week 5-6 months out makes you trading power much less than one deposited 11-12 months out. IMO

Also:
What happens if you own TWO resale weeks.
Would you be able to book 7 months out for contiguous weeks?


----------



## hipslo

timeos2 said:


> You already have that plan. You would have to find a buyer, most likely at a greatly reduced price as the changes will negatively impact resale values,  then Marriott will grab the week from you and your buyer at the greatly reduced price with ROFR.



I meant some other plan designed specifically to deal with this scenario.  

I agree that use of rofr in this specific scenario would be abusive, which is why I would think that part of the rollout of the plan, unless there is grandfathering, would need to address the issue.  But hey, at the end of the day, business is business.  Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.  No need to get emotional, the key is to reevaluate and work out contingency plans.

Or we can all spend our time and energy debating what SHOULD be.  I prefer to deal with what IS .


----------



## timeos2

hipslo said:


> I meant some other plan designed specifically to deal with this scenario.
> 
> I agree that use of rofr in this specific scenario would be abusive, which is why I would think that part of the rollout of the plan, unless there is grandfathering, would need to address the issue.  But hey, at the end of the day, business is business.  Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.  No need to get emotional, the key is to reevaluate and work out contingency plans.
> 
> Or we can all spend our time and energy debating what SHOULD be.  I prefer to deal with what IS .



What IS is why would they want to offer anything except whats already in place? They are trying to reduce the value of resale with moves like this - they already have a system in place to grab any low cost weeks. Why offer anything different?  It's dumb luck if they even offer "grandfathering" - beyond that is a pipe dream.


----------



## PerryM

*Marriott; add value and stop punishing us owners...*

Who controls reservations to a sold out Marriott?  That seems to be the case here.

If the HOA at the Marriott decides that Marriott has grievously harmed every owner due to interfering with a private sale, what’s to stop the HOA from breaking away from Marriott?

Is this the route Marriott wants to force upon the owners at EVERY Marriott?

Over 7% resale competition?

I just don’t think Marriott has put much thought behind this – just salesreps crying over their beer coming up with reasons they couldn’t make quota that month – damn resales.

The more I think about this the worse it looks for Marriott.  This just doesn’t make any sense at all.

Hey Marriott, if you want to make distinctions between your 93% record of sales versus the 7% you lose to us owners then add some benefits and stop taking them away.

Come on Marriott, how about an internal exchange system that ONLY allowed Marriott sold units.  That sounds perfectly ok – adding some new benefit.

To take such a draconian approach is symptomatic of much larger management problems in Marriott.  Time to sell Marriott short?


----------



## jerseygirl

I don't own any Marriotts and have no dog in this fight, but I researched this issue (using Hawaii statutes) when Starwood sales reps tried to claim that Starwood can co-mingle "club inventory" with "non-club inventory."  

Not everyone on the Starwood board agreed with my interpretation (and I'm sure not everyone here will agree either!) but I'd put my money on a requirement that Marriott must maintain two separate inventory pools if they really intend to enforce a situation where one class of owners can reserve at 12/13 months and a separate class of owners cannot reserve until 6 months.  (Actually, I think they should maintain 3 separate inventories, but that's another story!).  You can read all the rules here:

http://www.hawaii.gov/dcca/areas/pvl/programs/timeshare/statute_rules

Click on HRS Chapter 514E and pay particular attention to Section 514E-8.6.  Here are the relevant clauses:

_An operator shall not offer or dispose of a timeshare unit or a timeshare interest unless the *one-to-one use night requirement * is currently satisfied and will continue to be satisfied for the duration of the timeshare plan. 

*If the timeshare plan has more than one class of timeshare interest, then the requirement must be satisfied within each class.

A use night counted to satisfy the requirement for one class may not also be counted to satisfy the requirement for a competing class.*

This section shall not be deemed to prohibit the timeshare instruments from including provisions permitting rental by the association or the developer, or reservation and use by owners, of use nights which remain unreserved as of sixty or fewer days in advance of the use night._

I think it's perfectly plausible that Marriott may restrict resale buyers from participating in any internal exchange program until the six-month mark (or, not at all, like Starwood does for most of its resorts).  But, I really think it would be a legal nightmare for them to re-write the CCRs in a way that would allow for separate reservation policies for separate classes AND meet the fairness requirements that are built into the various state statutes.  Then, the administrative nightmare of maintaining separate inventory ... then, the public relations nightmare once ma and pa kettle discover their "investment" is worth about 10% of what they paid ....

I'll double Perry's charitable contribution if this ever happens .....


----------



## sdtugger

*Welcome to the World of Jury Trials and Class Actions*



Dave M said:


> 3) Marriott undoubtedly has the best legal minds that money can buy looking at every aspect of this forthcoming change. And no matter how incensed we might get about the change, the task of anyone who believes that Marriott will be ordered by a court to pay for adversely impacting our resale value will be to prove that those legal opinions that Marriott is getting are flawed. Yes, a lot of people will likely be unhappy. But none of those here who claim what Marriott is doing can't be legally supported has done 1% as much legal research on the issue as Marriott has.
> 
> As for who is likely to be successful in a possible legal battle on this issue, I would give overwhelming odds to Marriott. I think its wishful thinking to suggest otherwise.



We are just throwing out opinions here, so I'll add mine on three topics.  IF Marriott implements a new 6 month reservation window for all resale buyers, then:

1. Resale values will drop like a rock as people discover that their platinum season timeshare can only reserve the dregs in their season.  By the way, how would you like to be sued by a resale purchaser who can't use the timeshare you sold them to reserve anything but the worst weeks of the year?

2.  There will be an avalanche of lawsuits as people realize that their significant outlay is worth a much smaller fraction than before the new changes.  There will likely be a class certified that will cover all impacted Marriott owners (that is every single owner who does not affirmatively opt out of the case).  There is simply too much money on the table for people to shrug their shoulders here.  And, the difference between the earlier actions (13 month for multiple week owners for example) and the rumored action is that folks could still reserve prime weeks and that would go away if the 6 month window is implemented.

3.  There will be a settlement in the lawsuit.  Marriott will pay the plaintiffs attorneys a very significant sum for their fees and they will change their reservation policy.  There is too much on the table for Marriott to risk a jury getting angry and smacking them with a huge verdict potentially including punitive damages.  And, while I think a jury in Utah would award damages, there are many places in the US (central LA, southern TX, etc.) where the jury pools LOVE to sock it to big companies.  When you strip away all of the legal jargon, the question a jury would have to answer is whether a company can sell timeshares for many years touting resale value and operating in a certain way where resale value is maintained and then arbitrarily destroy that value in a way that enriches the company in a major way.  I would not want to defend that case . . . .


----------



## thinze3

sdtugger;443796/ said:
			
		

> ...And, while I think a jury in Utah would award damages, there are many places in the US (central LA, southern TX (*Houston*), etc.) where the jury pools LOVE to sock it to big companies...



Remember the Alamo!! Remember Goliad!!
Remember Texaco!! :hysterical: 

.


----------



## Dave M

hipslo said:


> My recollection of that language, at least at Mountainside, is that changes can be made so as to more equitably allocate reservations among owners.


I would be interested in your quoting the exact language. That could be a stumbling block for Marriott.

I own at three Marriotts, none of have wording which require anything to be "more equitable" about changes to the reservation system.


----------



## thinze3

As mentioned a couple days ago, I emailed several Marriott personnel about this (fourth email was this morning). I asked about the upcoming changes and what I could expect as an owner of both resale and developer weeks (one each). I mentioned that many different MVCI sales people were using the future 6 month trading limitation of resale units as a selling point. As expected I received no respones from any of the people which I emailed, but did receive this *BS *response from Owner Services.



> Dear _________:
> 
> Thank you for contacting Marriott Vacation Club International.
> 
> Please accept our sincere apologies for the misinformation you received. Owners may make reservations at their home property up to 13 months in advance, if they are booking their weeks consecutively (2 weeks back to back) or concurrently (2 villas for the same week) regardless of whether the weeks were purchased directly from Marriott or from an external source.
> 
> If you are only booking one of your deeded weeks at your home resort at a time, you may make reservations up to 12 months in advance.
> 
> You may have received incorrect information regarding the Florida Club usage options as well. Certain properties in Florida belong to the Florida Club. The following properties belong to the Florida Club:
> 
> Marriott's Legends Edge
> Marriott's Beach Place Towers
> Marriott's Ocean Pointe
> Marriott's Grande Vista
> Marriott's Villas at Doral
> 
> When you purchase a week at any of the above mentioned properties, and your week is purchased directly from Marriott, you have the option to occupy at any of the resorts listed above without needing to exchange your week with Interval International. The following guidelines apply:
> 
> You may only make reservations up to 6 months in advance
> You may only reserve a villa with a sleeping capacity equal to or less than your home resort
> You must travel within the same season which was purchased from your home resort.
> 
> For example, if an owner purchased within the Platinum Season at Marriott's Legends Edge, and the owner wants to go to Marriott's Grande Vista, the owner may only travel within Grande Vista's Platinum Season.
> 
> If you are traveling to a non-Florida Club resort, or you want to travel outside of your season, you must exchange your week with an external exchange company, such as Interval International.
> 
> If you sell your week at Marriott's Legends Edge through an external source, the new purchaser would not have the option to exercise the Florida Club usage.
> 
> If you have any further questions or concerns, please feel free to contact us via the e-mail address listed below or via our website at www.My-VacationClub.com.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Jim M.
> Correspondence Counselor
> Marriott Vacation Club International
> owner.services@vacationclub.com
> /dp
> 
> P.S. Are you aware a new Owner Travel Insurance program has been launched for Marriott Vacation Club owners? Offered by Travel Guard, the program provides coverage for a number of unexpected, but all too common travel issues. For more details visit www.travelguard.com/partners/mvci or call 866-385-4840.




To say the least, my response back to this email was not nearly as cordial as my first emails were.  

.


----------



## hipslo

Dave M said:


> I would be interested in your quoting the exact language. That could be a stumbling block for Marriott.
> 
> I own at three Marriotts, none of have wording which require anything to be "more equitable" about changes to the reservation system.




I will take a look at the docs when I get back from Ocean Pointe. (By the way, great resort (never been before), but its FREEZING here!!)

It is possible that memory mis-serves, but that is what I remember.


----------



## m61376

Jerseygirl brings up an interesting point, which may explain why, when Marriott instituted the 13 month window for multiple week owners booking consecutively/contiguously, they limited reservation at the 13 month window to 50%, and reserved a minimum of half for 12 months. Extrapolating according to the wording cited, if they were to institute a 6 month window, would that mean that a third of available reservations had to be available and held until 6 months, with equal availability at all 3 timeframes?

Buyers made purchases based on the promise that they would be able to make reservations for any week in their season, subject to availibility, of course, but with the understanding that all weeks within the given frame were potentially available and equally available to all.

I have always respected DaveM's opinions and owe most of what I know to him. But I have to respectfully disagree with his premise that resale values won't be adversely affected and, essentially, that resale buyers are such a small cog in the wheel that their outcry would be effectively unimportant. While I feel that, as Dave stated, current resale owners are likely to be grandfathered, so that will minimize the immediate impact, I maintain that such a change will be bad for all owners, resale or direct.

Yes, I too bought my unit with the intention of using it, and was looking into buying another. I have no intention of selling. But I have recently learnt that nothing is set in stone and that stuff happens in families. Admittedly, these days I am a bit jaded as I mourn the loss of my Dad, who never had more than a cold in his entire life. Changes can occur suddenly and without forewarning, and I think changes which can adversely affect the residual value for resale purposes so dramatically is important to all owners. No one can say with certainty that something won't happen which will affect their timeshare useage/needs and the changes Marriott is proposing will likely cost any owner, whether initially bought from the developer or resale, thousands of dollars. And, while Perry's posts may appear a bit dramatic, it might take just one or two really incensed new Maui owners or Marco buyers who suddenly need to sell and have to practically give their unit(s) away because a resale buyer would only be relegated to the dregs of weeks to start yelling foul....


----------



## hipslo

timeos2 said:


> What IS is why would they want to offer anything except whats already in place? They are trying to reduce the value of resale with moves like this - they already have a system in place to grab any low cost weeks. Why offer anything different?  It's dumb luck if they even offer "grandfathering" - beyond that is a pipe dream.



I am sure you will characterize me as naive for this, but if I, as an owner of several resale weeks at a "hot", sold out property, were to approach Marriott and say guess what guys, you win, I dont want to be a second class citizen, can we work something out whereby I "upgrade" my resale weeks to developer weeks, I would think they'd appreciate the opportunity to book some revenue for doing, essentially, nothing.  I am not saying I would do this, but if it were an option, at least for some limited time after the implementation  of a new system, if there were no grandfathering, I would at least consider it.  I think lots of others would, as well.  

If they didnt do this, maybe I'd try to sell to a third party, maybe not.  Thus they may or may not ever get the opportunity to "resell" my weeks for a profit.  But if it were an option, I, as well as others, might very well take advantage of it.  More revenue, sooner rather than later, is generally viewed by business people as a good thing.  If it helps with customer relations, so much the better.  

Viewing the world solely from an "us vs. them" perspective, where all the developers are interested in is screwing the customer, rather than as rational business people making rational business decisions, doesnt make a lot of sense to me.  Its not as simple as that.  What are their needs, what are the customers needs, and what can under certain circumstances address both?  Taking this approach would likely work out BETTER for Marriott than grandfathering all existing resale owners.  While I hope that grandfathering is the answer, I am trying to consider what other alternatives might apply, and am trying to do so as objectively as I can.


----------



## m61376

Hipslo- taking your suggestion one step further, I would proffer that, in the interest of fairness, all current owners should be treated equally (effectively grandfathering any resale owners), since they based their purchase decision on a policy of equality other than the ability to trade for points.
IF Marriott offerrs future resale purchasers the option of upgrading for a fee it would mitigate some of the likely damage to resale value, depending upon the cost.


----------



## timeos2

*Taking away is different than adding for new purchasers*



hipslo said:


> I am sure you will characterize me as naive for this, but if I, as an owner of several resale weeks at a "hot", sold out property, were to approach Marriott and say guess what guys, you win, I dont want to be a second class citizen, can we work something out whereby I "upgrade" my resale weeks to developer weeks, I would think they'd appreciate the opportunity to book some revenue for doing, essentially, nothing.  I am not saying I would do this, but if it were an option, at least for some limited time after the implementation  of a new system, if there were no grandfathering, I would at least consider it.  I think lots of others would, as well.
> 
> If they didnt do this, maybe I'd try to sell to a third party, maybe not.  Thus they may or may not ever get the opportunity to "resell" my weeks for a profit.  But if it were an option, I, as well as others, might very well take advantage of it.  More revenue, sooner rather than later, is generally viewed by business people as a good thing.  If it helps with customer relations, so much the better.
> 
> Viewing the world solely from an "us vs. them" perspective, where all the developers are interested in is screwing the customer, rather than as rational business people making rational business decisions, doesnt make a lot of sense to me.  Its not as simple as that.  What are their needs, what are the customers needs, and what can under certain circumstances address both?  Taking this approach would likely work out BETTER for Marriott than grandfathering all existing resale owners.  While I hope that grandfathering is the answer, I am trying to consider what other alternatives might apply, and am trying to do so as objectively as I can.



Paying MORE is always an option a developer welcomes! That would be no different than what Wyndham does with weeks upgrades to points, Diamond with weeks to Trust, RCI with weeks to points, etc. Not the same as simply leaving things alone for owners prior to XX/XX/XX So note that NONE of those companies, some of which don't have the very best industry/consumer reputation, changes what an owner gets NOW or in the future with their ownership and use privileges - they simply get more options if they pay up.  If Marriott actually goes back and penalizes a group of buyers for how they bought they are opening new, previously uncharted ownership devaluation that even Wastegate hasn't dare broach. Not a path I'd want my ownership or company branded with but, if it makes them money.....


----------



## Dave M

m61376 said:


> I have always respected DaveM's opinions and owe most of what I know to him. But I have to respectfully disagree with his premise that resale values won't be adversely affected....


Huh? Me thinks I'm being misquoted. I believe my most recent statement on values, mirroring others I have made, comes from post #87 in this thread:





> Yes, resale values will likely be adversely impacted....


Similarly, I made an inferential post suggesting that values would likely drop in my numbered point #2 in post #100. 

Could it be that because I haven't jumped on the "Marriott can't legally do this" bandwagon that some have lumped me into the "there is nothing bad in this change" pile? If so, nothing could be further from my viewpoint. Of course there will be adverse effects! There will be very significant adverse operational and financial impacts for some owners.


----------



## sdtugger

Dave M said:


> I would be interested in your quoting the exact language. That could be a stumbling block for Marriott.
> 
> I own at three Marriotts, none of have wording which require anything to be "more equitable" about changes to the reservation system.



Dave,  Are you saying that none of your weeks have any wording about the reservation system or that they don't say anything about "more equitable?"  I'd be interested in seeing quotes from the relevant sections of the ownership documents for the various locations.  I'll try to locate them in my own weeks and try to post.


----------



## potchak

Ok, I am confused. 

Dave,
According to your source, will current resales be grandfathered? And is it reservations at their current resort that will be limited or the internal system that will be limited to 6 months?

I tried reading through this whole post, but I got confused along the way.


----------



## thinze3

*It is not true!!!*

I just got a call from MVCI’s corporate office.
After sending numerous emails, Marriott must have felt a necessity to call me up on this.

The person that called me stated that her office was at the highest level in MVCI’s corporate structure. She made it very clear with all certainty that resale owners WILL NOT be limited to reserving their weeks 6 months out. Marriott is very aware of this “rumor” and was working on finding the person who started it. They believe with some certainty that this rumor started in Aruba and has begun to spread as a matter of fact.

Marriott is not making any changes that will affect resale owners. I asked her if anything like this had ever been discussed. She stated, “yes”, that the 6 month reservations for resale owners had been brought up as a “what if”. She said that discussions and “what ifs” are normal, but that it was never even considered however. “Do you know what kind of mess we would have if we tried to do something like that?” - she quoted. She went on to stay that she had actually walked around asked the V.P.’s in their offices about this before calling me back to make sure that she was speaking the truth.

It was confirmed that Marriott has been working on the feasibility and implementation of an internal trading system of some sort. This lady stated that it is beginning to look more and more like this is now NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. So for the foreseeable future, there will be NO CHANGES to the MVCI system.

I think we can all breath a sigh of relief for the time being.

Terry  

*P.S.
Please note that I did not include my phone number on any emails and that this person called my wife at home, who then gave the lady my work number. This should indicate the seriousness of the situation.*


----------



## qlaval

AMEN!


----------



## Palguy

Has anyone talked to a resale broker to get their take on all of this, or is there one among us possibly? I am curious as to how they see all of this playing out.

Tom


----------



## PerryM

*In writing?*



m61376 said:


> Hipslo- taking your suggestion one step further, I would proffer that, in the interest of fairness, *all current owners should be treated equally *(effectively grandfathering any resale owners), since they based their purchase decision on a policy of equality other than the ability to trade for points.
> IF Marriott offerrs future resale purchasers the option of upgrading for a fee it would mitigate some of the likely damage to resale value, depending upon the cost.



Certainly true.  It's when Marriott then decides to raise the commission to sell your unit to 75% and thus resales become worth just 25% at max of the current selling price that Marriott will discover that imitating Wyndham is just stupid.




thinze3 said:


> I just got a call from MVCI’s corporate office.
> After sending numerous emails, Marriott must have felt a necessity to call me up on this.
> 
> The person that called me stated that her office was at the highest level in MVCI’s corporate structure. She made it very clear with all certainty that resale owners WILL NOT be limited to reserving their weeks 6 months out. Marriott is very aware of this “rumor” and was working on finding the person who started it. They believe with some certainty that this rumor started in Aruba and has begun to spread as a matter of fact.
> 
> Marriott is not making any changes that will affect resale owners. I asked her if anything like this had ever been discussed. She stated, “yes”, that the 6 month reservations for resale owners had been brought up as a “what if”. She said that discussions and “what ifs” are normal, but that it was never even considered however. “Do you know what kind of mess we would have if we tried to do something like that?” - she quoted. She went on to stay that she had actually walked around asked the V.P.’s in their offices about this before calling me back to make sure that she was speaking the truth.
> 
> It was confirmed that Marriott has been working on the feasibility and implementation of an internal trading system of some sort. This lady stated that it is beginning to look more and more like this is now NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. So for the foreseeable future, there will be NO CHANGES to the MVCI system.
> 
> I think we can all breath a sigh of relief for the time being.
> 
> Terry
> 
> *P.S.
> Please note that I did not include my phone number on any emails and that this person called my wife at home, who then gave the lady my work number. This should indicate the seriousness of the situation.*




Now this makes perfect sense and I feel that I won't have to pay off my bet.  (Well, I will of course donate to the Toys for Tots later this year)

However, did you get this in writing???????????????

This is the timeshare world..........

P.S.
Marriott; why not listen to your customers instead of the blowhard salesreps?

My wife signs me up for all kinds of focus groups (I enjoy sharing my opinion and heck I get a few bucks too).  We get enough stipends for some really great dinners. 

I just finished one on California Grapes.  So Marriott why not do the same?

RCI had me do one for the Bass Pro Shop - that really paid some big bucks.


----------



## CMF

*3 denials from from the Marriott executive offices.*

I also have three denials on file from from Marriott Corporate.  I am saving these just in case Marriott decides not to like me one day  

Charles


----------



## m61376

Dave M said:


> Huh? Me thinks I'm being misquoted. I believe my most recent statement on values, mirroring others I have made, comes from post #87 in this thread:Similarly, I made an inferential post suggesting that values would likely drop in my numbered point #2 in post #100.
> 
> Could it be that because I haven't jumped on the "Marriott can't legally do this" bandwagon that some have lumped me into the "there is nothing bad in this change" pile? If so, nothing could be further from my viewpoint. Of course there will be adverse effects! There will be very significant adverse operational and financial impacts for some owners.



Dave- sorry if I misquoted you or mis-spoke- I have nothing but the highest regard for your opinion. Admittedly, my brain is only half functioning and I was reading/responding while on infinite telephone holds today. My impression from what you said was that you weren't convinced that resale values would dive, since of course they would be reacting to a variety of market forces. I just feel, and I could be wrong, that it would really have a bad impact for everyone and could cause a spiralling devaluation and diminished reputation. That's just my two cents, for what it's woth.

And now I've read the previous few posts- hope they are all true. I couldn't see Marriott shooting itself in the foot just to protect itself from a mere 7% that have bought externally, especially since a healthy resale valuation boosts the ownershipvalue as a whole.


----------



## Dean

thinze3 said:


> I just got a call from MVCI’s corporate office.
> After sending numerous emails, Marriott must have felt a necessity to call me up on this.
> 
> The person that called me stated that her office was at the highest level in MVCI’s corporate structure. She made it very clear with all certainty that resale owners WILL NOT be limited to reserving their weeks 6 months out. Marriott is very aware of this “rumor” and was working on finding the person who started it. They believe with some certainty that this rumor started in Aruba and has begun to spread as a matter of fact.
> 
> Marriott is not making any changes that will affect resale owners. I asked her if anything like this had ever been discussed. She stated, “yes”, that the 6 month reservations for resale owners had been brought up as a “what if”. She said that discussions and “what ifs” are normal, but that it was never even considered however. “Do you know what kind of mess we would have if we tried to do something like that?” - she quoted. She went on to stay that she had actually walked around asked the V.P.’s in their offices about this before calling me back to make sure that she was speaking the truth.
> 
> It was confirmed that Marriott has been working on the feasibility and implementation of an internal trading system of some sort. This lady stated that it is beginning to look more and more like this is now NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. So for the foreseeable future, there will be NO CHANGES to the MVCI system.
> 
> I think we can all breath a sigh of relief for the time being.
> 
> Terry
> 
> *P.S.
> Please note that I did not include my phone number on any emails and that this person called my wife at home, who then gave the lady my work number. This should indicate the seriousness of the situation.*


Terry, thanks for posting this additional information.  As a rule I don't take rumors or denials as the final word until I see it in action.  As I posted earlier, I don't see how this (per the rumor) could be done at existing resorts for home resort reservations.  The limitation could certainly be written in to new resorts but I'm not sure even that would hold up.  I guess we should all stay tuned.


----------



## thinze3

*In writing?*

Perry, I just sent her an email reminding her what she said while asking her another question, hoping to get it in writing.   You'll be the first to know.

.


----------



## davis6

CMF said:


> It's not about the money. It's about protecting a purchase.  And I would not give the Marriott legal department credit just because they are a big company and can hire competent counsel.  Good legal counsel is no guarantee that a company will not do something foolish.
> 
> Charles



I know this for a fact that if a firm takes on a class action case ,and yes I have a good firm that I just beat GM with a 2 year deal, they can get Marriott to grandfather all of the TS new and resale that were sold before a certain time.  It does take years but if a big corp knows they are having their bluff called then they will make it right.  As the clas member who initiates the suite you would not stand to gain much more than the other members.  Maybe $10,000  for all your troubles and Marriott would have to pay your counsel if they were to win.

What a class action does is put a slap on the hand on someone , Big corp, that tried to get away with one.

*It is a way for the small guy to keep the big guys honest!!!*

By the way all it takes is a phone call and the class action firms usually as far as I know work on a contigency.  No out of pocket $$


----------



## Latravel

Is it reasonable to expect that people who pay a much lower price (resale)  should have the same benefits in the Marriott system as those who bought from the developer?   There have to be some incentives to justify the extra purchase price and limiting resale benefits/use of program encourages purchasing direct.  This type of incentive works.

My husband and I purposely bought from Marriott (even after reading this board) instead of from the resale market because it was obvious that Marriott intentionally limits resales from full use of the Marriott system (exoints).  The fact that they could potentially further limit resales should not be a surprise to anyone, given their current rules.  Therefore, we purposely and happily bought directly from Marriott so that we would have access to the complete Marriott system and we were ok with paying more for this use. 

Given that we bought direct, I do not like seeing a unit at my resort (Timberlodge) being sold for half the price I paid.  If Marriott puts restrictions on resales access to the system, this will affect everyones resale value.  Therefore, Marriott should develop a system to reasonably and fairly resell units through Marriott in order to maintain our timeshare value. 

Unfortunately, some people would be adversely affect by all this, specifically those who bought resale, though it seems to be a small percentage.


----------



## hipslo

Latravel said:


> Is it reasonable to expect that people who pay a much lower price (resale)  should have the same benefits in the Marriott system as those who bought from the developer?



Resale purchasers, by definition, are buying from someone who has purchased directly from the developer. The original purchaser bought and paid for full ownership rights.  When that original purchaser turns around and sells to a resale purchaser, from the developer's standpoint, the original sale does not somehow "unhappen" - they still made that original sale, for the full developer price.  What happens to the full freight ownership rights that have been bought and paid for?  Poof.  That doesnt really make any sense.  Its like Perry's analogy - I buy a car from the dealer.  Then a few years (heck a few weeks) later I turn around and sell the car to someone else for much less, and the dealer tells the new owner he cant drive it on weekends.  That makes no less sense than limiting the rights of resale timeshare purchasers, does it?

From the point of view of other developer owners, why should it matter whether the original developer purchaser, or a resale purchaser, is now the owner of the unit that was sold by the developer for full freight?  The reseller takes the loss, not the other developer owners.  EVERY unit that is resold was at its inception a developer week.  How does the fact that the original owner decides to sell it, regardless of price, change its inherent character? What if the original owner sold it for 100% of developer cost?  or 90%?  At what point does it make sense to say hey, that guy paid less than me, he should therefor have less rights?  Should those who buy preconstruction, or early in a resort's history, have less rights than those who buy later and pay more?  For that matter, should those who buy goods at wholesale, rather than retail, not get to use the goods in the same manner as those who buy retail?


----------



## JimIg23

Concerning lawsuits and the 6 month reservation restriction, my thought is the damage against resale buyers would less be "resale value" but more to one's ability to reserve.  Let's face it, in places like NCV, by the 6 month market probably only 1 (maybe 2) months out of 7 months will be available.  This will essentially create a second season within a season, thereby (maybe not on paper, but in effect) restrict resale owners to only 4 weeks worth of reservation choices.  Right now, 12 single week owners have access to the entire season, even if only 50%, but at least they are not in effect being blocked from the entire season.


----------



## Cobra1950

I understand the concern by those owning resale weeks.  However, I bought all 3 of my weeks directly from Marriott-not to say I will not buy a resale at some point, but all the chatter makes me wait until I see the outcome.
    Anyway, I got into the time share act not as an investment, but as a vacation plan.  It has been nice to see the value of my Christmas week at SW basically double since I bought it, and the Platinum week at Legends Edge (especially after the Alaskan cruise for 2) has stayed reasonably stable.
    The ROFR seems to be a vehicle used by Marriott to keep prices stable.  If it was not there, of course the natural order of supply and demand would take over and prices would drop sharply in the coming difficult real estate year.
     Why would I want that?  By doing this Marriott is protecting its' market and pricing structure, but also protecting the value of my purchases (the thought of selling my Christmas week for 1/2 of its' original value has no appeal for some reason).  If I wanted to sell any of my weeks on the open market and avoid Marriott's high commission rate, what do I care who buys it for the best market price I can get?  Marriott or private owner, what difference does it make to me?
      Even for the resale owners, if Marriott was not stepping in and buying units occasionally, their units' value would steadily depreciate below what they paid for them as the developments got older.  So there is another side to this discussion than the frenzy over the ROFR.
      As to the pending new rules, whatever they are, at some point Marriott will have to formalize something, and I would expect that the benefit would be to the owners that purchased directly from Marriott, otherwise Marriott would destroy any reason to buy directly from Marriott-enhancing the resale market and negatively impacting any reason for them to launch new developments.  We would all suffer if they made this decision.


----------



## CMF

*I have no intention to start legal action against M.*



davis6 said:


> I know this for a fact that if a firm takes on a class action case ,and yes I have a good firm that I just beat GM with a 2 year deal, they can get Marriott to grandfather all of the TS new and resale that were sold before a certain time.  It does take years but if a big corp knows they are having their bluff called then they will make it right.  As the clas member who initiates the suite you would not stand to gain much more than the other members.  Maybe $10,000  for all your troubles and Marriott would have to pay your counsel if they were to win.
> 
> What a class action does is put a slap on the hand on someone , Big corp, that tried to get away with one.
> 
> *It is a way for the small guy to keep the big guys honest!!!*
> 
> By the way all it takes is a phone call and the class action firms usually as far as I know work on a contigency.  No out of pocket $$



I don't want anyone to think that I'm going to sue anyone. I do shake my head though when others write that no reputable counsel will take this case and run with it. For my part, I've never had to seek legal counsel [knock on wood] to resolve a legal dispute and I've always been satisfied with the outcome.

Charles


----------



## PerryM

Latravel said:


> Is it reasonable to expect that people who pay a much lower price (resale)  should have the same benefits in the Marriott system as those who bought from the developer?   There have to be some incentives to justify the extra purchase price and limiting resale benefits/use of program encourages purchasing direct.  This type of incentive works.
> 
> My husband and I purposely bought from Marriott (even after reading this board) instead of from the resale market because it was obvious that Marriott intentionally limits resales from full use of the Marriott system (exoints).  The fact that they could potentially further limit resales should not be a surprise to anyone, given their current rules.  Therefore, we purposely and happily bought directly from Marriott so that we would have access to the complete Marriott system and we were ok with paying more for this use.
> 
> Given that we bought direct, I do not like seeing a unit at my resort (Timberlodge) being sold for half the price I paid.  If Marriott puts restrictions on resales access to the system, this will affect everyones resale value.  Therefore, Marriott should develop a system to reasonably and fairly resell units through Marriott in order to maintain our timeshare value.
> 
> Unfortunately, some people would be adversely affect by all this, specifically those who bought resale, though it seems to be a small percentage.



An owner is an owner at the resort - there MUST be no differences.

Whether you bought from Marriott, a fellow owner, inherited it, was gifted it, what ever, at the resort ALL owners are equal.

Now if the developer wants to add some goodies that have NOTHING to do with reservations and usage at the resort that's perfectly ok.

Once a developer decides to make different classes of owners this causes one owner to fight against another.

I personally think that Marriott's 13 month rule is close to creating different classes of owners but since ANY consecutive or concurrent additional unit counts and can be gotten via resale Marriott is safe.

However creating 6 month class owners is about as stupid an idea that I've ever heard in the timeshare world.  Luckily Marriott isn't about to trudge down that path.

P.S.
Buying from Marriott gives you access to the Marriott Reward Point system and to some folks that's worth a lot.

Marriott used to offer some outrageous deals that basically made the difference in price from their sales and the resale market nil.  That's a great reason to buy from the developer too.


----------



## PerryM

*Gunslinger for hire..*



CMF said:


> I don't want anyone to think that I'm going to sue anyone. I do shake my head though when others write that no reputable counsel will take this case and run with it. For my part, I've never had to seek legal counsel [knock on wood] to resolve a legal dispute and I've always been satisfied with the outcome.
> 
> Charles



Well my son's journey from 16 year old to his current age of 21 years old has had me put a great lawyer on my speed dial.  I believe we used him 6 times and paid him an average of $400 per incident.

He would always look forward to my calls.  He indicated that my son got into some very unusual situations that he always looked forward to handling.



I am amazed at how many suits I get involved with - I think that a lawyer is a necessary gunslinger that many folks need to have at their disposal if they invest in anything but stocks.  Even there I've been in at least 10 class actions over the years.


----------



## PerryM

JimIg23 said:


> Concerning lawsuits and the 6 month reservation restriction, my thought is the damage against resale buyers would less be "resale value" but more to one's ability to reserve.  Let's face it, in places like NCV, by the 6 month market probably only 1 (maybe 2) months out of 7 months will be available.  This will essentially create a second season within a season, thereby (maybe not on paper, but in effect) restrict resale owners to only 4 weeks worth of reservation choices.  Right now, 12 single week owners have access to the entire season, even if only 50%, but at least they are not in effect being blocked from the entire season.



As far as I know ALL timeshare owners at a resort pay the same MFs.  I believe that has to do with the states desire to get their piece of the action.

If I own a Platinum week and pay the same MF as ALL Platinum owners I deserve to be treated the same, irregardless of how I got that unit.  Same when I sell it, the new owner MUST be treated the same as I am at that resort.  To suddenly say that the new owner is inferior to the other owners (6 month rule) is to adversely affect me and its time to sue the stuffing out of the blockheads that would try this prank.

Sales gimmicks by the developer that affect existing owners and cause owners to form into inferior classes is just asking for the resort to self destruct.  The companies that have gone down this route, like Wyndham, have seen the owners resale value hit the toilet.  Buy a new Wyndham and you just lost 85% to 90% of your purchase price by the time you shake hands with that smiling salesrep.

The Internet is changing just about everything we do - Wyndham will find that they can't keep that secret forever.  As word gets out Wyndham will implode.


----------



## Icarus

Latravel said:


> Is it reasonable to expect that people who pay a much lower price (resale)  should have the same benefits in the Marriott system as those who bought from the developer?



I think the question that some of us are asking (which now seems like it may be strictly academic) is if your purchased deed that gives you the right to occupy your own unit at your home resort should be treated differently depending on how you purchased it.

I don't think anybody is arguing about the "Marriott system", including the ability to participate in the exchange for points program, or anything else here. That would be a different argument.

Anyway, it sounds like the rumors were false, but who knows what the future will bring?

-David


----------



## sdtugger

thinze3 said:


> I just got a call from MVCI’s corporate office.
> After sending numerous emails, Marriott must have felt a necessity to call me up on this.
> 
> The person that called me stated that her office was at the highest level in MVCI’s corporate structure. She made it very clear with all certainty that resale owners WILL NOT be limited to reserving their weeks 6 months out. Marriott is very aware of this “rumor” and was working on finding the person who started it. They believe with some certainty that this rumor started in Aruba and has begun to spread as a matter of fact.
> 
> Marriott is not making any changes that will affect resale owners. I asked her if anything like this had ever been discussed. She stated, “yes”, that the 6 month reservations for resale owners had been brought up as a “what if”. She said that discussions and “what ifs” are normal, but that it was never even considered however. “Do you know what kind of mess we would have if we tried to do something like that?” - she quoted. She went on to stay that she had actually walked around asked the V.P.’s in their offices about this before calling me back to make sure that she was speaking the truth.
> 
> It was confirmed that Marriott has been working on the feasibility and implementation of an internal trading system of some sort. This lady stated that it is beginning to look more and more like this is now NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. So for the foreseeable future, there will be NO CHANGES to the MVCI system.
> 
> I think we can all breath a sigh of relief for the time being.
> 
> Terry
> 
> *P.S.
> Please note that I did not include my phone number on any emails and that this person called my wife at home, who then gave the lady my work number. This should indicate the seriousness of the situation.*




DaveM,  Any response from your contacts?


----------



## Dave M

More often than not, I try to avoid getting into arguments over who is right and who isn't. So don't expect to hear much from me on this, except when I get info that adds to or varies from what I have previously posted. However....

My contacts stand by what they have said and ask, in essence, "What else would you expect someone to say officially about programs that haven't been announced yet?" Of course they would deny it! 

Also note that in everything I have said about the reservation restriction, I have cautioned that the final program might be somewhat different than what is proposed. The key however, is that there will be some difference that treats _future_ resale buyers differently and less favorably from other owners. The six-month scenario is still the most likely of possible solutions to what Marriott wants to accomplish.

And as for the internal trading system, my initial statement in the major thread I started recently on that topic includes the following caution:





> Theoretically, it's also possible that Marriott will eventually decide that it can't profitably implement the new system and will junk it before implementation.


So far, the development of the details for that revamped system is still ongoing. A direct quote from one source:





> As far as internal exchanges not happening, I would bet a month's pay....
> 
> The big hurdle was the computers/software to accomplish this and with II, we have it. Sounds like they were just trying to give her the correct PR answer, considering nothing is 100% [certain].


----------



## Icarus

I guess I still don't understand why they would give sales that information so they could use it, considering that (with the current information you have) anybody buying resale today will be grandfathered in.

It's not like Marriott to let sales use verbal promises. At least, not officially.

I know you commented on the reason for this before, but it still doesn't make sense to me, Dave.

Whatever ...

-David


----------



## Icarus

thinze3 said:


> Perry, I just sent her an email reminding her what she said while asking her another question, hoping to get it in writing.   You'll be the first to know.



Not sure what you expect to get in writing, but it would be silly for somebody from a company to say something like "We're not ever going to do XYZ".

-David


----------



## camachinist

Like "TUG is the new MVCI focus group" 

Sounds silly, but we've seen it happen for real on FlyerTalk, including personal meetings with decision makers. Stuff happens. I for one am glad the best and brightest minds are voicing their opinions here and hope others join in.

Pat


----------



## thinze3

*I did get it in writing*

http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=61722






Icarus said:


> Not sure what you expect to get in writing, but it would be silly for somebody from a company to say something like "We're not ever going to do XYZ".
> 
> -David


----------



## thinze3

Dave M said:


> ...As I stated earlier, the change would likely grandfather from the new policy those resale weeks as of the date the new policy is announced or implemented...





Dave M said:


> ...The key however, is that there will be some difference that treats future resale buyers differently and less favorably from other owners...




Dave,
These statements are open for interpretation. If you do not mind explaining what "those resale weeks" are. Are these weeks that Marriott owns (currently or in the future) and may become future resales, or are they weeks that are now privately owned and may become future resales. There is a difference.

Thanks!

.


----------



## Dave M

I think that Marriott has been consistent (e.g., for whether the use of a week can be traded for Marriott Rewards points) in treating all sales that go through Marriott as being the same. Thus, it would seem that, for our purposes, a "resale" week is one where I buy (for example) directly from you instead of through Marriott.


----------



## AmyL4408

PerryM said:


> An owner is an owner at the resort - there MUST be no differences.





Oh but there is a difference!

Just as you think you are a smarter person because you bought resale....   You think you are the better


I purchased my week direct from Marriott.   Was it the cheapest?  NOPE.    


But I do think I am happier with my purchase than you are with yours.   Because I don't worry about the price of what I paid, what its worth, inflation, the value of the dollar.     I just enjoy my vacations, period.


What a Marriott unit resales for really is no issue to me at all,  I don't ever plan on selling.


----------



## thinze3

Dave M said:


> I think that Marriott has been consistent (e.g., for whether the use of a week can be traded for Marriott Rewards points) in treating all sales that go through Marriott as being the same. Thus, it would seem that, for our purposes, a "resale" week is one where I buy (for example) directly from you instead of through Marriott.



Maybe I didn't make myself clear enough. I know what resale is. It is the "future" part I am asking of.


For instance here are two scenarios.
1) Person A owns a unit now and sells to person B after the rumored changes.
2) Person A buys from Marriott after the rumored changes and then sales to person B.

Both units owned by person B are resales of course, but would either be "grandfathered" in according to your contact?

.


----------



## camachinist

1. I own a developer unit and sell after "change" = resale non-grandfather

2. I buy after "change" from Marriott and sell later = resale non-grandfather

3. I own a developer unit and sell before "change" = resale grandfather

4. I own a resale unit and sell before "change" = resale grandfather

YMMV.....and, IMO, if this is how it goes and it's widely disemminated, 2008 may be an interesting year for Marriott resales 

Pat


----------



## AwayWeGo

*Different Strokes.*




AmyL4408 said:


> I purchased my week direct from Marriott.   Was it the cheapest?  NOPE.
> 
> But I do think I am happier with my purchase than you are with yours.


Not only did I buy my (non-Marriott) timeshares _used-used-used_ (which is only fitting in that all timeshares are _used-used-used_ by the time I show up & check in), but I would simply be unable to enjoy vacationing in timeshares if I paid full freight for the privilege. 

And that says nothing about Marriott or HGVC or Wyndham (FairField) or Hyatt or DVC or Diamond Resorts (SunTerra) or Sheraton or WestGate or BlueGreen or any others.  All it does is reflect my personal quirks -- well, mine & The Chief Of Staff's because she's even more cost-conscious than I am, & that's saying something. 

So while it will never be the case that I will claim my timeshare is better than yours or his or theirs or anybody's, it will always be the case that I am happier with mine -- bought for nickels on the dollar -- than I could ever be with anybody's  for which I had to pay full-freight.  Maybe it's a side-effect of being brought up by parents who came of age during the Great Depression, I don't know. 

Whatever it is in my case, it's not an altogether bad thing.  I get to enjoy staying in luxury timeshare accommodations for roughly Motel 6 & Super 8 rack rates, & I get to do so 100% guilt-free & with money in the bank to spend on other fun stuff if I choose. 

Fortunately, neither TUG-BBS nor the world at large is populated with a bunch of folks who all see everything exactly the same way all the time.  

Let's hear it for timeshare diversity. 

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​


----------



## thinze3

camachinist said:


> 1. I own a developer unit and sell after "change" = resale non-grandfather
> 
> 2. I buy after "change" from Marriott and sell later = resale non-grandfather
> 
> 3. I own a developer unit and sell before "change" = resale grandfather
> 
> 4. I own a resale unit and sell before "change" = resale grandfather
> 
> YMMV.....and, IMO, if this is how it goes and it's widely disemminated, 2008 may be an interesting year for Marriott resales
> 
> Pat



Let's hope that the person from Marriott's executive offices, who sent me the email stating that none of these "resale" limitations are in the works, is telling the truth. If not, I hope that these changes only apply to weeks currently owned by Marriott and not by individuals. That is what I am trying to get out of Dave M.

I do see how that change could be accomplished easily enough, as the buyer of the week from Marriott would no up front what he is buying and all the future limitations should he ever decide to sell. IMO  

.


----------



## Dave M

thinze3 said:


> Maybe I didn't make myself clear enough. I know what resale is. It is the "future" part I am asking of.


I'll try. In neither of your examples has the ultimate owner purchased through Marriott. Thus, no grandfathering, if the purchase occurs after some as-yet unknown cutoff date. 

That's why the Marriott person that sent you that e-mail referred to *external sales* = a purchase where the buyer is dealing with another private party, not through Marriott, to make the purchase. "External sales" does not include everything you have included as resales in some posts. Marriott's term "external sales" does not include a week purchased by Marriott (e.g., through ROFR) and resold to someone else.

The grandfathering will presumably apply at some point in time to _all units owned as of that point in time_ - presumably when the program is first formally announced or at some later date. Any timeshare purchases other than through Marriott that occur after the deadline passes would presumably not be grandfathered. 

That's why I used the points example. As  I stated, Marriott allows any owner who bought a week through Marriott to trade the use of that specific week for Marriott Rewards points. No other weeks can be traded for Marriott Rewards points, except where Marriott makes a mistake, as has been occasionally reported here.  

Except for grandfathered weeks, Marriott would presumably apply that same philosophy to the new system. If any week subsequently changes hands between two private parties, that timeshare would presumably no longer be grandfathered.

Stated much more simply, I believe Pat has it exactly right.


----------



## thinze3

Dave M said:


> That's why the Marriott person that sent you that e-mail referred to *external sales* = a purchase where the buyer is dealing with another private party, not through Marriott, to make the purchase. "External sales" does not include everything you have included as resales in some posts. Marriott's term "external sales" does not include a week purchased by Marriott (e.g., through ROFR) and resold to someone else.



That is correct.
I clarified the lingo during our eamils back and forth. In my email to Marriott, just prior to the one I posted, I stated, "I call external owners, “resale owners”, just so we get the lingo straight."
The Marriott person stated, "Marriott has no plans to change the reservations policy of external owners." This term, "external owner", would inlcude me as I bought my Waiohai unit from an individual.

Based on your theory, since I bought my unit from a person who bought it from Marriott, both transactions before the change, I would be grandfathered in.

Based on the Marriott person's theory, no changes are being considered at this time.

Based on my theory, those who purchase from Marriott in the furtue may have another set of rules altogether, but not me. IMO  

.


----------



## saturn28

thinze3 said:


> I just got a call from MVCI’s corporate office.
> After sending numerous emails, Marriott must have felt a necessity to call me up on this.
> 
> The person that called me stated that her office was at the highest level in MVCI’s corporate structure. She made it very clear with all certainty that resale owners WILL NOT be limited to reserving their weeks 6 months out. Marriott is very aware of this “rumor” and was working on finding the person who started it. They believe with some certainty that this rumor started in Aruba and has begun to spread as a matter of fact.
> 
> Marriott is not making any changes that will affect resale owners. I asked her if anything like this had ever been discussed. She stated, “yes”, that the 6 month reservations for resale owners had been brought up as a “what if”. She said that discussions and “what ifs” are normal, but that it was never even considered however. “Do you know what kind of mess we would have if we tried to do something like that?” - she quoted. She went on to stay that she had actually walked around asked the V.P.’s in their offices about this before calling me back to make sure that she was speaking the truth.
> 
> It was confirmed that Marriott has been working on the feasibility and implementation of an internal trading system of some sort. This lady stated that it is beginning to look more and more like this is now NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. So for the foreseeable future, there will be NO CHANGES to the MVCI system.
> 
> I think we can all breath a sigh of relief for the time being.
> 
> Terry
> 
> *P.S.
> Please note that I did not include my phone number on any emails and that this person called my wife at home, who then gave the lady my work number. This should indicate the seriousness of the situation.*



Great work. Now everyone can relax. You need to start a new thread and have it glued to the first page for everyone to read.


----------



## timeos2

*Marriot wwas once a respected brand of timeshare*



AmyL4408 said:


> Oh but there is a difference!
> 
> Just as you think you are a smarter person because you bought resale....   You think you are the better
> 
> 
> I purchased my week direct from Marriott.   Was it the cheapest?  NOPE.
> 
> 
> But I do think I am happier with my purchase than you are with yours.   Because I don't worry about the price of what I paid, what its worth, inflation, the value of the dollar.     I just enjoy my vacations, period.
> 
> 
> What a Marriott unit resales for really is no issue to me at all,  I don't ever plan on selling.



Perry makes an EXTREMELY critical point. The base, underlying property you purchase from anyone - even Marriott despite what they may think - carries with it unchangeable use rights not subject to the whims of the developer as to how it was obtained. You or the resale buyer  can feel "superior" thanks to your chosen method of purchase but the bottom line is you both own exactly the same thing. One may have peripheral bonuses tied to the extra money they paid but unrelated to the basic deeded use. If Marriott or anyone else tries messing with that they will find themselves in deep trouble with the State among others. If you don't care that you paid far more than the base time was worth, think that the bonuses unavailable to a resale purchase are worth the difference and that moves Marriott seems to be making to devalue your purchase don't matter then you got your moneys worth.  

Perry and others choose to buy at a price point much closer to real value and resalable at close to that value - they get their value out as well.  But in both cases the deed you received and the one he got represent the exact same use rights (assuming you bough the same use season).  Play with that and Marriott will be in for a world of hurt. Doesn't mean they won't try. They aren't Disney who can get away with it as they don't sell anything but a non-guaranteed promise of use under whatever rules they choose to make (a RTU). Marriott sells a resort and supplies a deed. As such there are things they simply cannot change no matter what they may think.  I'd like to see them try it and lose. Then they'll try to bill the owners (they always do - just raise the fees) and maybe the defenders will get the message that they are not your buddy then.  It is an interesting battle already and it's only a rumor. Wait until the official announcements start and the fan gets hit with the brown stuff.  

It is amazing how the Marriott name in timeshares - once totally above the fray - has already been lowered to a level of no better than the rest.  That may never be recovered even if they never make the rumored changes.  And if they keep hurting on the bottom line the desperation will really set in and the fun will really begin.  Interesting times.


----------



## kjd

*Blowing smoke from the resale crowd*

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amy You are making sense. This is a re-post from another thread.  TS can be many things to many different people depending upon each person's circumstances. The real difference between buying direct as opposed to resale is the use of points.  There may (and should) be more differences in the future.

Several people have ridiculed the use of points as having no value. Especially true of the resale owners. It makes them feel good. How does this example not make sense?

An owner turns in their unit and receives 100,000 for each of two years and purchases another 50,000 points @ 12.50 per thousand. The owner now has 250,000 points.

The dollar cost of MF on the unit X 2=$2,000 + 625 for the 50,000 additional points. The total is $2,625.

The owner buys a 250,000 travel package with the points and travels to London with another person and stays 7 days in a Central London hotel. The
cash value of this vacation is: 7 nights X $600US per night = $4,200. Two airline tickets to London are worth about $2,000. The total value of the vacation is $6,200. That's a difference of $3,575.

Sure people like Chase can blow smoke about lost opportunity cost, financing charges (if there are any) lost vacations or anything else. Using a comparison of dollar cost to cash value, it won't take too many years to make up more than the difference between direct purchase and resale. Ten years will probably do it. After that you will still have the advantage of being able to trade for points and you will still have the value of your unit. It's better than belonging to a golf club.


----------



## Eric

Ok, so lets understand this. 

1.You, HOA member of a no-name resort, and non Marriott owner is 100% sure they can't change it.
2. This has trashed the MVCI name

I will make the same wager that Perry did that WHATEVER they change, it will never be overturned. To think that they won't be 100% sure before they do it makes me wonder about your credibility. Secondly, 50 TUG members talking about Marriott will not exactly turn their world around but good observation. 










			
				timeos2 said:
			
		

> As such there are things they simply cannot change no matter what they may think.  I'd like to see them try it and lose. It is amazing how the Marriott name in timeshares - once totally above the fray - has already been lowered to a level of no better than the rest. QUOTE]


----------



## hipslo

timeos2 said:


> Perry makes an EXTREMELY critical point. The base, underlying property you purchase from anyone - even Marriott despite what they may think - carries with it unchangeable use rights not subject to the whims of the developer as to how it was obtained. You or the resale buyer  can feel "superior" thanks to your chosen method of purchase but the bottom line is you both own exactly the same thing.



See, I knew that sooner or later you and I would agree on something!  (Though I wouldnt go so far as to say "unchangeable".  That is a legal question that I am not in a position to answer.  As a practical matter, if they do try to implement such a change, whether or not I think its the right thing to do, or whether they have the right to do it, is not the issue.  Life is too short to get into fighting that sort of a battle. If it were to come to that, I'd be trying to figure out how to make the new system work for me, not tilting at windmills).


----------



## Dean

AmyL4408 said:


> Oh but there is a difference!
> 
> Just as you think you are a smarter person because you bought resale....   You think you are the better
> 
> 
> I purchased my week direct from Marriott.   Was it the cheapest?  NOPE.
> 
> 
> But I do think I am happier with my purchase than you are with yours.   Because I don't worry about the price of what I paid, what its worth, inflation, the value of the dollar.     I just enjoy my vacations, period.
> 
> 
> What a Marriott unit resales for really is no issue to me at all,  I don't ever plan on selling.


Amy, from a usage standpoint there is no difference or has not been in the past.  Whether that's true going forward is one of the main questions of this thread.  The only previous difference has been the points issue.  I've bought and sold probably over 40 timeshare weeks/contracts over the years, some here are likely way beyond that.  Specifically I currently own 4 Marriott weeks.  Of these weeks, only one was bought from Marriott (only two developer purchases ever), the other 3 were resale.  I was able to "covert" two of the weeks that were resale to points eligible weeks as part of that developer purchase (I bought the other resale after that) so technically they likely are represented as being purchased from Marriott.  I likewise don't worry about my usage or ownership and given the 13 months reservation window and that I want top weeks at top resorts, the resale purchases make that far more likely to happen under the current reservation system.


----------



## hipslo

Eric said:


> I will make the same wager that Perry did that WHATEVER they change, it will never be overturned.



I would tend to agree with that.


----------



## timeos2

Eric said:


> Ok, so lets understand this.
> 
> 1.You, HOA member of a no-name resort, and non Marriott owner is 100% sure they can't change it.
> 2. This has trashed the MVCI name
> 
> I will make the same wager that Perry did that WHATEVER they change, it will never be overturned. To think that they won't be 100% sure before they do it makes me wonder about your credibility. Secondly, 50 TUG members talking about Marriott will not exactly turn their world around but good observation.



They can research it all they want - there is always an attorney that can read something the way the client wants.  But base property rights under a deed holds it's own special place in law. Doesn't matter if its one resort built by a private builder or 20 built by a large corporation - the rights they convey under property laws are the same.  Can't say it couldn't be done but it sure isn't likely.  If Marriott wants to take the chance that they can be the first I'd love to see it.  If they succeed because they've intimidated the owners then it proves nothing except they are good at FUD (and have really joined the unwashed timeshare developer masses).  If they survive a court challenge by an owners group with the wherewithal to fight them (with money being the big issue - Marriott knows the owners don't have it to fight with) then they'll set a precedent.  Don't count on that.  As I say, interesting times.


----------



## Eric

I will repeat it again. Westgate would be the poster child for lawsuits if it was that easy to sue a timeshare company. They screw their owners every way possible and break every real estate law there is. Show of hands for the law suits won against Westgate ???
It's great that people have lawyers on speed dial. Thats very impressive. Like it or not, whatever they do will stick




timeos2 said:


> They can research it all they want - there is always an attorney that can read something the way the client wants.  But base property rights under a deed holds it's own special place in law. Doesn't matter if its one resort built by a private builder or 20 built by a large corporation - the rights they convey under property laws are the same.  Can't say it couldn't be done but it sure isn't likely.  If Marriott wants to take the chance that they can be the first I'd love to see it.  If they succeed because they've intimidated the owners then it proves nothing except they are good at FUD (and have really joined the unwashed timeshare developer masses).  If they survive a court challenge by an owners group with the wherewithal to fight them (with money being the big issue - Marriott knows the owners don't have it to fight with) then they'll set a precedent.  Don't count on that.  As I say, interesting times.


----------



## AwayWeGo

*What's The Developer's Is The Developer's.  What's Mine Is Subject To Change.*




timeos2 said:


> The base, underlying property you purchase from anyone - even Marriott despite what they may think - carries with it unchangeable use rights not subject to the whims of the developer as to how it was obtained. You or the resale buyer  can feel "superior" thanks to your chosen method of purchase but the bottom line is you both own exactly the same thing. One may have peripheral bonuses tied to the extra money they paid but unrelated to the basic deeded use. If Marriott or anyone else tries messing with that they will find themselves in deep trouble with the State among others.


Shux, that's approximately what I was trying to say (though not in exactly the same context). 

As I understand it, 1 of the non-Mariott timeshare operators (i.e, SunTerra, now Diamond Resorts) at least tries to get people to undeed their timeshare ownership by offering to let folks join a trust-based version of T.H.E. Club by turning in their timeshare deed(s) along with some cash.  (That's _trust_ as in a legal entity, not _trust_ as in just taking their word for it.)   That's lots more trouble for a timeshare company to go to than merely imposing binding changes unilaterally, no ? 

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​


----------



## JimIg23

Eric said:


> I will repeat it again. Westgate would be the poster child for lawsuits if it was that easy to sue a timeshare company. They screw their owners every way possible and break every real estate law there is. Show of hands for the law suits won against Westgate ???
> It's great that people have lawyers on speed dial. Thats very impressive. Like it or not, whatever they do will stick



I agree about the lawsuits, but the big difference is corporate image.  Marriott, Disney, and Hilton have very good international corporate images.  Marriott wants to keep that.  Corporate image is very, very important.  The Marriott name is connected to much larger holdings than timeshares, and the stockholders want that image upheld.  They want to make money, but I don't think they would go where some timeshare companies would go to make a profit.  Even an unsuccessful lawsuit or media could tarnish their image to a degree they would not want.  Now, that is not to say they wouldn't make changes that will lend itself to Marriott direct buyers, but I don't think they will do something stupid.  I guess we will see.  Maybe I will just buy Disney....


----------



## Latravel

I don't believe that a resale is the same as a direct purchase.  If all you care about is going to your home resort for your specified week, then they are the same.  But we all know that we like to trade for other Marriotts, trade for points, be able to reserve the farthest in advance, etc, and Marriott is in charge of this system or rules.  They are contemplating making changes to the system to provide additional incentives to purchase direct, therefore, a resale is not the same as a direct purchase, and should not be.


----------



## sdtugger

Eric said:


> I will repeat it again. Westgate would be the poster child for lawsuits if it was that easy to sue a timeshare company. They screw their owners every way possible and break every real estate law there is. Show of hands for the law suits won against Westgate ???
> It's great that people have lawyers on speed dial. Thats very impressive. Like it or not, whatever they do will stick



Based on the fact that no one sued Westgate?  If you could point to a failed attempt against Marriott or even Westgate in the same circumstances, your argument might have merit.  

Very few lawyers will ever give a company like Marriott any kind of guarantee in these circumstances.  Why?  Because you can never be absolutely sure of the resolution of your case unless an identical case has been tried before.  And, even if Marriott thinks it is probably right on the law (a proposition with zero proof--see the discussions of the relevant documents and the laws of at least one state above), they would have to believe they would win on summary judgment in order to be "sure" this will "stick."  The standards for summary judgment are VERY high.  Very unlikely for Marriott to prevail.  If they don't win on summary judgment, they are off to the jury pool that the plaintiffs attorneys pick be it central LA, southwest Texas, etc.   Big risk of a bad judgment including punitive damages.  Are you absolutely sure this will "stick"??  The class action attorneys have this down to a science and the cost to the class is zero so there is no impediment to filing suit.


----------



## sdtugger

*Why are Retail Owners Defending the Rumor?*

I'm very surprised to see the trend in these posts toward retail purchasers defending Marriott's potential move.  If the rumored plan were enacted, ALL current owners (retail or resale) would see the value of their purchased weeks drop dramatically.  Why would a retail purchaser defend the rumored change if your ox is being gored just the same as everyone else?  I understand the desire for their to be a difference because of the different prices paid.  But, at least the current rumor has all current owners being treated the same (grandfathered).  If accurate, there won't be any retroactive changes.  So, the net result would be that both retail and resale owners would be unable to sell their units for even close to the current resale values.  Why aren't retail purchasers even more outraged that their higher investment could be worth proportionately much less?


----------



## timeos2

Latravel said:


> I don't believe that a resale is the same as a direct purchase.  If all you care about is going to your home resort for your specified week, then they are the same.  But we all know that we like to trade for other Marriotts, trade for points, be able to reserve the farthest in advance, etc, and Marriott is in charge of this system or rules.  They are contemplating making changes to the system to provide additional incentives to purchase direct, therefore, a resale is not the same as a direct purchase, and should not be.



But there you have it.  What you buy IS the use of the resort. Period. There is no right to trade to other resorts except as the rules of third party companies such as II or RCI allow you to use YOUR time.  If the right to trade to other Marriott resorts WAS included (as Wyndham sells with the Fairshare Plus system) them you would have a case that your rights that you paid for where being changed. Wyndham doesn't try to say a resale buyer can't use the FSP system - they know that is what the owners purchased.

In this case we're talking about your rights as a deeded owner to reserve your use time at your single, deeded resort. If they try to impede that based on how you purchased that is where the legal problems would arise.  What they do with trades - not included in the deeded property - is under their control and if that is all they mess with there is no case to be made. If they want to "punish" owners who bought the deed from someone else when they start their own internal trade system thats their right.  It doesn't effect your home use rights (but may impact the resale price - we've been down that road already) and thats perfectly legal to do. Tick off your owners - great move. But not illegal.


----------



## Latravel

I think you are exactly right.  They cannot change a legal contract to prevent any owner from using their unit.  They may, on the other hand, change the rules regarding trading and reserving.  Isn't that what this tread is about?  I am not sure all owners will be upset, though.

A previous poster mentioned why direct purchasers are not outraged at a change that may affect resale values.  I believe that ROFR and any restrictions on the value of resales upholds the standard and integrity of my timeshare.  If I see a Marriott timeshare for sale for $9000 on the resale market, we all suffer because the market shows our timeshare is not very valuable.  I understand very well that my unit would also be restricted if I decided to sell so (as I said before) Marriott should come up with a process that allows owners to sell their units back to Marriott for a fair price in order to mitigate their proposed restrictions on resales.  This would uphold the value of a Marriott timeshare for owners, provide a mechanism for owners to sell their units if necessary and provide a financial windfall for Marriott.


----------



## m61376

kjd said:


> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Amy You are making sense. This is a re-post from another thread.  TS can be many things to many different people depending upon each person's circumstances. The real difference between buying direct as opposed to resale is the use of points.  There may (and should) be more differences in the future.
> 
> Several people have ridiculed the use of points as having no value. Especially true of the resale owners. It makes them feel good. How does this example not make sense?
> 
> An owner turns in their unit and receives 100,000 for each of two years and purchases another 50,000 points @ 12.50 per thousand. The owner now has 250,000 points.
> 
> The dollar cost of MF on the unit X 2=$2,000 + 625 for the 50,000 additional points. The total is $2,625.
> 
> The owner buys a 250,000 travel package with the points and travels to London with another person and stays 7 days in a Central London hotel. The
> cash value of this vacation is: 7 nights X $600US per night = $4,200. Two airline tickets to London are worth about $2,000. The total value of the vacation is $6,200. That's a difference of $3,575.
> 
> Sure people like Chase can blow smoke about lost opportunity cost, financing charges (if there are any) lost vacations or anything else. Using a comparison of dollar cost to cash value, it won't take too many years to make up more than the difference between direct purchase and resale. Ten years will probably do it. After that you will still have the advantage of being able to trade for points and you will still have the value of your unit. It's better than belonging to a golf club.



Many people do feel that the value of points are worth the price differential, while others don't share your opinion. It probably boils down to your vacation style. Personally, for example, we have made several trips to London. When there, we prefer to stay in the Leicester Square area to be by the West End Shows. We choose nice places, but have always gotten far better prices than $600/night. A few years back we stayed at the LeMeridian, for example, and paid somewhere in the $150-175 per night vicinity. We have also nabbed much lower airfare rates. Our last 4 night excursion was less than $1500 hotel and air; if we had stayed a week it would have been roughly 2K. So, for me, the value would definitley have been questionable. 

Admittedly points are a great deal for those who generally pay the rack rates. BUT there are fabulous deals that can be had elsewhere. 10 years ago we visited Barcelona, for example, and happened to catch a weekend special (a holiday weekend, no less) at the Hotel Arts. Even then, the rates were very high. We caught some ridiculous rate at $129 per night that even the travel agent couldn't believe (less than budget hotels at the time). When I look back on our international travel, I am not sure that the cost of points makes sense- for me.

So my point is not all resale owners claim that points are worthless and developer purchasers are stupid. Personally, I think any buyer who has done his homework beforehand will be better off thinking about what will work best for him/her. I think that's what will make him/her a happier buyer- not because he/she bought resale or bought direct. 

I don't think that either group should smugly contend that their purchase was better; hopefully anyone who did their research beforehand is happier because they bought the way they did. And, contrary to what Any posted, most resale owners are happily enjoying their timeshare useage as well. Although most people here probably aren't worrying about selling either, it does behoove all of us to be concerned about retained value, just in case....


----------



## PerryM

*Let's do this right Marriott...*

If Marriott starts a new resort they can have 6 month reservations for resales – no problem.  Heck shorten it to 3 days – no big deal.

The point is that ALL future owners know this up front.  This is fair and I encourage Marriott do to just that.  Punish resale owners to the max.

Make them wear a huge “R” on their coats when they are on the grounds.  This could be Red or Blue, or my favorite would be high intensity orange.  Have special bathrooms for them – just ONE stall for all “R” owners that is men and women and heck even for those who are confused as to what sex they are.

Have special car stalls that are 1 foot skinnier than normal stalls and way way in the back and make sure there are no street lights near by.

Have special pool chairs that are missing some of those plastic strips so your butt gets caught in it as you sit.  Have pool towels with the “R” on them and just never get around to washing them.

Check in should have an “R” lane far away from the elevators and just a floating clerk to serve the line once an hour.

Encourage the staff to poke fun at them and the maids could short sheet the beds and remove the hair dryers.  Substitute a broken red plastic fire sprinkler plug so that if the temperature gets above 72 degrees the place floods with wather.

Marriott; if you need more ideas I’ve got a boat load of them.  Let's do this right!


----------



## thinze3

*Don't think it is going to happen.*

*First of all, that dude above me is Crazzzy!*

Back to business.
I have had a long lengthy conversation (they called me unsolicited), multiple useless emails, and one definitve email from Marriott stating that there are to be NO changes in our rights to reserve our rooms. Please understand that this was not from a salesperson or a person located at some resort in California or Soth Carolina, it was from Marriott's corporate office. Whether or not I was lied to, we shall see.   

IMO if any changes are to take place they will have to be for units not yet sold by Marriott. Those units can be sold with new rules and regulations.  

http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=61722
http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showpost.php?p=443941&postcount=140

.


----------



## hipslo

Latravel said:


> I think you are exactly right.  They cannot change a legal contract to prevent any owner from using their unit.  They may, on the other hand, change the rules regarding trading and reserving.



They certainly can change the rules regarding reserving.  But, what provision in the governing documents do you think would permit them to change those rules in a way that discriminates against certain owners who, today, own the exact same legal "bundle of rights" that all other owners do (other than participation in the points program, which is clearly disclosed up front)?  Maybe they could change the reservation system to discriminate against owners who reside outside of the US?  Or those who bought their units on wednesdays?  

Remember, all resale units were originally sold by the developer.  The developer was paid in full by the original owner for all ownership rights.  Where do those rights, which have been paid for in full, directly to the developer, go when an owner sells the unit that was originally purchased from the developer?  Do they simply evaporate?  What if someone were to buy a resale unit for 100% of what the original purchaser paid to the developer?  Does it all come down to what an owner pays for his or her unit?  If so, what if a resort runs into trouble so the developer slashes prices in order to sell out.  Should later purchasers of discounted weeks, directly from the developer, get less rights because they paid less?  

I am just trying to understand the logic behind this idea that someone who buys a developer unit from someone other than the developer ought to be treated differently with regards to use of the product than someone who buys directly from the developer.  In what other area of commerce would a concept like this be the case?


----------



## Latravel

_"I am just trying to understand the logic behind this idea that someone who buys a developer unit from someone other than the developer ought to be treated differently with regards to use of the product than someone who buys directly from the developer. In what other area of commerce would a concept like this be the case?"_


They are already being treated differently.  A unit bought on the resale market cannot be exchanged for points.  Since this is already going on, and you still purchased a unit, I don't understand your point?


----------



## hipslo

Latravel said:


> _"I am just trying to understand the logic behind this idea that someone who buys a developer unit from someone other than the developer ought to be treated differently with regards to use of the product than someone who buys directly from the developer. In what other area of commerce would a concept like this be the case?"_
> 
> 
> They are already being treated differently.  A unit bought on the resale market cannot be exchanged for points.  Since this is already going on, and you still purchased a unit, I don't understand your point?



I mentioned points in my post, specifically.  The fact that resale owners dont get to trade in their unit for points is known up front.  In addition, the right to trade a unit for points is simply the right to participate in a customer affinity program that has NOTHING to do with the right to reserve and use the deeded property owned by all owners, including resale owners.  Its basically the right to say hey Marriott, I will pay you my maintenance fee this year, and you can rent my unit to a third party, I dont want to use it this year, and since I am making that payment and you, Marriott, are getting the rights to my unit this year, how about letting me stay in one of your hotels instead?  Well and good, but it doesnt go at all to the right to use and occupy my unit, instead it goes to allowing me to NOT use my unit in exchange for some other, unrelated Marriott benefit.  Totally different situation.


----------



## Icarus

Dave M said:


> That's why I used the points example. As  I stated, Marriott allows any owner who bought a week through Marriott to trade the use of that specific week for Marriott Rewards points.



I thought that there were (at least at one time) some resorts and some weeks at some resorts that didn't have the points program. Some purchases are restricted to EOY (or every 4th year for EOY owners) transfer for points and some owners at the same resort can transfer every year (or every 2, for EOY owners). The amount of points is also different, depending on when you bought at the same resort, isn't it?



> Except for grandfathered weeks, Marriott would presumably apply that same philosophy to the new system. If any week subsequently changes hands between two private parties, that timeshare would presumably no longer be grandfathered.



I understand where you're trying to go with that, just as an example of the type of restricted program rights Marriott has already done in the past, but I don't think that's a very good analogy.

When I bought from Marriott, I knew about that restriction at the time that I made my purchase, so it wasn't a right that was taken away after I purchased that might have devalued a future resale. I assume that everybody else had the same information that I had. (I suppose I could be wrong with that assumption, but it was all spelled out very clearly for me before I signed anything.)

This is a bit different: this is about reserving your own week at your own season at your home resort based on your deeded ownership of the exact same interval that others own at the same resort/season/size/view and any difference from the 12-month mark for making your own reservation if you bought resale after a certain date was not a known restriction at the time of the original purchase from the developer.

The 13-month rule might be a better analogy, but that doesn't work either, since the 13-month rule was a new right given to all current owners. (Or potentially given to all current owners, if you owned or purchased a second week at the same resort, no matter how you purchased that week.)

That's why I said that something similar to the 13-month rule might work with restrictions on the total percentage of any view/week given out before everybody else gets a shot at that week, but I don't see the 12month/6-month rumored rule working out for them.

But it sure makes a great rumor and topic of conversation, doesn't it?

-David


----------



## Icarus

thinze3 said:


> I did get it in writing



Yes, I saw that. Surprising, but not binding.

-David


----------



## bobcat

Latravel said:


> _"I am just trying to understand the logic behind this idea that someone who buys a developer unit from someone other than the developer ought to be treated differently with regards to use of the product than someone who buys directly from the developer. In what other area of commerce would a concept like this be the case?"_
> 
> 
> They are already being treated differently.  A unit bought on the resale market cannot be exchanged for points.  Since this is already going on, and you still purchased a unit, I don't understand your point?



Yes it can be exchanged for points. Marriott keeps changing the points value to trade. Several  of there hotels were changed on the way they rate. My wife went on a trip and the hotel was raised from a 5 to a six.  It is either pay up or use more points.


----------



## Icarus

AmyL4408 said:


> Oh but there is a difference!
> 
> Just as you think you are a smarter person because you bought resale....   You think you are the better
> 
> 
> I purchased my week direct from Marriott.   Was it the cheapest?  NOPE.
> 
> 
> But I do think I am happier with my purchase than you are with yours.   Because I don't worry about the price of what I paid, what its worth, inflation, the value of the dollar.     I just enjoy my vacations, period.
> 
> 
> What a Marriott unit resales for really is no issue to me at all,  I don't ever plan on selling.



Wow .. that was harsh and personal. Who was that directed to and what was that all about?

I think that most people never plan on selling their developer purchased timeshare when they buy them. After all, in order to make it work, you have to buy into the numbers game. But sometimes things change in ways that they couldn't have anticipated.

-David


----------



## PerryM

*Ok Marriott I'll use smaller words...*



Latravel said:


> _"I am just trying to understand the logic behind this idea that someone who buys a developer unit from someone other than the developer ought to be treated differently with regards to use of the product than someone who buys directly from the developer. In what other area of commerce would a concept like this be the case?"_
> 
> 
> They are already being treated differently.  A unit bought on the resale market cannot be exchanged for points.  Since this is already going on, and you still purchased a unit, I don't understand your point?




The Marriott Reward Point program has nothing whatsoever to do with the actual timeshare or its usage. This is an example of something the developer can add to the sale that makes their sale different than all the owners at the resort.

It’s when the developer retroactively goes back and devalues your investment that they will incur the wrath of the owners – and for good reason.

And what is the purpose of all this – to make resale ownership inferior to developer sold ownerships.  This, to me, is the sign of a company in deep trouble.  Either they are so successful that they need to purposely stir up a hornets’ nest or they are just dumb.  

Screwing around with well established benefits and rights is just dumb salesreps bellyaching about losing a sale and blaming the owners for it.  Anyone at Marriott who favors this 6 month punishment for resale owners just is clueless on how to nurture their customers into buying more products from them.

I’ve always thought that Marriott was particularly stupid in their multiple pricing mix.  Buy 1 Platinum week for $50k and buying another one is another $50k, buy 4 more and its 4 * $50k.

Marriott, instead of screwing your customer with a stupid 6 month rule how about introducing a *Preferred Customer Plan *where quantity discounts entice owners to buy from YOU.  A simple discount based upon multiple ownerships will reduce the smart Marriott owner from looking at resales.

e.g. (I’ll use small words and go slow here for you Marriott)
1 2BR Platinum week 52 at Maui sells for $75k

1 Platinum week 1-51 sells for $55k.

Combo 1 Platinum week 52 & Platinum sells for $110k instead of $130k

Later the owner wants another Platinum week (#2) and it costs $45k

See how this works – lessens the resale market influence.  You get what you want and you sell more units.  This is called the carrot approach.

The 6 month resale reservation approach is called the dumb ass approach.

Yes, that's its technical term.

See the difference Marriott?


----------



## Icarus

Latravel said:


> I believe that ROFR and any restrictions on the value of resales upholds the standard and integrity of my timeshare.



You seem to be new around here. The entire ROFR thing has been discussed ad naseum in this and in the buying and selling forum here on TUG. ROFR does not protect you as a seller. If you like, you should go read those other threads and participate in the ROFR discussion there.



> If I see a Marriott timeshare for sale for $9000 on the resale market, we all suffer because the market shows our timeshare is not very valuable.  I understand very well that my unit would also be restricted if I decided to sell so (as I said before) Marriott should come up with a process that allows owners to sell their units back to Marriott for a fair price in order to mitigate their proposed restrictions on resales.  This would uphold the value of a Marriott timeshare for owners, provide a mechanism for owners to sell their units if necessary and provide a financial windfall for Marriott.



Again, since you are new here ...

Marriott already has a resale program and a buy-back program. I posted about them in post #73 in this thread. Both programs are not very effective unless you are willing to let Marriott decide what a "fair price" is in the buy-back case (if they need your unit at that resort/season/view at all) or you can wait for four years or more on a waiting list at some resorts to participate in their resale program and give 40% of the sales price back to Marriott, assuming they aren't still selling new developer owned units, because if they are, there is no resale program at that resort.

So, what do you think a "fair price" is?

-David


----------



## Latravel

Excuse me, but being new to posting does not mean I am new to the subject or haven't studied and analyzed this subject to no end.  Unfortunately, it is a characteristic of being an engineer. 

Thanks for your direction but I read most of this site for months before I purchased.


----------



## Icarus

never mind. (deleted my own reply.)


----------



## taffy19

CMF said:


> No one will realize how bad the modification may/will be than us.  The less knowledgeable masses may never now what they had or what may be taken away.  Most [an understatement] people don't know we exist. *And, Marriott can do what ever it wants to.*
> 
> But, I'm making it my hobby to do whatever I can to make sure that Marriott does the RIGHT thing.
> 
> I don't feel bad for those that willingly and happily said goodbye to their money when they bought for Marriott.  But I do feel bad for the folks that [in their own opinion] made poor decisions and wished they had bought resale.  They should get something more for their money than me.  I'm sure that Marriott can think of a way to entice or compensate retail buyers that will not   be a detriment to the resale minority.
> 
> Charles


Yes, they can with a floating week reservation system but they couldn't do this with fixed weeks and fixed units.  Charles, this was way before your time.  

In my opinion, the developers went to a floating system for weeks and units because they have much more control to manipulate the system any way they see fit but they sell you the dream that you can reserve any time in the season you bought.  Ask the NCV owners in CA if that is true who bought expensive platinum weeks there.  Most people, who bought in this season, had the dream of reserving the same few weeks when schools are out most likely so the competition for these weeks is fierce and many owners will be disappointed because they are not getting these weeks unless they own multiple Marriott weeks so they have the advantage of reserving early.  

On top of that, you have the concern if you will get a view unit or not or if you will end up with a garbage or parking lot view.  I honestly believe that the developers went over to the floating system because it was easier and faster for them to sell all the units at a resort no matter what the view was or if it was in prime time or during the least demanded weeks of the year but they sold you the dream of *FLEXIBILITY*.

It was there before if you made an exchange elsewhere or even at your home resort for a different time of the year or a bigger or smaller unit too but the view couldn't be guaranteed nor can it with the floating system either.  They brainwashed the timeshare buyer.  JMHO.


----------



## hipslo

iconnections said:


> ...but they sell you the dream that you can reserve any time in the season you bought.  Ask the NCV owners in CA if that is true who bought expensive platinum weeks there.  Most people, who bought in this season, had the dream of reserving the same few weeks when schools are out most likely so the competition for these weeks is fierce and many owners will be disappointed because they are not getting these weeks unless they own multiple Marriott weeks so they have the advantage of reserving early.
> 
> On top of that, you have the concern if you will get a view unit or not or if you will end up with a garbage or parking lot view.



This really should have been apparent to anyone who spent any time reflecting on the nature of the system before purchasing, be they developer or resale purchasers.  Its the very nature of a floating vs a fixed system.  Sure, the flexiblity is there but to be successful is to assume that no one else wants the same thing that you want, which is not a realistic assumption.


----------



## hipslo

Dean said:


> I was able to "covert" two of the weeks that were resale to points eligible weeks as part of that developer purchase (I bought the other resale after that) so technically they likely are represented as being purchased from Marriott.



Interesting -- how did that work?


----------



## thinze3

Dean said:


> .....  I was able to "covert" two of the weeks that were resale to points eligible weeks as part of that developer purchase (I bought the other resale after that) so technically they likely are represented as being purchased from Marriott.  I likewise don't worry about my usage or ownership and given the 13 months reservation window and that I want top weeks at top resorts, the resale purchases make that far more likely to happen under the current reservation system.



This is interesting!! Are they all at the same resort - the two you converted and the one you bought from Marriott?

When I bought my MLE from Marriott last July, I specifically asked about the options of converting my "external" Waiohai week into a "developer" week. I asked if there was any way to make it that I could trade Waiohai for points in the future. I was told "No".


----------



## PerryM

hipslo said:


> Interesting -- how did that work?




Marriott used to allow you to sell your unit thru their real estate closing division and the new owner bought at the current Marriott sales price and got ALL the benefits of a direct sale.  (No incentives though)

You simply called Marriott and the sale was run through them and someone paid the closing costs of $1,200 back then and the new buyer would deal with Marriott direct.

You, the seller, got back the purchase price minus 40% Marriott real estate commission minus the closing fee.

Why someone would do this is questionable – I guess it made so little sense that Marriott might have just stopped offering it.


----------



## Icarus

PerryM said:


> Marriott used to allow you to sell your unit thru their real estate closing division and the new owner bought at the current Marriott sales price and got ALL the benefits of a direct sale.  (No incentives though)
> 
> You simply called Marriott and the sale was run through them and someone paid the closing costs of $1,200 back then and the new buyer would deal with Marriott direct.
> 
> You, the seller, got back the purchase price minus 40% Marriott real estate commission minus the closing fee.
> 
> Why someone would do this is questionable – I guess it made so little sense that Marriott might have just stopped offering it.



I'm confused. They still have a resale program, and that's how it works. You basically tell Marriott you want them to sell your unit. They wait until they have a buyer for it, and work their way down the list of sellers. They keep 40% of the price as their commission, which includes any sales commissions and incentives used to sell the unit. The buyer gets the same rights and privileges as any Marriott buyer, including the points program if it's offered at that resort.

Unfortunately, it isn't offered at resorts that are still in new developer sales and the waiting list for that program can be rather long. (4 years, when I checked on it for KBC).

I don't think that's what Dean was talking about. It sounds like he was able to negotiate a deal where he ended up with the "trade for points" option for the units that he bought at resale (not from Marriott) perhaps as part of a deal that he got when he bought another unit directly from Marriott, presumably at retail.

We don't know how much, if anything, he paid for that option, or if it was just worked in as part of the incentive deal for the purchase of the developer unit.

-David


----------



## PerryM

Icarus said:


> I'm confused. They still have a resale program, and that's how it works. You basically tell Marriott you want them to sell your unit. They wait until they have a buyer for it, and work their way down the list of sellers. They keep 40% of the price as their commission, which includes any sales commissions and incentives used to sell the unit. The buyer gets the same rights and privileges as any Marriott buyer, including the points program if it's offered at that resort.
> 
> Unfortunately, it isn't offered at resorts that are still in new developer sales and the waiting list for that program can be rather long. (4 years, when I checked on it for KBC).
> 
> I don't think that's what Dean was talking about. It sounds like he was able to negotiate a deal where he ended up with the "trade for points" option for the units that he bought at resale (not from Marriott) perhaps as part of a deal that he got when he bought another unit directly from Marriott, presumably at retail.
> 
> We don't know how much, if anything, he paid for that option, or if it was just worked in as part of the incentive deal for the purchase of the developer unit.
> 
> -David



No, this is/was done thru the timeshare closing department and has/had nothing to do with sales, resales, or buy backs.

You simply have/had Marriott become the closing company and they charged a 40% commission to do this.  Marriott did NOT place the unit back into their inventory, they just processed the paperwork.

I maybe wrong on the 40% commission too.  This is from vague memories and it might have been something different.  20% fee rings a faint bell....

However, I do remember that the sales price HAD to be the current sales price and that's what Marriott collected from the buyer.  I believe the seller was charged for the closing and if the buyer eventually paid for it that was between buyer and seller and not Marriott.

The new owner had all the rights and privileges of a direct Marriott sale.


----------



## Dave M

Perry is correct. 

Stated another way, buyer and seller could agree on a price, but with buyer wanting the points option. To get that option, the deal had to be done through Marriott as Perry describes. Thus, the buyer would be "paying up" to Marriott's price to get that option.


----------



## Icarus

ok, yeah, that's something different.

-David


----------



## PerryM

Dave M said:


> Perry is correct.
> 
> Stated another way, buyer and seller could agree on a price, but with buyer wanting the points option. To get that option, the deal had to be done through Marriott as Perry describes. Thus, the buyer would be "paying up" to Marriott's price to get that option.




Dave,

Do you know what the charge is to do this (or was)?  I just can't remember.  I did actually consider doing this on a week 52 at MountainSide when the buyer wanted the MRP option.

He decided that the extra cost just wasn't worth it.

Sadly, too many Margaritas have had a compounding impact on my memory...


----------



## Dave M

No, I don't know, but I think it was/is somewhere between 25% and 40%. 25% rings a bell, with 40% being a common rental commission under the old rental program, but your 40% might be correct. I haven't searched old posts (e.g., on the old BBS) for some of the reported sales, but I might if I get time.


----------



## qlaval

The *25%* rate if you bring your own NON-MARRIOTT BUYER is still an option.
If your buyer is in the Marriott sales data base you will not be eligible for the reduced rate.


----------



## PerryM

qlaval said:


> The *25%* rate if you bring your own NON-MARRIOTT BUYER is still an option.
> If your buyer is in the Marriott sales data base you will not be eligible for the reduced rate.



Great!

Thanks for the info.


----------



## winger

PerryM said:


> Marriott used to allow you to sell your unit thru their real estate closing division and the new owner bought at the current Marriott sales price and got ALL the benefits of a direct sale.  (No incentives though)
> 
> You simply called Marriott and the sale was run through them and someone paid the closing costs of $1,200 back then and the new buyer would deal with Marriott direct.
> 
> You, the seller, got back the purchase price minus 40% Marriott real estate commission minus the closing fee.
> 
> Why someone would do this is questionable – I guess it made so little sense that Marriott might have just stopped offering it.


Perry I purchased my MMC thru the MMC/MSE onsite resale ofc. A private party sold it and Marriott jacked up the price and once I recieved it, I received all the rights (including purchase incentives) as a new owner buying direct from Marriott. This was in Nov 2006


----------



## icydog

thinze3 said:


> This is interesting!! Are they all at the same resort - the two you converted and the one you bought from Marriott?
> 
> When I bought my MLE from Marriott last July, I specifically asked about the options of converting my "external" Waiohai week into a "developer" week. I asked if there was any way to make it that I could trade Waiohai for points in the future. I was told "No".


 
I can't speak to the exact circumstances Dean described but I know that Marriott was in a serious financial bind for SurfWatch on HH since it was being developed during the 9/11 crisis. I think they would have done anything for a sale during those hard times. I know from experience that Disney also had _loss leaders_ during that period.


----------



## Dean

hipslo said:


> Interesting -- how did that work?





thinze3 said:


> This is interesting!! Are they all at the same resort - the two you converted and the one you bought from Marriott?
> 
> When I bought my MLE from Marriott last July, I specifically asked about the options of converting my "external" Waiohai week into a "developer" week. I asked if there was any way to make it that I could trade Waiohai for points in the future. I was told "No".


I've mentioned it before and been called a liar more than once on this subject.  I bought a platinum Surfwatch Gardenview Unit and as part of the purchase was able to convert my two GO platinum weeks to points units.  This was in 2004.  They even had a form to do so.  I confirmed with my Advisor that they were listed as points weeks.  One wasn't and I was asked to send them a copy of the form which I did and now both are listed as points weeks.  I also had asked about this on several other tours and been told it was not an option.  IMO the ability to trade for points is not a major benefit but it is nice to have options.


----------



## arlene22

Starwood does that, but only if you ask. They will not offer. And you have to be spending pretty big money (at least $20G) on the developer week.


----------



## thinze3

Dean said:


> I've mentioned it before and been called a liar more than once on this subject.  I bought a platinum Surfwatch Gardenview Unit and as part of the purchase was able to convert my two GO platinum weeks to points units.  This was in 2004....



Dean,
I believe you one hundred percent. Did you have to pay a fee to convert each of your two weeks or was it all part of the Surfwatch purchase price?

By the way, you own some very nice weeks!


----------



## Dean

thinze3 said:


> Dean,
> I believe you one hundred percent. Did you have to pay a fee to convert each of your two weeks or was it all part of the Surfwatch purchase price?
> 
> By the way, you own some very nice weeks!


No additional fee, the retail price on the SW unit was quite enough even pre-construction, LOL.  I would never have paid an additional fee to have the points option, it's just not that valuable to me.  I've evolved what I own to a more "own what I use" approach with things that I can easily rent out on the years I don't use them, including DVC.  I do have the one Marriott to trade (Horizon's Branson Platinum L/O) and the Bluegreen Points which I'm still feeling out.  On a side note I traded the 2008 Horizon's for a DVC 1 BR for the bonus week, Aruba Surf Club 1 BR for the 1 BR side (came through this AM) and the studio for a 2 BR at Grande Vista for this past Sept on dates I was going to go on cash at Disney otherwise.  

Most of the accusations about my lying have actually come from Marriott sales staff to the handful of people I've communicated with about this over the last couple of years when they were exploring the same option.  To be more specific, I don't think anyone said "he's a liar" but rather that there's no way it could have happened, same thing in my book in this situation.


----------



## hipslo

Dave M said:


> I would be interested in your quoting the exact language. That could be a stumbling block for Marriott.
> 
> I own at three Marriotts, none of have wording which require anything to be "more equitable" about changes to the reservation system.



Ok, I have just returned home from Ocean Pointe (and some of the coldest weather in Florida over the past several years - oh well) and have just dusted off the legal docs for Mountainside.  The relevant language is not quite the same as what I had remembered.  

Section 11.5 of the Declaration of Condominium provides :

 "Resort Owners shall have the right to reserve a Resort Unit only in accordance with the Reservation Procedures for the Project, which may be amended from time to time by the Management Committee.  (Note - thats the Board, not Marriott).  This right to amend the Reservation Procedures may be delegated to the Manager (Note - thats Marriott).  A copy of the Reservation Procedures in effect as of the date of this Declaration is attached hereto as Exhibit E."

Section 1.12 of Exhibit E, the Reservation Procedures, provides:

"These reservation procedures may be amended friom time to time by the Manager (Marriott), on behalf of the Management Committee, to more effectively fulfill reservation requests and properly operate the reservation program".

So, in order for Mrriott to amend the reservation procedures without Board approval, the standard in Section 1.12 would have to be satisfied - that the new procedures would "more effectively fulfill reservation requests".  As to a specific class of owners (ie - resale purchasers), going to a 6 month window could NEVER have that effect - their reservation requests would ALWAYS be fulfilled LESS effectively.  There is nothing in any of the documentation (at least that I saw) that would permit Marriott to discriminate against resale owners in this way.  Whether or not the BOARD, as opposed to Marriott, could take this action is a different question, the answer to which strikes me as somewhat less clear.  

That said, what I was remembering was an entirely different provision.  Section 1.10 of the Reservation Procedures states that:

 "the Manager (Marriott), on behalf of the Management Committee (the Board), reserves the right to establish priority lists or lottery systems in an effort to ensure the fair and equitable reservation and use of Resort Units during high demand periods (ie - holidays, special events, etc)."

That provision wouldnt seem to have any bearing on this question.


----------



## timeos2

Having a reservation system subject to change after purchase - even though it required Board approval - is not a deed I'd want to own. Too many chances for bad changes at anytime.  That is the first time I've seen one written that way but I guess thats just dumb luck as I certainly didn't set up to buy properties with clearly defined (and unchangeable) reservation rights (float time) or fixed weeks but thats what I've ended up with. Thank heavens.  

Based on that paragraph I can see where Marriott could get the idea they could favor one group but it would, to me at least, clearly violate the spirit of those rules.


----------



## thinze3

*I received another Marriott email.*

See this post.

http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showpost.php?p=445941&postcount=7


----------



## Eric

Save that letter for when the change it. It will make for a great thread 



thinze3 said:


> See this post.
> 
> http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showpost.php?p=445941&postcount=7


----------



## thinze3

Eric said:


> Save that letter for when the change it. It will make for a great thread




I couldn't agree more!  

.


----------



## ricki999

Davis6, did you ever make your purchase????


----------



## MikeM132

dioxide45 said:


> The fee for the FC actually only works out to be $4 a year extra.


How do you figure that? They charge me $30.


----------



## thinze3

MikeM132 said:


> How do you figure that? They charge me $30.



It has been discussed hear on Tug many times. Marriott owners that are not Florida Club members pay a $26 fee that Florida Club members do not, for a net cost of only $4.


----------



## davis6

*CHANGE IS GOING TO HAPPEN resale owners act now*



ricki999 said:


> Davis6, did you ever make your purchase????



I just purchased from Marriott direct.  I bought at NCV platinum and platinum plus (4th of July) 

 I asked the sales people face to face and confirmation was given that change IS GOING TO HAPPEN REAL SOON.  

The document and the particular language is being drafted as we speak. the head salesman was supprised it was not into effect yet.  If you want to sell a Marriott TS go through them directly rather than on the resale market.  At least I think that will be the best way.  

If you own a resale I would suggest you call Marriott and make sure you get grandfathered in.  I wish you all luck.


----------



## davis6

PerryM said:


> Marriott used to allow you to sell your unit thru their real estate closing division and the new owner bought at the current Marriott sales price and got ALL the benefits of a direct sale.  (No incentives though)
> 
> You simply called Marriott and the sale was run through them and someone paid the closing costs of $1,200 back then and the new buyer would deal with Marriott direct.
> 
> You, the seller, got back the purchase price minus 40% Marriott real estate commission minus the closing fee.
> 
> Why someone would do this is questionable – I guess it made so little sense that Marriott might have just stopped offering it.



Apparently they still do this.  Is it not true?


----------



## suenmike32

This has been discussed repeatedly on TUG over the past several months. Its amazing how high ranking execs at the top of Marriott's food chain have denied this in writing, however a relatively low ranking Marriott employee, (namely a salesman who will likely promise you the stars) has the "inside dope". 
I don't believe there's an ounce of truth to what the salesperson is saying!
Mike



davis6 said:


> I just purchased from Marriott direct.  I bought at NCV platinum and platinum plus (4th of July)
> 
> I asked the sales people face to face and confirmation was given that change IS GOING TO HAPPEN REAL SOON.
> 
> The document and the particular language is being drafted as we speak. the head salesman was supprised it was not into effect yet.  If you want to sell a Marriott TS go through them directly rather than on the resale market.  At least I think that will be the best way.
> 
> If you own a resale I would suggest you call Marriott and make sure you get grandfathered in.  I wish you all luck.


----------



## thinze3

suenmike32 said:


> ...I don't believe there's an ounce of truth to what the salesperson is saying!
> Mike



Agreed! This is for the time being a dead horse issue and the same old salesman crap we have been hearing for quite sometime.

If anyone hears this from a salesperson, simply report it to Marriott's Exec department and that salesperson will most likely be reprimanded as some of the earlier posts in this thread suggest. And remember, never pay the premium to buy a unit from the developer until you have researched it thoroughly first. Tug is a great place to start.


----------



## davis6

You know how these timeshare purchases get addicting.

So yes I purchased 2 weeks direct from Marriott,

I decided to purchase a platinium plus week resale that gave me guaranteed the 4th of july week at Newport coast villas.  I figured then they could not mess around with changing the rules on me. I purchased in the low $20,000 and they waived their first right of refusal,  Good idea?  We will see.  I bet on it.


----------



## pwrshift

How did you purchase a resale direct from Marriott for only $20,000 for a fixed July 4th week?  I would have thought Marriott's price would be in the $30,000+ range now ... and include a bucket full of MR points?

Brian



davis6 said:


> You know how these timeshare purchases get addicting.
> 
> So yes I purchased 2 weeks direct from Marriott,
> 
> I decided to purchase a platinium plus week resale that gave me guaranteed the 4th of july week at Newport coast villas. I figured then they could not mess around with changing the rules on me. I purchased in the low $20,000 and they waived their first right of refusal, Good idea? We will see. I bet on it.


----------



## SDKath

I was quoted $32,000 for Plat+ last month from Marriott.  Is there something you know that I don't??


Katherine


----------



## camachinist

Whoa....platinum is 32K. Plat+ is closer to 40K. Now, if Marriott's done a price dump..... I'm quoting prices from a year ago.

A resale Plat+ cleared @ 22K IIRC. I believe Seth had posted something about that in the recent past. So, low 20's sounds right....

Pat


----------



## davis6

I need to make that a bit more clear.  I bought a total of 3 weeks.  2 from Marriott and one on the resale market for $22k.

Yes the direct prices are as you say. P32K  PP40k

I was thinking if you can purchase a platinum plus then they essentially loose the ability to restrict the TS due to being purchased on the resale market.


----------



## taffy19

*Congratulations*

That was a great re-sale purchase as you now have one of the best weeks in your season.  If you don't use it, I hope you will rent it out for big bucks or do a direct exchange with another owner who also owns a platinum plus week!  If you exchange it, you would always be trading down so not a good idea.

You also have the feature of reserving at your home resort at 13 months out for the other two weeks.  You must like that location and you don't live far away either.  That's another big plus.      That is important too today with the high airline ticket prices today.  Something to think about for in the future.


----------



## davis6

iconnections said:


> That was a great re-sale purchase as you now have one of the best weeks in your season.  If you don't use it, I hope you will rent it out for big bucks or do a direct exchange with another owner who also owns a platinum plus week!  If you exchange it, you would always be trading down so not a good idea..



I do live fairly close so if I do have to visit my home resort I will be VERY happy doing so. I have 4 children so the fun festivities over the 4th of July at NCV will be great.

On the exchange I am hoping to do exactly that, Exchange for other platinum plus weeks.  I would like to see some different categories on the direct exchange board.  Or are there already ways to categorize. We are hoping to go to Park City UT around Christmas time if I can find that exchange.

I have no idea what this week should rent for.  I rented it to some friends for $2500.00.  I already had plans to go to Yosemite this year over the 4th

The 13 month rule works great for me and that was a big reason in purchasing the Platinum Plus as I get the guaranteed 4th and essentially the week after as well.  I should have relatively no competition unless they own the 4th also.  I had thought about this for quite some time and feel this is the least frustrating way to secure the 1st two weeks in July.


----------



## davis6

iconnections said:


> That was a great re-sale purchase as you now have one of the best weeks in your season.  If you don't use it, I hope you will rent it out for big bucks or do a direct exchange with another owner who also owns a platinum plus week!  If you exchange it, you would always be trading down so not a good idea.



I was under the impression that if you trade high demand weeks that II would give you a bonus week of sorts for the trade.  I am still very much a rookie so I will learn from you great people and from experience.

Thanks TUG members
Brent


----------



## Dave M

davis6 said:


> I should have relatively no competition unless they own the 4th also.


Although I agree that you should generally be able to get the first two weeks of July with your plan, you _will_ have competition for that second week. Someone owning a floating week at another Marriott and a floating summer week at your resort could call and reserve the first week of July at that other resort and the second week of July at your resort. Worse for you, someone owning three (or more) weeks at various resorts could call at least a week before you can! So be sure to call at exactly 9:00 a.m. Eastern time 13 months in advance!

Many people here make such multiple-resort reservations at 13 months and then deposit or rent one or more of the reserved weeks.


----------



## thinze3

Dave M said:


> Although I agree that you should generally be able to get the first two weeks of July with your plan, you _will_ have competition for that second week. Someone owning a floating week at another Marriott and a floating summer week at your resort could call and reserve the first week of July at that other resort and the second week of July at your resort. Worse for you, someone owning three (or more) weeks at various resorts could call at least a week before you can! So be sure to call at exactly 9:00 a.m. Eastern time 13 months in advance!
> 
> Many people here make such multiple-resort reservations at 13 months and then deposit or rent one or more of the reserved weeks.



And to add that someone who also owns a less expensive week, such as Grande Vista platinum, could book a day ahead of you, as MGV offers Thursday check-in vs. Friday for NCV.


----------



## Rush

Dave M said:


> Worse for you, someone owning three (or more) weeks at various resorts could call at least a week before you can! So be sure to call at exactly 9:00 a.m. Eastern time 13 months in advance!



Sorry Dave - I don't get it.

I wasn't aware that there was a diff between owning 2 weeks v owning 3 or more weeks from the standpoint of the 13 month rule.

That being said, I am a newbie, and I'd be lying if I said that I don't find the above just a tad confusing...

Can you please help?  [As you always do...]

Thanks!


----------



## luv2vacation

I think what Dave means that if someone owned, say 3 weeks, and if they booked those weeks _consecutively_ and the July 4th week was the _middle_ week of the 3 booked, they would be eligible to book one week sooner than someone with 2 weeks.


For instance (someone correct me if I'm wrong, as I have never actually done this since I don't own 2 weeks...yet):

You own 2 weeks.  You want to book weeks July 3 & July 10, 2009 (both Friday check-in to include July 4th weekend).  You can call (or book online) as of June 3, 2008 (I think I have the date right).

I own 3 weeks.  I want to book weeks June 26, July 3, & July 10, 2009 (3 consecutive Friday check-ins with the July 4th week being the middle week).  I can call (or book online) as of May 26, 2008 _for all three weeks_. 

That's a 1-week advantage because I have an extra week to work with.


----------



## Andar

One more suggestion for Davis6: 
Please join TUG it will be the best $15 you spend for timesharing and you will support these boards.  :whoopie:


----------



## Dean

Rush said:


> Sorry Dave - I don't get it.
> 
> I wasn't aware that there was a diff between owning 2 weeks v owning 3 or more weeks from the standpoint of the 13 month rule.
> 
> That being said, I am a newbie, and I'd be lying if I said that I don't find the above just a tad confusing...
> 
> Can you please help?  [As you always do...]
> 
> Thanks!


The 13 month rule is from the first week if you are reserving consecutive weeks.  In theory (and to make the point) if you owned the right 52 weeks (less with lockoff's), you could then book for the next year and effectively book the last week a full 2 years and 1 month out.  And as noted above, it's 13 months from the first day of check in for the first resort so one starting with a resort that has a  Thursday check in would be essentially a day ahead of everyone else.  I did this exact thing 2 weeks ago.  I called 13 months out from the Thursday of week 23, locked off my Branson 2 BR reserving the studio for week 23 (Sat start), the 1 BR for week 24 then all 3 of my HH weeks for week 25 which is the week I wanted there.  Certainly MVCI could change the rules in a way that affects the 13 month rule.  The current rule where you can reserve and start date at one time benefits those using the 13 month rule but keeps everyone from having to call back every day to try to get a specific week.


----------



## Dave M

Stated another way, in the July 4th week example, someone owning three weeks could call _two weeks_ before the 4th of July week and reserve, consecutively, that week (June 20) for the next year, the following week (June 27) and the week after that (July 4). 

The 13-month rule allows you to call 13 months in advance of the first week you plan to reserve and then reserve as many weeks consecutively as you own, as long as you are reserving them in the seasons you own. Thus, the more weeks you own, the better your chances of getting whatever you want when you call, assuming you have worked out the reservation strategy so that the most in-demand week that you plan to reserve is one of the later weeks.


----------



## Rush

Thanks Dave, Dean, n Luv!


----------



## davidvel

(note: this is not a legal opinion and should be relied upon as such.)
Rights to reserve your use week. The following is paraphrased from the Shadow Ridge Timeshare Declaration document.  

"Timeshare Interest" is defined as the interest in the timeshare condominium referenced in the respective Timeshare Declaration for the resort--it is not a global statement of any interest managed by Marriott (it is defined as an interest in the home resort only). para. 1.85 and 1.87. 

Reserving 
para. 2.1-d-i: Owners who own more than one "Timeshare Interest" (see above) may reserve use weeks 13 mos. in advance of  (down to 75 days before) the use week reserved, only if they reserve such weeks concurrently or consecutively.

para. 2.1-d-ii: Owners other than above may reserve use weeks 12 mos in advance of (down to 75 days before) the use week reserved.

remaining provision relates to reserving within 75 days.

Importantly,  "Owner" is defined as any owner of a timeshare interest deed, or any successor purchaser para 1.61. 

These provisions are obviously the most material part of a timeshare owner's rights with respect to the property. I can see no conceivable way the substantive rights granted by the Timeshare Declaration could be unilaterally altered by Marriott or its affiliated companies. 

On an interesting aside, not to create a war among owners, it is my opinion that if Marriott gives preference to owners (ie 13 month res.) who do not own two weeks in a single resort (ie. governed by the same Timeshare Declaration, CC&Rs and condo plan), they are not following the TS Declaration to the detriment of single week owners.

Any new policy would apply only to new interests sold by the declarant under some new revised restriction. It could not apply to any existing deed and subsequent re-sale of that deed by an owner or even subsequent three times removed owner. There would be no need for grandfathering in such a case. 

Hope that wasn’t too legal as it is not legal advice!


----------



## Dean

davidvel said:


> (note: this is not a legal opinion and should be relied upon as such.)
> Rights to reserve your use week. The following is paraphrased from the Shadow Ridge Timeshare Declaration document.
> 
> "Timeshare Interest" is defined as the interest in the timeshare condominium referenced in the respective Timeshare Declaration for the resort--it is not a global statement of any interest managed by Marriott (it is defined as an interest in the home resort only). para. 1.85 and 1.87.
> 
> Reserving
> para. 2.1-d-i: Owners who own more than one "Timeshare Interest" (see above) may reserve use weeks 13 mos. in advance of  (down to 75 days before) the use week reserved, only if they reserve such weeks concurrently or consecutively.
> 
> para. 2.1-d-ii: Owners other than above may reserve use weeks 12 mos in advance of (down to 75 days before) the use week reserved.
> 
> remaining provision relates to reserving within 75 days.
> 
> Importantly,  "Owner" is defined as any owner of a timeshare interest deed, or any successor purchaser para 1.61.
> 
> These provisions are obviously the most material part of a timeshare owner's rights with respect to the property. I can see no conceivable way the substantive rights granted by the Timeshare Declaration could be unilaterally altered by Marriott or its affiliated companies.
> 
> On an interesting aside, not to create a war among owners, it is my opinion that if Marriott gives preference to owners (ie 13 month res.) who do not own two weeks in a single resort (ie. governed by the same Timeshare Declaration, CC&Rs and condo plan), they are not following the TS Declaration to the detriment of single week owners.
> 
> Any new policy would apply only to new interests sold by the declarant under some new revised restriction. It could not apply to any existing deed and subsequent re-sale of that deed by an owner or even subsequent three times removed owner. There would be no need for grandfathering in such a case.
> 
> Hope that wasn’t too legal as it is not legal advice!


We've had this discussion before.  There is no provision that limits the definition of owner as one owning only at a given resort.  Plus there IS a provision giving Marriott unilateral authority to change reservation procedures.


----------



## davidvel

IMH(NL)O I disagree with both based upon the TS Declaration which cannot be altered through procedures, rules or discretion under CA law.


----------



## Dave M

Dean is correct. What you found is common language for the CC&Rs of most Marriott resorts. If you look carefully, you'll find in the Program Rules (or a comparable document; not the Declaration) a provision that Marriott can change the reservation procedures.

Further, you are correct that an owner of two or more weeks at that particular resort can make reservations 13 months in advance. What you won't find is a provision that prohibits Marriott from allowing those who own one week at your resort and a week at another resort from using the 13-month rule.

Dean and I and others have been through this many times over the years. We could be wrong, but....

Bottom line: Marriott allows it. Anyone can sue if they think Marriott is wrong. But be prepared for an expensive fight. You can be sure that Marriott had the best lawyers it could find look at this issue way back in the early to mid 1990s when it first started allowing the multiple-resort 13-month reservations.


----------



## davidvel

Dave M said:


> Dean is correct. What you found is common language for the CC&Rs of most Marriott resorts. If you look carefully, you'll find in the Program Rules (or a comparable document; not the Declaration) a provision that Marriott can change the reservation procedures.



Not to beat a dead horse, but you may have missed my point: under CA law, no Rule can supercede or contradict the declarations. In any conflict between a rule and the declarations, the declarations prevail.  



> Further, you are correct that an owner of two or more weeks at that particular resort can make reservations 13 months in advance. What you won't find is a provision that prohibits Marriott from allowing those who own one week at your resort and a week at another resort from using the 13-month rule.


The Declaration sets forth in detail how reservations can be made. Either you own two weeks at the particular resort, or you fall under the 12 month rule. 



Dean said:


> There is no provision that limits the definition of owner as one owning only at a given resort.


"Owner" is defined within each declaration specifically as an owner of a "timeshare interest" within the respective project. see, para. 1.85 and 1.87.

There is legally no relationship between each timeshare condominum project, and "Owner" as defined in each project's governing documents is expressly limited to that project.  Within any timeshare project, whether it be Marriott or others, the rules apply as to any condominium project governed by CC&Rs.One Associaion cannot give rights to owners of other associations, unless expressly allowed by the CCRs (which are not granted in these). If the rules state that only those owners who have 2 or more weeks in that project  can reserve 13 mos. out (which the above CC&Rs state), then the Association must follow those declarations in allowing reservations.

I agree with Dave that it would take a large effort to fight Marriott if one chose to do so, and they chose to fight back. 

Obviously, timeshare ownership is complicated. I enjoy these discussions because they relate to all the promises and lay-opinion given by the salespepople, and put all their simple, strightforward explanations in a more complex context. The more info people have, the better, which I understand the primary purpose of TUGBBS to be.


----------



## davis6

Andar said:


> One more suggestion for Davis6:
> Please join TUG it will be the best $15 you spend for timesharing and you will support these boards.  :whoopie:



LET ME ONE UP THAT I have already joined and did for 2 years.  Thank you,  I dont mind the nudge. I got frustrated on the page to change my status on the bbs..


----------



## davis6

I have seen the the specific dates in weeks on the timeshare contract and if you own july 4th it shows week 26 but if you own the platinum  it has on there week ?-25 and then week 27-?.  

I think there are only 720 guranteed week 26 owners, they are guaranteed that week are they not,. I know from my own personal experience I paid more $$ to get that week 26 guranteed. I own 2 platinum plus and one platinum.

So you all are saying under the 13month rule that a non platinum plus multi week owner can essentially kick one of those guaranteed owners out of their week 26.  That is what these posts are implying.  I do not see how that is possible.  

Example:                                                                                          If I own 5 weeks, Gold at that, I reserve week 50 to week 2  
13 months in advanced on a Thursday I can stay over Christmas and new years in  NCV with out owning them. Sing me up!!!   I really dont think this 13month rule is being interpetid  correctly.  It may have happened by chance but if push  came to shove I would think a platinum plus owner would win out.

I could be completely wrong and if that is the case my tail is between my legs and mouth shut. 
 For a while until I think of something else.

Luv you guys
Brent


----------



## Dave M

Brent -

No one is suggesting that a Platinum Plus July 4th owner would lose the right to occupy that week.

There are so many scenarios that have been discussed here that it's a bit difficult to keep them straight. Perhaps the key is the consistent comment that one can only reserve a week that's within that owner's season. Thus, someone that owns a July 4th Platinum Plus week can call and reserve that week (choosing among a Friday, Saturday or Sunday check-in at most resorts), but anyone who doesn't own such a week would not be able to reserve that July 4th week.

The confusion may have started because davis6 wants to reserve both his July4th fixed week and the following week, which is a floating week. Thus, the following posts were intended to discuss various scenarios that impact doing that.


----------



## Dean

davidvel said:


> Not to beat a dead horse, but you may have missed my point: under CA law, no Rule can supercede or contradict the declarations. In any conflict between a rule and the declarations, the declarations prevail.
> 
> 
> The Declaration sets forth in detail how reservations can be made. Either you own two weeks at the particular resort, or you fall under the 12 month rule.
> 
> 
> "Owner" is defined within each declaration specifically as an owner of a "timeshare interest" within the respective project. see, para. 1.85 and 1.87.
> 
> There is legally no relationship between each timeshare condominum project, and "Owner" as defined in each project's governing documents is expressly limited to that project.  Within any timeshare project, whether it be Marriott or others, the rules apply as to any condominium project governed by CC&Rs.One Associaion cannot give rights to owners of other associations, unless expressly allowed by the CCRs (which are not granted in these). If the rules state that only those owners who have 2 or more weeks in that project  can reserve 13 mos. out (which the above CC&Rs state), then the Association must follow those declarations in allowing reservations.
> 
> I agree with Dave that it would take a large effort to fight Marriott if one chose to do so, and they chose to fight back.
> 
> Obviously, timeshare ownership is complicated. I enjoy these discussions because they relate to all the promises and lay-opinion given by the salespepople, and put all their simple, strightforward explanations in a more complex context. The more info people have, the better, which I understand the primary purpose of TUGBBS to be.


Under one of the exhibits to your POS you will find the terminology that states terms like "without the consent of the owners" when it comes to revising the reservation procedures.  For Surfwatch it's exhibit F 6(e).  In this case, they are utilizing the ones in place when many of the resorts began selling.

Under reservation procedures, item #3, it describes the current procedures including the 13 month rule.  I believe the mistake you are making, that a few others have made in the past, is interpreting the phrase "who own more than one Time Sharing interest" as pertaining simply to the given resort.  The term owner in that sentence does pertain to someone who owns at the resort in question but the wording is not specific enough to interpret it as simply weeks owned at that given resort.  Given that Marriott obviously interprets it the same way as I do, I'd suggest you take them to court to get them to change their mind or complain to them in an attempt to do so.


----------



## luv2vacation

Dave is right Brent.  Take my post (#245 in this thread).  I say that _YOU_ own 2 weeks - maybe your 2 weeks are the platinum plus and a platinum at NCV -that would get you the 2 weeks quoted in my example.  Now say that the first two weeks in my example that _I_ own are at Ocean Pointe - 2 gold weeks that will give me late June & July 4th weeks - and my third week is at NCV - for the July 10th week.  

That is just one example of a combination that could work to give ME the advantage over YOU for that July 10th week at NCV.


----------



## davis6

It seems as though Dave M has heard of some change coming down the pipes or at least some policies on resale. As I own both direct and resale I am a bit concerned. It will effect everyone regardless of how you bought your TS.  Dave can you give us that link to your thread.


----------



## Dave M

There are several current threads on this forum where people are speculating what the changes might be that would or would not impact resale purchasers. Since the Marriott people who have the best knowledge of what (if anything) will really happen are not currently talking (at least to me), I have nothing to add to those highly speculative threads.


----------



## icydog

I am hoping my platinum NCV will pass ROFR. Then I will have four Platinum summer weeks, 2 MMC, 1 MSE and 1 NCV. In your example, I could reserve June 27, a Sat, at the MMC on May 25, a Thursday, since MMC has a Thursday check in date. Then I could reserve all the rest of my weeks for check in on July 3 on that same day-- including NCV. Is that correct?


----------



## Steve

icydog said:


> I am hoping my platinum NCV will pass ROFR. Then I will have four Platinum summer weeks, 2 MMC, 1 MSE and 1 NCV. In your example, I could reserve June 27, a Sat, at the MMC on May 25, a Thursday, since MMC has a Thursday check in date. Then I could reserve all the rest of my weeks for check in on July 3 on that same day-- including NCV. Is that correct?



MMC doesn't have Thursday check ins, and I believe that 4th of July week is not included in the Platinum season at NCV (it is platinum plus).  Otherwise, I think you have a great plan. 

Others will surely respond with more information.

Steve


----------



## icydog

Steve said:


> *MMC doesn't have Thursday check ins*, and I believe that *4th of July week is not included in the Platinum season at NCV* (it is platinum plus).  Otherwise, I think you have a great plan.
> 
> Others will surely respond with more information.
> 
> Steve



That'll show you how often I use my weeks at MSE or MMC. Like never!! 

I guess I didn't understand the posts by Dave M and Dean concerning making reservations at NCV for 4th of July. 

The caveat is you can reserve the 4th of July ONLY 13 months out ONLY if you own plat plus at NCV.  Have I got this right??? Thanks


----------



## lweverett

Everyone is looking at this from the resale side.  Take a look at it from the developer sale side.  I'm sure that there are many platinum owners who bought from the developer and yet cannot reserve the week they prefer because they are all gone in the first 30 seconds of the first possible reservation day.  This must be particually true of Newport Coast as the platinum season goes thru November and December, and those resorts that are platinum all year round.  To be able to limit the prime weeks to only original purchasers could become a persuasive sales tool for developer sales.  Corporate desisions are not always based on sound logic.  The question can be asked if the price differential for platinum plus weeks is real additional profit or is it negated by the lowered value of the other platinum weeks who now can not even try to request these prime weeks.  The corporate mindset may be that any limiting of the crowd trying to reserve the super prime weeks may well decrease the resistance to the developer price, and the salesmen have not been properly instructed on how to put the positive spin on it.


----------



## timeos2

*Not a resale/retail issue - greedy time frame ($$$$)*



lweverett said:


> Everyone is looking at this from the resale side.  Take a look at it from the developer sale side.  I'm sure that there are many platinum owners who bought from the developer and yet cannot reserve the week they prefer because they are all gone in the first 30 seconds of the first possible reservation day.  This must be particually true of Newport Coast as the platinum season goes thru November and December, and those resorts that are platinum all year round.  To be able to limit the prime weeks to only original purchasers could become a persuasive sales tool for developer sales.  Corporate desisions are not always based on sound logic.  The question can be asked if the price differential for platinum plus weeks is real additional profit or is it negated by the lowered value of the other platinum weeks who now can not even try to request these prime weeks.  The corporate mindset may be that any limiting of the crowd trying to reserve the super prime weeks may well decrease the resistance to the developer price, and the salesmen have not been properly instructed on how to put the positive spin on it.



If they sell too many Platinum periods over too wide a range of dates so as to create the problem that is a shortsighted (and greedy) sales model not a reason to punish the buyers silly enough to believe they would easily get what they want by buying in  - retail OR resale.  Put the blame where it belongs.


----------



## AwayWeGo

*Let The Timeshare Companies Go Start Up Their Own B. B. S.*




lweverett said:


> Take a look at it from the developer sale side.


I never look at these things from the perspective of the timeshare companies or the timeshare sellers. 

Shux, let those folks go start their own Internet BBS -- exchanging tips & information, etc., about the latest gimmicks for shearing us sheep. 

What I like about TUG is what it says up top on each screen view -- _The 1st User's Group Devoted To Timeshare Owners_. 

Is this a great country or what ? 

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​


----------



## lweverett

John, you can worry about laying blame, I was only offering a possible reasoning behind doing this.  I'm much more worried about what happens than why it happens, if it is to affect me.


----------



## Dean

timeos2 said:


> If they sell too many Platinum periods over too wide a range of dates so as to create the problem that is a shortsighted (and greedy) sales model not a reason to punish the buyers silly enough to believe they would easily get what they want by buying in  - retail OR resale.  Put the blame where it belongs.


Anyone that buys a timeshare week should understand what they're buying and in the case of Marriott reservations, there is a ton of info out there so one should be able to easily know that getting one specific week during the highest demand timeframe is not very likely.  There is also a lot of info about the 13 month priority, again anyone should know this is going to work against them for high demand weeks.  Can we say HI with 50 week Platinum.  This is exactly how most points systems work, they sell essentially every point like it'll be used at HH 4th of July or HI Xmas.  And sometimes the developer doesn't truly know what the true demand will be for a given time, in the case of Marriott they would likely have made such weeks Platinum plus had they known the demand would be that great so they could have sold them for more.


----------



## taffy19

Isn't this what they are doing now at the newest resorts? They may have learned from their serious mistakes at some of the resorts where the platinum season was just too long. The people, who are paying the extra premium for a fixed holiday week, will at least get that week. It comes with a heavy price tag and it will put a dent in the floating system because this highly demanded week won't be available unless this week is deposited in II or in the new Marriott internal exchange system.

Only time will tell and I can hardly wait when they will unveil the new plan. Why is it taking so long?


----------

