# Marriott's Refinery New York City



## ral (Jan 26, 2014)

Just saw Marriott's announcement of timeshare (Marriott's Refinery) opening June, 2014 in New York City!!! The webpage shows that units (1-3 bedroom units) have full kitchens, but the hotel (The Refinery) that is presently at the given address (63 West 38th Street New York, NY 10018) has 197 rooms (250-425 sq. ft.), none of which have kitchens.  Perhaps MVW is using a generic webpage to announce what will be "studio" units for NYC. In any case, this a major announcement for Marriott Vacations Worldwide:

https://www.marriott.com/hotels/travel/nycmv-marriott’s-refinery-new-york-city/


----------



## BocaBoy (Jan 26, 2014)

ral said:


> Just saw Marriott's announcement of timeshare (Marriott's Refinery) opening June, 2014 in New York City!!! They are showing that units have full kitchens. Hope this is for real:
> 
> https://www.marriott.com/hotels/travel/nycmv-marriott’s-refinery-new-york-city/



Nice.  This is what we have been waiting for.  I wonder how we got so close to opening without any good concrete information on what was coming.  Usually we know about these things father ahead.


----------



## fluke (Jan 26, 2014)

That is great!!!!  I am at MOC in Maui now and did a presentation and the rep told me the. New York City timeshare was completely finished but they were  jumping some legal hurdles before it could be released.  To say the least I was skeptical.  This is interesting because she also said they are in the process of constructing a site in San Diego.  Again I had severe doubt.


----------



## WBP (Jan 26, 2014)

This is a huge achievement by Marriott Vacation Club.

Finally, Manhattan!

The number of hoops that the State of New York makes timeshare developers jump through are insurmountable. You can thank the unscrupulous timeshare developers of years gone by for that, and a high degree of consumer advocacy by the State of New York.


----------



## Ron98GT (Jan 26, 2014)

What do people think of the area: 38th St in the Garment District.  I usually stay a little further North.

It would be nice to have something other than HGVC and the Manhattan Club to select from, it would increase availability, it will be nice to get the Marriott preference. and it would be nice to have some kind of kitchen.

Is the following link broken? I couldn't access it using IE or Chrome, although I did access earlier using Firefox, but not now.

https://www.marriott.com/hotels/trav...new-york-city/


----------



## Ron98GT (Jan 26, 2014)

Oops, I shouldn't do 2 things at the same time.  I some how did a double post.

Sorry


----------



## ral (Jan 26, 2014)

Looks like the web address was changed:

https://www.marriott.com/hotels/travel/nycmv-marriott’s-refinery-new-york-city/

If MVW is converting "The Refinery" hotel into timeshare studios and plan on keeping the 197 units, the rooms, while stylish, are not large enough for kitchens. Perhaps just a coffee maker and minibar/fridge.

Can't wait to see what the various destination club point values will be!


----------



## Werner Weiss (Jan 26, 2014)

The website of the Refinery New York City Hotel provides many details about the property and its rooms, as currently furnished and configured:

http://www.refineryhotelnewyork.com

This short TimeOut New York article, dated May 15, 2013, describes the hotel's industrial aesthetic;

http://www.timeout.com/newyork/travel/new-york-city-hotel-opening-inside-the-refinery-hotel

As of now, the official Marriott website seems to be primarily boilerplate, with no real room photos or details:

https://www.marriott.com/hotels/hotel-rooms/nycmv-marriott’s-refinery-new-york-city/


----------



## chris5 (Jan 26, 2014)

Ron98GT said:


> What do people think of the area: 38th St in the Garment District.  I usually stay a little further North.
> 
> It would be nice to have something other than HGVC and the Manhattan Club to select from, it would increase availability, it will be nice to get the Marriott preference. and it would be nice to have some kind of kitchen.
> 
> ...



The Refinery site is around the corner from the Marriott Residence Inn at 6th and the corner of W.39th Street.  I've stayed at the Residence Inn on many occasions and prefer it to other mid-town locations, though I haven't stayed at the East side mid-town Marriott hotels. (But my favorite East side Marriott is the Courtyard at 92nd near 1st Ave.)

I like the Refinery location near Bryant Park and the NYC Public Library, with a short walk to Times Square and the Broadway theatre district. As I former New Yawker, it's an easy place for me to hop on to the subway to visit family in Brooklyn or daughter who just moved to the Kips Bay district. I've frequently taken Amtrak to Penn. Station and walked from there to the Residence Inn.  I'd imagine this will take a major level of DC points to exchange and it will probably be set at the Category 9 level for MRPs.


----------



## BocaBoy (Jan 26, 2014)

Well, now I am concerned.  After reviewing everything I could find and the links supplied by Werner, I think the Marriott website may just be boilerplate and inaccurate when it talks about 1-3 BR units, kitchens and washer/dryers.  It appears that this is a 197 room hotel with just 11 or 12 floors (I have seen both mentioned), so it will likely just be glorified hotel rooms.  The Refinery link supplied by Werner does not talk about 1-3BR villas, kitchens, etc.  I hope I am wrong, but this is the only way I can reconcile what appears to be conflicting information.  Maybe it is all studios with one floor of larger units?  We shall see.


----------



## ral (Jan 26, 2014)

Based on the information given for "The Refinery" hotel, the largest unit is the Atelier Executive Suite at 425 sq. ft., which is about the same size as an average room at the New York Marriott Marquis. The remaining units range from 250-400 sq. ft. 

My guess (based on an announced June 2014 opening date) is that all units will be hotel rooms (no stovetops, ovens, full size refrigerators, dishwashers, bar sinks or microwave ovens, but might have Keurig-like coffee makers and already in the rooms, but empty, minibars) with differences in point values being attributed to size of unit.


----------



## BocaBoy (Jan 26, 2014)

ral said:


> Based on the information given for "The Refinery" hotel, the largest unit is the Atelier Executive Suite at 425 sq. ft., which is about the same size as an average room at the New York Marriott Marquis. The remaining units range from 250-400 sq. ft.
> 
> My guess (based on an announced June 2014 opening date) is that all units will be hotel rooms (no stovetops, ovens, full size refrigerators, dishwashers, bar sinks or microwave ovens, but might have Keurig-like coffee makers and already in the rooms, but empty, minibars) with differences in point values being attributed to size of unit.



So probably staying at the Marquis on MR points will be a much better experience, especially for Gold and Platinum elites.


----------



## Werner Weiss (Jan 26, 2014)

I hope that the hotel's minibars ("fully stocked with gourmet snacks and libations") will be replaced with empty refrigerators. I hope MVCI can figure out how to add a microwave oven and at least a small cabinet for food and a few dishes. I don't expect a full kitchen or even a kitchenette; the rooms are too small for that.

One of the factors that will determine whether it's better to stay at the new Marriott’s Refinery New York City (Marriott Vacation Club) or at one of the many regular Marriott properties (various Marriott brands) will be the Destinations Club point chart.

Those of us who are enrolled owners will have two option if we want to turn an enrolled week into a New York City hotel room:

We can opt for Destinations Club points for use at the Refinery;
We can elect Marriott Rewards points for use at one of the hotels.
My guess is we'll get more nights — possibly significantly more nights — going the Refinery route. But, in the process, Gold and Platinum members will give up lounge access (at full-service hotels) and the possibility for upgrades.

The New York Marriott Marquis (category 9 ) is 45,000 points per night. If electing points means 100,000 Marriott Rewards points, that's just two nights and change.


----------



## BocaBoy (Jan 26, 2014)

Werner Weiss said:


> One of the factors that will determine whether it's better to stay at the new Marriott’s Refinery New York City (Marriott Vacation Club) or at one of the many regular Marriott properties (various Marriott brands) will be the Destinations Club point chart.
> 
> My guess is we'll get more nights — possibly significantly more nights — going the Refinery route. But, in the process, Gold and Platinum members will give up lounge access (at full-service hotels) and the possibility for upgrades.
> 
> The New York Marriott Marquis (category 9 ) is 45,000 points per night. If electing points means 100,000 Marriott Rewards points, that's just two nights and change.



But exchanging our MVCI week for points is very expensive and not a good way to get those points.  As for redeeming, I would use the 5 nights from a travel package.  You are certainly right if you need to turn your MVCI weeks into MR points to stay at the Refinery.


----------



## ronparise (Jan 26, 2014)

Ron98GT said:


> What do people think of the area: 38th St in the Garment District.  I usually stay a little further North.
> 
> It would be nice to have something other than HGVC and the Manhattan Club to select from, it would increase availability, it will be nice to get the Marriott preference. and it would be nice to have some kind of kitchen.
> 
> ...



Another choice would be wyndham


----------



## Beaglemom3 (Jan 26, 2014)

Ral, I see what you mean. This link shows a kitchen, I think. Could this be an error as I don't see the kitchen listed in room info. Hmmmm.


https://www.marriott.com/hotels/fact-sheet/travel/nycmv-marriott’s-refinery-new-york-city/



=


----------



## s1b000 (Jan 26, 2014)

ral said:


> Just saw Marriott's announcement of timeshare (Marriott's Refinery) opening June, 2014 in New York City!!! The webpage shows that units (1-3 bedroom units) have full kitchens, but the hotel (The Refinery) that is presently at the given address (63 West 38th Street New York, NY 10018) has 197 rooms (250-425 sq. ft.), none of which have kitchens.  Perhaps MVW is using a generic webpage to announce what will be "studio" units for NYC. In any case, this a major announcement for Marriott Vacations Worldwide:
> 
> https://www.marriott.com/hotels/travel/nycmv-marriott’s-refinery-new-york-city/



Thanks for sharing, this looks exciting!


----------



## Werner Weiss (Jan 26, 2014)

Beaglemom3 said:


> This link shows a kitchen, I think. Could this be an error as I don't see the kitchen listed in room info. Hmmmm.
> 
> https://www.marriott.com/hotels/fact-sheet/travel/nycmv-marriott’s-refinery-new-york-city/



Yes. I think they jumped the gun posting incomplete, inaccurate information consisting largely of boilerplate.

The "Guest Rooms and Villas" at https://www.marriott.com/hotels/hotel-rooms/nycmv-marriott’s-refinery-new-york-city/ includes this: "Separate living and dining areas, full kitchen, luxurious tub, and private balcony or terrace. All the conveniences of home, including multiple TV sets, VCR, washer/dryer."

That reads like boilerplate, not like actual plans to retrofit small rooms in a new hotel located within a historic building or to add balconies to it.

The page also has this: "No guest room information is available at this time; please try again later."

They should have deleted the boilerplate and photo featuring a full kitchen.

Is anyone else looking forward to having a VCR?


----------



## chris5 (Jan 26, 2014)

I'm a little confused if what folks say here is true about the size of the rooms at the Refinery.  The Residence Inn (a category 8 on MRPs), around the corner, has full kitchens in studios and in 1 and 2 bedroom suites, with the largest footprint at 640 square feet. Why would Marriott open a new project with rooms with smaller footprints than a Residence Inn, which also has all the trappings for extended stays that the timeshare crowd generally gravitates towards?  The Residence Inn there has laundry facilities, a fitness center, full kitchen facilities (except gas or electric oven), and free breakfast that grows tired after the first night.  I'm generally able to tap into rates below $200 using discounts and promotions. 

I've also stayed at the Manhattan Club and the Residence Inn trumps the living accommodations there as well.  Seems to me that the Refinery has to at least trump the Residence Inn around the corner for accommodations and space footprint. Puzzling to me.


----------



## BocaBoy (Jan 26, 2014)

chris5 said:


> I'm a little confused if what folks say here is true about the size of the rooms at the Refinery.  The Residence Inn (a category 8 on MRPs), around the corner, has full kitchens in studios and in 1 and 2 bedroom suites, with the largest footprint at 640 square feet. Why would Marriott open a new project with rooms with smaller footprints than a Residence Inn, which also has all the trappings for extended stays that the timeshare crowd generally gravitates towards?  The Residence Inn there has laundry facilities, a fitness center, full kitchen facilities, and free breakfast that grows tired after the first night.  I'm generally able to tap into rates below $200 using discounts and promotions.
> 
> I've also stayed at the Manhattan Club and the Residence Inn trumps the living accommodations there as well.  Seems to me that the Refinery has to at least trump the Residence Inn around the corner for accommodations and space footprint. Puzzling to me.



Puzzling to me too, but both the Refinery hotel website and the Marriott website say there are 197 rooms, so MVCI can't be combining rooms like was done in Maui or Kauai.  So the room sizes must therefore be fixed.


----------



## Beaglemom3 (Jan 26, 2014)

Ron98GT said:


> What do people think of the area: 38th St in the Garment District.  I usually stay a little further North.
> 
> It would be nice to have something other than HGVC and the Manhattan Club to select from, it would increase availability, it will be nice to get the Marriott preference. and it would be nice to have some kind of kitchen.
> 
> ...





  I like the Garment Area & Hell's Kitchen, too. Have only stayed in those areas at the Element Hotel. Had great rates when first opened, but no longer. Near Becco's Restaurant. Great one.



The addition of another Marriott with a kitchen (hopefully), is a good thing and as mentioned in a prior post, using MRPs would be great.

  Have stayed at the Manhattan Club (thank you SFX) and the Hotel Mela both in easy reach of Time Square and Penn Station (walk, cab or subway).


=


----------



## dioxide45 (Jan 26, 2014)

BocaBoy said:


> Nice.  This is what we have been waiting for.  I wonder how we got so close to opening without any good concrete information on what was coming.  Usually we know about these things father ahead.



No press releases or any announcement of any kind makes me wonder if the Vacation Club logo associated with the Refinery is an error of some kind. When you Google for any association between the Refinery Hotel and Marriott, this thread is at or near the top of the search results.


----------



## Werner Weiss (Jan 26, 2014)

chris5 said:


> Why would Marriott open a new project with rooms with smaller footprints than a Residence Inn, which also has all the trappings for extended stays that the timeshare crowd generally gravitates towards?


It's a "new project" for Marriott Vacations Worldwide Corp (VAC), but the hotel itself is not a new project. It opened for business last year with no involvement by VAC or Marriott International.

It's probably simply a case that the owners of the Refinery Hotel were willing to sell all or part of the Refinery Hotel (or to work out some sort of other business deal) — and that the deal made business sense to VAC.

Unless the page at Marriott.com is bogus, Marriott Vacation Club Trust will include a new, chic New York hotel with relatively small rooms that have 12-foot ceilings and a "slightly raw" industrial aesthetic. 

Considering VAC's customer — for example, people buying somewhere around 2,000 Destinations Club points — and the high cost of real estate and operations in New York City, a studio-only property makes sense. The point chart isn't out yet (in fact there's nothing at all about this of the Marriott Vacation Club website), but the points per night rate is likely to be high — but, because these are small studios, not so high that they're out of the range of typical Destinations Club point owners and enrolled week owners.


----------



## Werner Weiss (Jan 26, 2014)

dioxide45 said:


> No press releases or any announcement of any kind makes me wonder if the Vacation Club logo associated with the Refinery is an error of some kind. When you Google for any association between the Refinery Hotel and Marriott, this thread is at or near the top of the search results.


Logically, it would make a lot more sense for the Refinery Hotel New York to join the Autograph Collection, which is Marriott's brand for "strikingly independent hotels" seeking to benefit from Marriott's marketing, website, reservations system, and loyalty program.

However, with the longstanding rumor that Marriott Vacations Worldwide Corp has been planning to add a New York City location, I'm willing to believe that the Refinery Hotel New York joining Marriott Vacation Club is real. 

I just think someone accidentally uploaded incomplete web content before it was ready. There is no press release about this at the VAC website (http://www.marriottvacationsworldwide.com). The web content at Marriott.com clearly is not ready. There's nothing about it at the MVCI website. And we owners have not received any email.


----------



## Big Matt (Jan 26, 2014)

One thing that I'll note is that having some floors as timeshares and some hotels make sense to me.  In urban areas, this could be great.  I'd be very excited if Marriott timeshares moved into this type of concept.  

Also, if any of the rooms connect today in the Refinery, there's not much that needs to be done to call it a lock off or to repurpose one side as the living/dining side of a 1BR.


----------



## FractionalTraveler (Jan 26, 2014)

dioxide45 said:


> No press releases or any announcement of any kind makes me wonder if the Vacation Club logo associated with the Refinery is an error of some kind. When you Google for any association between the Refinery Hotel and Marriott, this thread is at or near the top of the search results.



Bingo!

There has been no announcement and the Marriott webpages in the OP's link is full of errors.  This would not be the first time this has happened either.

I would not get my hopes up too high at this time based upon this information.

Also, this doesn't make any business sense when they already have 4 hotel properties in NY as part of the Explorer collection and a few unfinished projects across the US.

FT


----------



## dansimms (Jan 26, 2014)

*What many of us have been waiting for*

As someone who lives under 50 miles from Manhattan, I am hoping that there is a small efficiency option, even if it just sleeps 2.  With the short notice discount for being Premier Plus, my fingers are crossed for times when I can go in for 2 and 3 night stays at 500 DPs or less per night...after my PP discount.  That would be a DP redemption basic chart rate of about 700 to 750.  Many of us would enjoy NYC during any of the 12 months of the year, for maximum flexibility.  If they cost 1000 or more DPs, per night, like the City Discovery Hotels...........what is the point? The demand for these will be extraordinarily high.....so this will be very interesting.  This will be ideal for those taking a cruise out of NYC.  I have a feeling, if there is a 1 BR option, it will take 1000 DPs per night.........and more during peak seasons.


----------



## OutAndAbout (Jan 26, 2014)

Werner Weiss said:


> Logically, it would make a lot more sense for the Refinery Hotel New York to join the Autograph Collection, which is Marriott's brand for "strikingly independent hotels" seeking to benefit from Marriott's marketing, website, reservations system, and loyalty program.



Even with an official announcement, I'd guess it's not set in stone.  The planned Hyatt Residence Club in New York City was switched to an Andaz
http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=113697


----------



## Luvtoride (Jan 26, 2014)

Good Point Werner. I recently stayed at the Lexington, Marriott's Category 8 Autograph Collection Hotel on the East Side (the night of the snow storm in NYC) and was very disappointed with the size of the room and the property.  I cannot imagine how a hotel like people have been discussing the Refinery was could be set up as a "roomy" MVC "resort".  If members are looking at this as a reasonably economical way to stay in NYC, then don't expect the same type of resort amenities (and floor plan layouts and size) as most other MVC resorts.  As for the neighborhood, it is convenient to many NYC tourists destinations and public transportation, but the street is kind of nondescript and views won't be great.  Not a great street to hail taxi's from (go around the corner to 6th Ave.).  Let's see when Marriott puts out more info including point values for stays before making further judgement.


----------



## dansimms (Jan 27, 2014)

*Amenities*

I for one, would be thrilled if it were light on amenities or else the DP costs will be so high I will rarely use it at all.  Nice hotel rooms in NYC are generally outrageously expensive.  A good rate at The Carlton, after taxes is about $400 a night for their least expensive room. The City Explorer DP rates are kind of insulting to me.........pretty much always a better deal to just pay $$ for them.


----------



## FractionalTraveler (Jan 27, 2014)

dansimms said:


> I for one, would be thrilled if it were light on amenities or else the DP costs will be so high I will rarely use it at all.  Nice hotel rooms in NYC are generally outrageously expensive.  A good rate at The Carlton, after taxes is about $400 a night for their least expensive room. The City Explorer DP rates are kind of insulting to me.........pretty much always a better deal to just pay $$ for them.



That's one of the challenges in developing an urban location.  Some folks report being disappointed when they stay at an urban location because of the lack of amenities.  Its understandable, when you are used to mega resorts with expansive ocean views, lavish pools, and comprehensive bars.

Can't tell you the number of folks disappointed with Grand Chateau, Doral, Beach Place, and Custom House because of lack of resort amenities.

NYC is a great example as well.  If Marriott ever added a MVCI location in this expensive area most people would complain for the lack of amenities and the high cost of the stay.

The real amenities of a central NYC property would be right outside your villa around the next corner where exploration meets anticipation.

The explorer collection already includes 4 properties in NYC that offer good locations.  I don't see how an expensive conversion project for MVCI could be offered at anything other than premium fees which the area demands and gets year round.

FT


----------



## BocaBoy (Jan 27, 2014)

FractionalTraveler said:


> Can't tell you the number of folks disappointed with Grand Chateau, Doral, Beach Place, and Custom House because of lack of resort amenities.FT



Interesting perspective.  I hear mostly very positive comments on both Grand Chateau and Custom House, except for the pool at Grand Chateau but that will change when the resort is finished.


----------



## ronparise (Jan 27, 2014)

FractionalTraveler said:


> That's one of the challenges in developing an urban location.  Some folks report being disappointed when they stay at an urban location because of the lack of amenities.  Its understandable, when you are used to mega resorts with expansive ocean views, lavish pools, and comprehensive bars.
> 
> Can't tell you the number of folks disappointed with Grand Chateau, Doral, Beach Place, and Custom House because of lack of resort amenities.
> 
> ...



I agree the real amenities of a central NYC property would be right outside your villa around the next corner where exploration meets anticipation

Wyndham probably has more urban locations than any other timeshare system.
They list the urban locations with their own name.."The Avenue Collection"  and its very clear that at these properties the units are smaller, with mini or partial kitchens, few if any amenities and no parking (or paid parking) And the cost is often  higher than other locations. You reserve here for the location, not economy and not a resort experience.

No one that does any homework before taking a trip should be surprised if they visit one of these properties and find it doesnt have a lazy river and waterslide

By the way, Wyndham also has a separate classification for their older resorts too, called the Legacy Collection.  Again, no one likes surprises so they lay out the differences between these older resorts and the newer ones quite clearly.

I know this is a Marriott thread and Im talking about Wyndham, The reason I bring it up is that I think  Marriott will make the differences between their typical timeshare and any urban properties they bring into the system as clear to the membership as Wyndham has done. There ought to never be any surprises


----------



## FractionalTraveler (Jan 27, 2014)

ronparise,

Thanks for sharing.  I like the way Wyndham has positioned these properties as you have described.  Maybe Marriott should do something similar.

How often to we hear folks complain about a pool at Grand Chateau or having to pay for parking at Beach Place?

If MVCI did a better job of positioning the experience then customers may be better informed as to what to expect. 

Marriott International does this with their hotel segments pretty well.  MVCI should consider the same.

FT


----------



## Fairwinds (Jan 27, 2014)

FractionalTraveler said:


> That's one of the challenges in developing an urban location.  Some folks report being disappointed when they stay at an urban location because of the lack of amenities.  Its understandable, when you are used to mega resorts with expansive ocean views, lavish pools, and comprehensive bars.
> 
> Can't tell you the number of folks disappointed with Grand Chateau, Doral, Beach Place, and Custom House because of lack of resort amenities.
> 
> ...



I know you are right and people will make those complaints but those complaints are to be ignored. I can see complaining about the high cost of stay if as others say the residence inn trumps value. I can't understand other complaints you mention. Let's face it reviews and complaints have to be taken with a grain of salt. Your amenities are NYC and will be close and better than a timeshare can provide. 
  Although  I do wish there was a ski slope/bob sled track at MFC or a theme park in Sea Pines.


----------



## FractionalTraveler (Jan 27, 2014)

Ski slope/bobsled track at MFC would be pretty cool and useful.  Maybe then people would not complain so much about having to take multiple elevators to the beach?

They could just slide down from the reception/check-in area right onto the beach.  Might be a hazard for all those iguanas though.......:hysterical:

FT


----------



## Fairwinds (Jan 27, 2014)

FractionalTraveler said:


> Ski slope/bobsled track at MFC would be pretty cool and useful.  Maybe then people would not complain so much about having to take multiple elevators to the beach?
> 
> They could just slide down from the reception/check-in area right onto the beach.  Might be a hazard for all those iguanas though.......:hysterical:
> 
> FT



Oh yeah. Forgot about the elevator complaint. Walked right into that one


----------



## sjuhawk_jd (Jan 27, 2014)

Ron98GT said:


> What do people think of the area: 38th St in the Garment District.  I usually stay a little further North.
> 
> It would be nice to have something other than HGVC and the Manhattan Club to select from, it would increase availability, it will be nice to get the Marriott preference. and it would be nice to have some kind of kitchen.
> 
> ...



It will also be nice to buy some resales there after a year or two for 60 to 70% off.


----------



## dansimms (Jan 27, 2014)

*Optimistic*

One reason, I am optimistic is the Destination Point requirememts for Custom House, Boston and the Ritz in San Francisco are priced reasonably in my opinion.  I'd like to think of these two, as reasonable 'comps' for NYC.   I would expect Marriott NYC to come in higher than both of these, but hopefully not night and day different. I am happy tp work my schedule around any value season or times during the week to stay there. My time in the room would be very limited, so bring it on, as a small room. I know I can't afford a place in the city, so this really excites me. It is a break from being a "bridge and tunnel" visitor that has to settle for a long commute home after a wonderful visit to the Big Apple.


----------



## Werner Weiss (Jan 27, 2014)

sjuhawk_jd said:


> It will also be nice to buy some resales there after a year or two for 60 to 70% off.


Keep in mind that — if the addition of the Refinery Hotel in NYC to Marriott Vacation Club turns out to real — it would be added to the Trust and not be sold as weeks. So buying a resale week in the future specifically for the Refinery Hotel will not be possible. Buying resale points is an option, but it would not require waiting until a year or two have passed.

Right now, I would read everything about the Refinery Hotel New York on the Marriott.com website with skepticism. There's so much boilerplate and misinformation there, that I would not trust any of it. That includes not trusting the June 2014 opening date, or the fact that the resort will have 197 rooms (rather than combining them into around half as many "villas"), or even that it's a done deal.

There would be a real benefit to Marriott Vacation Club adding a New York City location to its Destinations Club portfolio, so that's why I'm hopeful.

I know there are already Explorer Collection options in New York, but an actual Trust property should provide a much better value for Destinations Club points.


----------



## dansimms (Jan 27, 2014)

*I called the Destinations desk*

I called the Marriott Destinations desk today and they had no info to share yet on the NYC property. My Rep put me on hold and tracked down a Supervisor, but at least today they couldn't supply me any info at this time.


----------



## Ron98GT (Jan 27, 2014)

So if the Refinery is a DC only property (a first) with no weeks sold, how would this affect II exchanges?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Werner Weiss (Jan 27, 2014)

Ron98GT said:


> So if the Refinery is a DC only property (a first) with no weeks sold, how would this affect II exchanges?


When MVC facilitates an II exchange using Destinations Club points, MVC still needs to put a week into II. That week can be a 7-night stay from Trust inventory.

Along similar lines, if an enrolled weeks owner wants to stay at a property that's entirely Trust owned, the exchange component of the Destinations Club points program allows that to happen.


----------



## Ron98GT (Jan 27, 2014)

So you wouldn't see a week deposited into II like now, deposited by a owner, be-it weeks or DC.  Instead you would see a week deposited into II from the trust by Marriott, "if" Marriott so decides to deposit any weeks into II?  If that's the case, Ouch.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## cp73 (Jan 27, 2014)

Big Matt said:


> Also, if any of the rooms connect today in the Refinery, there's not much that needs to be done to call it a lock off or to repurpose one side as the living/dining side of a 1BR.



Thats what they did at Maui (MOC). It was a former Hotel. This will be great a locaiton in NYC.


----------



## Swice (Jan 27, 2014)

*family usage*

My timeshare-spoiled family (four of us-- kids 13 and 10 years old) just went to NYC for a eight days during Thanksgiving week.     Yes, we are used to a certain level of amenities on vacation.

We would have loved the "option" for a Marriott timeshare in NYC.   However, because that option did not exist, here's what we did:

Friday night late flight-- used credit card night to stay at Fairfield near JFK airport.   It wasn't much to look at when the courtesy van dropped us off.   But would highly recommend this hotel for a one-night stay.    LOVED the full service restaurant that offered REASONABLE priced food at 10pm.    Breakfast buffet was more than enough.    Courtesy van took us to Subway stop (about 15 minute ride to downtown Jamaica, NY where we bought week subway pass).   

Saturday night:   used a mega bonus night to stay at Lexington Autograph collection.   Neat and funky and recently renovated.  Yes-- the room was small, but most in NYC are on the small side.  Bathroom was TINY.    It was fine for one night.   FREE breakfast in the restaurant (tip not included) for two (elite gold).   This created a problem.   In all honesty, I did not want a full all-american breakfast but I felt cheap by not ordering breakfast for my kids so we ordered for them.    Between the four of us, half of our food was not eaten.    This "plated" breakfast option would not have been good for us for the entire week had we stayed longer.   

Sunday-Friday:   Stayed at newly opened Fairfield Inn at Penn Station.    I spotted this hotel on the Marriott site at this time last year and made a five night reservation using Marriott Points (just before the point price hike).   Hotel was great.   Room was large enough but not huge (limited closet space).   Full Fairfield breakfast buffet offered (we each ate less per breakfast than the plated "all american elite breakfast offered at the Lexington).    Hotel steps away from a subway stop.    Granted, we didn't have much of a view.    This hotel WAS a deal, but I've since noticed the price has gone UP A LOT!

Friday night:   Springhill near LaGuardia Airport.    Courtesy bus to airport terminal.    Too early for breakfast buffet to be open.   Paid $79.

When I made the original reservations I could have picked any Marriott location.     But the "nicer" properties would have cost me an absolute fortune in Marriott points (hotel points).    Also remember using points for Residence Inn usually gets the smallest unit with one bed.   The cash rate for most locations was anywhere from $350-$500 per night.    I simply could not justify spending the higher level of points to stay at a full service Marriott just to "sleep"  -- and remember, this was before Marriott raised the point chart!!!!!   

I travel to NYC for work... so I realize walking what you do in NYC.    I also know to look for the pubs, diners and delis for "reasonable" food.    

Considering we are talking about NYC, if we had been in a timeshare, we would have used a kitchen for breakfast.   We would have never eaten lunch there.   We probably would have taken a pizza back to the unit for dinner once.    And we may have done a snack dinner once with takeout food from the wonderful food market at Grand Central (a must visit).   

My only concern for a timeshare unit  would be that the location have enough square footage to sleep a family and have a large bathroom.   A mini-kitchen with a microwave and refrigerator would be nice.    I would personally give up the king bed for two queens (that way a couple could use the same unit as a "family").

What I'm saying is-- this is not the beach.    You are not lounging in your unit where you load up at the grocery store with a week's worth of snack and meals and using the grills on the property.    It's New York.    You are out at the museums, the Statue of Liberty, the NBC Studio Tour, ice skating, taking a food tour of Chinatown or seeing a show.    

Our "stay" in New York was almost free.    We spent a lot of money on food, attractions and shows.    New York is expensive.    But again, if you're going to New York, you're not going to hang out at the timeshare property and swim in the pool.   

The Refinery location will be great.    Ice Skating and winter market at Bryant Park during the winter is the BEST.   The New York Public Library is a beauty (you must go to the top floor to see the reading rooms).    To me, it really doesn't matter where the hotel because you're not going to simply stay within a two block radius...  you will have to walk or use the subway or a taxi.


----------



## Werner Weiss (Jan 27, 2014)

Swice,

Terrific report about your family's NYC vacation, with your suggestions and Vacation Club insight.

One question though...


Swice said:


> Saturday night:   used a mega bonus night to stay at Lexington Autograph collection.   Neat and funky and recently renovated.


The Lexington New York City, Autograph Collection is Marriott Rewards category 8.

Marriott Rewards MegaBonus e-certificates (when earning e-certificates rather than points) are only for categories 1 through 5. How did you get the Lexington?


----------



## WFP (Jan 27, 2014)

> Marriott Rewards MegaBonus e-certificates (when earning e-certificates rather than points) are only for categories 1 through 5. How did you get the Lexington?



Or earned 50K points for the megabonus?


----------



## WFP (Jan 27, 2014)

At the Custom House (was there four nights on MLK weekend), they have the Microwave, Fridge and small sink in the Kitchenette with a four person dining table.  That setup would be sufficient in NY IMHO.

/WFP


----------



## Swice (Jan 27, 2014)

Werner Weiss said:


> Swice,
> 
> Terrific report about your family's NYC vacation, with your suggestions and Vacation Club insight.
> 
> ...



Sorry, I flipped them...  mega and points.   I used mega certificate for the JFK Fairfield and the points for Lexington.


----------



## chris5 (Jan 27, 2014)

Swice,

For a family vacation, with four or more folks in the group, I wouldn't even bother with any hotels or any timeshares in NYC. I've travelled to NYC a lot myself on business and occasionally for  college campus visits when our kids were looking around the town (none wound up in NYC). And NYC is my home town so I take a ride up there to visit family at least every 3 months.

With the growth of AirBnB, I'd take my chances at renting an apartment in NYC with AirBnB for a short stay rather lodging at a hotel or timeshare.  I haven't rented in NYC through AirBnB, but friends have done so and with good results.  I have stayed with AirBnB in Charlotte, NC (house hunting with four of us) and Charlottesville, VA (graduation weekend for 6) and my family has been pleased with this service.  

I'd like to have the flexibility of a vacation club in NYC, but if it's not a big improvement over current hotel lodging, why bother?  But I'm not willing to pay for resort amenities equivalent to what one may find at a beach resort.  Like you, I don't go to NYC, or Vegas, San Francisco, Paris, London, or Barcelona to enjoy amenities!


----------



## Werner Weiss (Jan 27, 2014)

WFP said:


> At the Custom House (was there four nights on MLK weekend), they have the Microwave, Fridge and small sink in the Kitchenette with a four person dining table.  That setup would be sufficient in NY IMHO.


If the Refinery Hotel continues to have 197 rooms, as suggested by the marriott.com website, it's unlikely there would be enough space for a kitchenette configuration similar to what the Custom House has — and certainly not for a four-person dining table. If this turns out to be an all-studios Marriott Vacation Club, we'll be lucky to have a compact refrigerator and a microwave in each room.

According to the Refinery Hotel's current website, rooms start at just 250 sq ft, and have a queen bed. The next category of room, at 280 sq ft, is large enough for a king bed.

If this turns out to be a project where most rooms are converted to 2-room suites, similar to those at the Custom House, then Custom House-style kitchenettes and tables are a possibility.

And if this whole thing turns out to be a false alarm, then this thread has just been wishful thinking.


----------



## Beaglemom3 (Jan 27, 2014)

When I stayed at the Element Hotel (a Starwood Hotel) I was pleasantly surprised by the mini kitchen in the room. I do not have my own photo of it, but found this on their website.
This was great to have in NYC. The room was tiny.

Would be great to have a slightly larger room and mini kitchen at a Marriott.


----------



## sjuhawk_jd (Jan 27, 2014)

Werner Weiss said:


> Keep in mind that — if the addition of the Refinery Hotel in NYC to Marriott Vacation Club turns out to real — it would be added to the Trust and not be sold as weeks.



Not sure about this assertion about trust versus weeks. Marriott may get more money out of people if they sell as weeks instead of trust. I would not trust a "trust" to get me what I want in NYC, my ownership week (fixed or float) will.


----------



## Werner Weiss (Jan 27, 2014)

sjuhawk_jd said:


> Not sure about this assertion about trust versus weeks. Marriott may get more money out of people if they sell as weeks instead of trust. I would not trust a "trust" to get me what I want in NYC, my ownership week (fixed or float) will.


Marriott Vacation Club transferred all its unsold U.S. inventory to the Trust and replaced its "floating weeks" model with the Destinations Club model at every U.S. location where it sells its product. (The only exception is that Marriott Vacation Club can still act as a broker to resell weeks for existing weeks owners.)

The salespeople now sell Marriott Vacation Club as a portfolio of vacation destinations, with ownership not tied to a specific resort or a fixed number of nights. One of the weaknesses in the current portfolio is that it's missing popular urban destinations such as New York City and Washington DC. That's one of the reasons why I'm willing to believe that there might be substance to the possibility that the Refinery Hotel will become part of Marriott Vacation Club. Explorer Collection hotel options don't offer a compelling case for using points.

Although Marriott Vacations Worldwide Corporation, the vacation ownership company spun off from Marriott International in 2011, could revert to selling weeks at a future U.S. property instead of strengthening the Trust, that seems extremely unlikely.


----------



## FractionalTraveler (Jan 27, 2014)

Werner Weiss said:


> Marriott Vacation Club transferred all its unsold U.S. inventory to the Trust and replaced its "floating weeks" model with the Destinations Club model at every U.S. location where it sells its product. (The only exception is that Marriott Vacation Club can still act as a broker to resell weeks for existing weeks owners.)
> 
> The salespeople now sell Marriott Vacation Club as a portfolio of vacation destinations, with ownership not tied to a specific resort or a fixed number of nights. One of the weaknesses in the current portfolio is that it's missing popular urban destinations such as New York City and Washington DC. That's one of the reasons why I'm willing to believe that there might be substance to the possibility that the Refinery Hotel will become part of Marriott Vacation Club. Explorer Collection hotel options don't offer a compelling case for using points.
> 
> Although Marriott Vacations Worldwide Corporation, the vacation ownership company spun off from Marriott International in 2011, could revert to selling weeks at a future U.S. property instead of strengthening the Trust, that seems extremely unlikely.



Here is an alternate perspective to consider.

Why keep hopes up for a stay at a tiny place like the Refinery and wait to see if they can cram a midget refrigerator and partial kitchen just to call it a Vacation Club Property?

I can pay DC points today for 430-567 sqft. of space at the New York Marriott Marquis with 3 dedicated concierge levels including fitness center, 24 Hour Room service, and free breakfast for MR elites.

With over 1000 rooms available for booking each night what do you think MVCI can offer me in a old converted property over all the amenities at this or similar hotel in NYC?

IMHO I just don't see the value proposition to the end consumer or the business case to develop such a costly project.  More profitable to finish existing projects at Oceana Palms, Crystal Shores, etc.

Just my 2c worth.

FT


----------



## dioxide45 (Jan 27, 2014)

Werner Weiss said:


> Explorer Collection hotel options don't offer a compelling case for using points.



I am not sure why people would think that any MVC property offering in NYC would be cheaper point wise than the current Explorer Collection offerings? What benefit would there be to that. It would make the Explorer Collection offerings obsolete. I just don't see them doing that. I would expect DC point levels at any NYC location to be pretty much in line with what the Explorer Collection point levels are.



Ron98GT said:


> So you wouldn't see a week deposited into II like now, deposited by a owner, be-it weeks or DC.  Instead you would see a week deposited into II from the trust by Marriott, "if" Marriott so decides to deposit any weeks into II?  If that's the case, Ouch.



Look at Kauai Lagoons, probably the best case of a true trust resort. How many weeks do we see deposited in to II these days? I have never seen any. We say some confirmed exchanges very early before or right around the time when DC came about. These days there aren't any. I wouldn't expect MVCI to deposit any NYC properties in to the trust. The demand will be high enough to keep it filled with points users. They have lots of other less in demand inventory to offer to II for those DC points II exchanges.

One other note, there is no mention of this property in the II Directory either.


----------



## EducatedConsumer (Jan 27, 2014)

Beaglemom3 said:


> When I stayed at the Element Hotel (a Starwood Hotel) I was pleasantly surprised by the mini kitchen in the room. I do not have my own photo of it, but found this on their website.
> This was great to have in NYC. The room was tiny.
> 
> Would be great to have a slightly larger room and mini kitchen at a Marriott.



Looks like the kitchen of a house that Ikea furnishes for midgets.


----------



## Fasttr (Jan 27, 2014)

dioxide45 said:


> I wouldn't expect MVCI to deposit any NYC properties *in to the trust*. The demand will be high enough to keep it filled with points users. They have lots of other less in demand inventory to offer to II for those DC points II exchanges.



dioxide45... just trying to get some clarity....re: the bold underlined excerpt above.... are you actually saying you don't foresee any NY properties will be deposited into the Trust (and thereby simply managed via the MVC Exchange) or was that supposed to say deposited into II?


----------



## dansimms (Jan 27, 2014)

*Marriott's Official Reply*

[Deleted.]

_Moderator Note:  Dan, please note the disclaimer on the bottom of the correspondence you posted.  An MVW rep has asked that your post be deleted:



			… I am with Marriott Vacations Worldwide.  We are concerned by this post as it contains a confidential email with an employee's personal information.  We kindly ask that it be removed from the thread. …
		
Click to expand...

_


----------



## OutAndAbout (Jan 27, 2014)

_[Deleted to reflect post edit.]_

Not sure where you received the update from, but the website is still alive and still posts Jun 2014


----------



## dansimms (Jan 27, 2014)

*My Source*

_[Deleted, see post #60 above.]_


----------



## Beaglemom3 (Jan 27, 2014)

EducatedConsumer said:


> Looks like the kitchen of a house that Ikea furnishes for midgets.



  True , but it worked very well and considering it was NYC, a real convenience.

The larger rooms/suites have larger kitchens :








-


----------



## Swice (Jan 28, 2014)

*link now inactive*

Looks like the link no longer works.


----------



## thinze3 (Jan 28, 2014)

I just noticed the same thing. 

Here's a Google Cache version.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...inery-new-york-city+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us


----------



## Werner Weiss (Jan 28, 2014)

dioxide45 said:


> I am not sure why people would think that any MVC property offering in NYC would be cheaper point wise than the current Explorer Collection offerings? What benefit would there be to that. It would make the Explorer Collection offerings obsolete. I just don't see them doing that. I would expect DC point levels at any NYC location to be pretty much in line with what the Explorer Collection point levels are.



The business model for hotels through the Explorer Collection is fundamentally different than the timeshare business model (whether weeks or Trust).

In the former case, Marriott Vacation Club has to pay real money to a hotel owner and then has to monetize the points that were used to pay that money. The point chart has to include such factors as the risk that the points will not be monetized and the hotel's normal profit structure.

In the latter case, there's a direct correlation between ownership and use of that ownership. It's why the timeshare model can be economically advantageous to timeshare owners.

Consider the Explorer Collection point chart for the New York Marriott Marquis. The cost per night is 1,200 to 2,250 Destinations Club points, depending on the time of year. With a maintenance fee of $0.43 per point for Points owners, that works out to $516.00 to $967.50 per night for a traditional hotel room. It's almost always possible to get a decent hotel room at a Marriott or Renaissance hotel in New York that's comparable in quality to the Marriott Marquis (or even at the Marriott Marquis itself) for less than that. And this math doesn't account for the big upfront cost of buying points. The value proposition just isn't there. With points from enrolled weeks, the numbers are different, but they're in the same ballpark.

I'm glad the Explorer Collection exists as a way to use points that might otherwise expire, but I would never suggest that anyone should buy into Marriott Vacation Club just to have access to hotels though the Explorer Collection.

However, when we use points or weeks for Trust inventory or owned resort inventory, there's usually a reasonable value proposition. The value usually exceeds the maintenance fee, sometimes substantially, both for Points and weeks owners.

Compare the point chart for Explorer Collection hotel room options in San Francisco to the point chart for Trust-owned 1- and 2-bedroom luxury residence timeshare inventory at the Ritz-Carlton Residence Club in San Francisco (available to owners with Premier or Premier Plus status). There's no comparison. The Ritz-Carlton timeshare provides much better accommodations at a lower cost per night.

Or compare the Explorer Collection point chart for the Grand Bohemian Hotel in Celebration, Florida, near Walt Disney World, to the point charts for Marriott Vacation Club resorts near Walt Disney World. Again, the Explorer Collection loses.

As already noted in this thread, the MVC Refinery New York content that was up Sunday and Monday is now gone. The URL redirects to a Marriott.com page inviting readers to "Choose from 3987 hotels around the world, across 16 brands.”

But maybe the long-rumored Marriott Vacation Club in New York City will become a reality some day. If that happens, the point chart should provide a much better value than the current Explorer Collection point charts for New York.


----------



## FractionalTraveler (Jan 28, 2014)

Werner Weiss said:


> The business model for hotels through the Explorer Collection is fundamentally different than the timeshare business model (whether weeks or Trust).
> 
> In the former case, Marriott Vacation Club has to pay real money to a hotel owner and then has to monetize the points that were used to pay that money. The point chart has to include such factors as the risk that the points will not be monetized and the hotel's normal profit structure.
> 
> ...



So if I can pay for my stay at the New York Marriott Marquis at a CASH rate much less than DC Points or even better yet, stay for FREE using my MR Points, why would I stay at an expensive MVCI property in NYC?

What would they have to offer me for that fee if its not extra space or resort type amenities?

Still don't see the value proposition or business case to build a MVCI property in NYC at an affordable cost. 

As an example, I choose to stay at Grand Chateau in Vegas because I can get a 3-BR unit with lots of space for an entire week.  Staying at GC for me is a tradeoff when it comes to amenities.  I can certainly book a better hotel accommodation with much better amenities on the strip but I sacrifice space in the process at comparable daily rates so I choose the timeshare over the hotel in Vegas.  Additionally, in Vegas you can get lucky enough to gamble your way to free hotel comps., something not possible in NYC.

In NYC I would probably have to trade space, amenities, and higher costs just to stay at a MVCI property. So why bother.

One way I can see them making money from such an endeavor in NYC is to offer it up first as part of the Asia Program or some other business market segment that will have no issues paying $600+ a night daily rates.

If you can get those types of daily rates from foreigners visiting your city why would you care to develop a property to underserve the community and make less profit?

FT


----------



## Fasttr (Jan 28, 2014)

FractionalTraveler said:


> If you can get those types of daily rates from foreigners visiting your city why would you care to develop a property to underserve the community and make less profit?
> 
> FT



First....VAC is VAC and Marriott is Marriott.  I think the answer to your question is that VAC feels they can sell a lot of points at $12+/point, provided they have nights in high demand areas like NYC to help entice folks to fork up the large upfront cash to purchase points.  But as Werner Weiss said, there has to be some "value" associated with the usage, at least perceived value in the mind of the DC user since he already paid upfront for the points.


----------



## FractionalTraveler (Jan 28, 2014)

Fasttr said:


> First....VAC is VAC and Marriott is Marriott.  I think the answer to your question is that VAC feels they can sell a lot of points at $12+/point, provided they have nights in high demand areas like NYC to help entice folks to fork up the large upfront cash to purchase points.  But as Werner Weiss said, there has to be some "value" associated with the usage, at least perceived value in the mind of the DC user since he already paid upfront for the points.



MVCI believes they have achieved this perceived value through the Explorer Collection.  Just listen to the quarterly investor conference calls to hear this point being validated.

FT


----------



## Fairwinds (Jan 28, 2014)

I agree with Werner. 
I don't know if you can compare Vegas hotel rooms to NYC because the way I've always thought about Vegas is inexpensive or comped  rooms to get people there and into the casino. Is that not the case? Also, I agree that a TS would likely be a better value than an explorer reservation just as MRP have never gotten you as much as using a TS but provide flexibility where there are no TSs etc.


----------



## Fasttr (Jan 28, 2014)

FractionalTraveler said:


> MVCI believes they have achieved this perceived value through the Explorer Collection.  Just listen to the quarterly investor conference calls to hear this point being validated.
> 
> FT



I don't disagree with you that they are trying to convince investors of that...but IMO there is a big difference in MVCI's perceived value the Explorer colleciton is providing and the perceived value from the mind of the average DC member who paid for the points.


----------



## FractionalTraveler (Jan 28, 2014)

Fasttr said:


> I don't disagree with you that they are trying to convince investors of that...but IMO there is a big different in MVCI's perceived value the Explorer colleciton is providing and the perceived value from the mind of the average DC member who paid for the points.



I think they have the hard data to back it up.  On the conference calls they elude to what percentage of the customer base is taking full advantage of the Explorer collection vs. other usage options.

It would shock me if MVCI didn't keep track of how their products are performing from quarter to quarter.  No way.

FT


----------



## Fasttr (Jan 28, 2014)

FractionalTraveler said:


> I think they have the hard data to back it up.  On the conference calls they elude to what percentage of the customer base is taking full advantage of the Explorer collection vs. other usage options.



Based on this thread, regarding the annual TOA newletter, started by you actually, the 3 biggest uses of points are using them for MVC stays, followed by banking your points forward, followed by Explorer collection usage.  If you don't use them, and you didn't bank them in time, there is not much left to do but use them in Explorer collection or lose them (assuming you are not aware that you can rent them)....so I wouldn't say that ranking alludes to massive usage of the Explorer collecton.  I would be interested to know what percentage of total points used in a year are being used on the Explorer collections, as I would guess its not a significant percentage.  Then, again, as my wife often makes me aware, I could be wrong.  The EC usage could also be different among Trust and Legacy users...who knows.


----------



## Werner Weiss (Jan 28, 2014)

FractionalTraveler said:


> So if I can pay for my stay at the New York Marriott Marquis at a CASH rate much less than DC Points or even better yet, stay for FREE using my MR Points, why would I stay at an expensive MVCI property in NYC?


A similar question could be asked about any location where there's a Marriott Vacation Club.

If my choice is to get a poor value with DC points or to get a better value using cash (or Marriott Rewards points), I would not want to use DC points. 

But if I can get a good value with DC points, whether it's at a tropical resort or in New York City, then, sure, I would gladly use DC points.

Explorer Collection hotels in New York City (and elsewhere) are a poor use of DC points. A timeshare property, by definition, should offer a more attractive points chart. Today there is no actual MVCI property in New York, and the MVC Refinery New York entry on the official Marriott.com website has been removed.

VAC will only open an MVCI property in New York if the company can build a  profitable business case and if a such a resort would strengthen the MVCI portfolio (helping all locations that sell MVCI points).

Most owners with DC points will only stay at such a resort if it's a good use of points.

In Boston, staying in a suite at the Custom House with DC points is good use of points. As in New York, 4-star hotels in Boston are expensive.


----------



## dioxide45 (Jan 28, 2014)

dansimms said:


> [Deleted.]
> 
> _Moderator Note:  Dan, please note the disclaimer on the bottom of the correspondence you posted.  An MVW rep has asked that your post be deleted:
> _
> ...



I find this to be a rather disturbing and unsettling precedent.

Were you able to validate that the person contacting you regarding this issue was indeed a MVCI representative? The anonymity of the TUG makes it rather easy to hid behind a computer and portray one's self as a representative when they may not be. Of course I see no reason for someone to falsely portray themselves as an official representative of MVCI for this purpose.

That issue aside, I don't see where TUG is liable for a TUG user posting a confidential e-mail. That message at the bottom of the official e-mail correspondence is intended for the recipient. What the recipient decides to do with it the information received is on them. I don't think it should be taken upon TUG to make sure people are following the guidelines of that disclaimer.

While I can understand removing the employee contact information, I don't think it is wise of us to allow MVCI to censor what is posted here. If it is done in this case, what else will they be requesting to be removed in the future?

IMO, the representative should have contacted the person that posted this information to request that it be removed. It would then be up to them to do so if they so wished or face any action that MVCI would want to take against them.


----------



## Ron98GT (Jan 28, 2014)

Deleted


----------



## SueDonJ (Jan 28, 2014)

If I'm remembering correctly this is only the second time that a Marriott rep has sent a direct PM to me asking for a post that quotes an "official" correspondence to be removed, based on the standard disclaimer that they attach to every email.  In this particular instance, the posts with which Marriott took issue were also reported in the usual way.  The rep who filed the reports identified himself by name, position, and office.  More importantly, the email address he gave in his PM is a verifiable, official Marriott address.

The first time getting one of these reports, I cleared the post deletion in advance with TUGBrian who okayed Marriott's request.  This time being so similar, I didn't clear it with TUGBrian.  Please, feel free to involve him if this explanation doesn't suffice.


----------



## FractionalTraveler (Jan 28, 2014)

dioxide45 said:


> I find this to be a rather disturbing and unsettling precedent.
> 
> Were you able to validate that the person contacting you regarding this issue was indeed a MVCI representative? The anonymity of the TUG makes it rather easy to hid behind a computer and portray one's self as a representative when they may not be. Of course I see no reason for someone to falsely portray themselves as an official representative of MVCI for this purpose.
> 
> ...



I agree 100% with Dioxide on this point.

*How is it considered confidential information to clarify to customers a public website page?*

I read the post before being deleted and I didn't see any Personal Information posted.  The person mentioned was responding to a customer inquiry as part of their job in a business.  The phone number given was not a personal cell phone or home phone, it was a business phone.

What's all the fuss about, that their name was posted?  OK maybe that person is not in an official capacity to respond to an inaccurate webpage and feared for their job?  Maybe. but if you get fired for doing your job by responding to a customer question then maybe that's not the place you want to work.

What Tug rule was violated?  The MOD stated that the comments were removed at MVCI request.  This is bogus IMHO. It would have been more appropriate to state that the comments were removed because of a TUG violation not that MVCI requested it.

FT


----------



## SueDonJ (Jan 28, 2014)

Again, feel free to involve TUGBrian if you have questions.

One detail that might clear up a misconception - the Marriott rep who reported the posts and requested their deletion is not the same Marriott employee whose name/contact info was in the email that dansimms had quoted.


----------



## FractionalTraveler (Jan 28, 2014)

SueDonJ said:


> Again, feel free to involve TUGBrian if you have questions.
> 
> One detail that might clear up a misconception - the Marriott rep who reported the posts and requested their deletion is not the same Marriott employee whose name/contact info was in the email that dansimms had quoted.



*So I think everyone that uses this site would now like to know if Marriott Vacations Worldwide run this TUG board and can manipulate its free flow of discussion at will?*

Also, I would still like to know for my personal education what the apparent violation of TUG rules were that prompted this.

MOD or TUGBrian should be free to respond here to this question.......

FT


----------



## GregT (Jan 28, 2014)

FractionalTraveler said:


> *So I think everyone that uses this site would now like to know if Marriott Vacations Worldwide run this TUG board and can manipulate its free flow of discussion at will?*



Sorry FT, I don't think Marriott runs the TUG board and can manipulate its free flow of discussion.

I just think Sue was asked to edit a post that the sender (or Marriott) didn't want posted, and she (rightly) complied.   

Considering all the crap we throw at Marriott these days (myself included), I'm actually happy to have a link to those guys.

Sue, good job with this impossible topic, I've followed the Aruba thread with morbid fascination -- and have picked up the phone twice to call the Surf Club GM, and both times thought, what am I doing (as the phone was ringing).

I will call the Sephardicaruba Rabbi at some point -- just so I can look myself in the eye.  My expectations are low.

Best,

Greg


----------



## FractionalTraveler (Jan 28, 2014)

GregT said:


> Sorry FT, I don't think Marriott runs the TUG board and can manipulate its free flow of discussion.
> 
> I just think Sue was asked to edit a post that the sender (or Marriott) didn't want posted, and she (rightly) complied.
> 
> ...



I respectfully disagree.  If Marriott can just call up and ask for a post to be removed at will then there is no free flow of discussion.

FT

IMPORTANT NOTICE: This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential, privileged and/or exempt from disclosure, and, are intended solely for the use of the named addressee. If you are not the named addressee, you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail or its attachments. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail in error and then delete same from your system. Unauthorized disclosure, copying, distribution or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this email and its attachments are strictly prohibited.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jan 28, 2014)

FractionalTraveler said:


> *So I think everyone that uses this site would now like to know if Marriott Vacations Worldwide run this TUG board and can manipulate its free flow of discussion at will?*
> 
> Also, I would still like to know for my personal education what the apparent violation of TUG rules were that prompted this.
> 
> ...



FT, I think that - what you bolded - is an unfair accusation.  There are myriad items discussed here which any of us could correctly presume that Marriott would want to disappear, for obvious reasons.  They've made requests only twice, as far as I know, and both were for specific, quoted, official correspondence to be deleted.  Of note, both instances involved posts that had names and other identifying information of Marriott employees, and in both instances Marriott's standard confidentiality disclaimer was posted along with the correspondence.

I believe that if Marriott/MVW were to make a request to have other posts deleted, posts that didn't contain Marriott employee identifying info and/or that didn't conflict with the confidentiality disclaimer, TUG would not comply with those requests.  But having never been asked that's only what I believe - Brian would of course have the final say.

Like I said, take this up with Brian if you disagree.  For what it's worth, you may need to call this to his attention because he may not read every thread/post on TUG.


----------



## GregT (Jan 28, 2014)

FractionalTraveler said:


> I respectfully disagree.  If Marriott can just call up and ask for a post to be removed at will then there is no free flow of discussion.
> 
> FT



FT, I understand your comments and I also believe in a free flow of discussion.   I agree this is an odd situation, I just don't think it extends to some kind of genuine/recurring censorship.

Because I don't think this is censorhip, I'll pose the following:

Marriott,

1. You're crazy to let a group trash one of your premier properties, why are you allowing it?
2. Why are you letting your sales folks smear the truth (ie, lie) so you can sell points, ie supercharging points and "all points are the same"? 
3. Are you going to let HOA's competitively bid services, to keep MFs low?
4. Why do you let sales folks talk about a repurchase program on Trust Points?
5. Why not communicate to people when you are going to require Trust Points for a reservation?

I think these questions will just go into the void -- not be censored and not be answered.  Something in the other post just hit a nerve in Marriott.   I think they basically leave TUG alone, as the last XX years would demonstrate.

My view is that there is a value to having a constructive link between Marriott and TUG (it would never be a genuine censorship, or we would all leave).  

As an example, when a points program was coming, DaveM had a relationship that allowed him to break the rumor to us. That was interesting.  I'd like to see a restoration of that relationship.

They'll never answer my questions (and why should they) but hopefully it will be of benefit to the TUG community.

Best,

Greg


----------



## FractionalTraveler (Jan 28, 2014)

Sorry, I understand.

This site has been compromised IMHO.  I'm out for good.

FT


----------



## GregT (Jan 28, 2014)

FractionalTraveler said:


> Sorry, I understand.
> 
> This site has been compromised IMHO.  I'm out for good.
> 
> FT



FT,

I'd be really sorry to see you go.    I hope that we can all find a common ground here.

The last thing I need in my life is more stress -- if this website brings me more stress, I'm out too.  

But for now, I will hope that we are still here 30 days from now and talking about vacations.  

Best,

Greg


----------



## TUGBrian (Jan 29, 2014)

Geez, just noticed this thread...some of you need to remove the tin-foil hats =)

If you recieve a private email from a corporation as an official response, if that email has a disclaimer that it is only intended for that recipient privately...reposting it publicly is most certainly a nono.  (besides being in violation of copyright laws for publishing someones private content without permission, to implied license theory that applies to internet context, to a variety of other nonsensical legalese you are welcome to google yourself as im not much in the mood for a lengthy educational post here...but needless to say...its fairly obvious that marriott did NOT give permission for the private email to be posted publicly in its original content...and since Someone from marriott contacted us and asked the copy of the private email be removed, we complied with that request)

If you want to repost the reply in your own words as a summary, feel free to do so.  There is nothing Marriott can do to censor you in that regard, especially if you have the original email as reference to your summary if questioned or challenged.


----------



## Steve (Jan 29, 2014)

FractionalTraveler said:


> Sorry, I understand.
> 
> This site has been compromised IMHO.  I'm out for good.
> 
> FT



Seriously?  Over this?  Wow!  I think some folks are getting a little overly sensitive here.  Marriott most certainly does NOT control TUG. 

If a business does not want employee contact information from private email posted publicly in an online forum, that is a reasonable request.  I own a business, and I feel the same way.  Having an employee's contact information posted could cause a major disruption in their work...or possibly even lead to harassment.  That is not right just because someone decided they wanted to post a private email in a public forum. 

TUG has not been compromised.  The only thing that has been compromised is the common sense of some of the people complaining.  Being a moderator on a forum like this is a thankless job.  Sue has been working tirelessly to try and provide a place where we can all discuss timeshares in a civil way and learn from each other.  She is even giving up time while she is on vacation to keep this Marriott forum running.  Let's give her a break.

Steve


----------



## swaits (Jan 29, 2014)

The moderation seemed excellent here. I thank Sue. I'm sure it's mostly a thankless job. But you're doing it well and I know many people appreciate it!

The most surprising thing here, beside people throwing a hissy fit over some nonsense, is how closely Marriott is or may be monitoring the forums. I think that means something, though I'm not sure exactly what. But I find it really interesting.


----------



## m61376 (Jan 29, 2014)

FractionalTraveler said:


> Sorry, I understand.
> 
> This site has been compromised IMHO.  I'm out for good.
> 
> FT



Hope you'll reconsider- you've added a lot to other discussions.

That said- I think Sue/Brian have an obligation to remove a post that was in violation of the law, as expressed in the footer of the posted email. The original poster has the right to summarize the contents but not to copy and paste a confidential document, and leaving it up would likely jeopardize any relationship Marriott may have with Tug representatives and possibly open up Tug to legal liability.

I find it encouraging that Marriott reps are reading what is posted herein. Maybe behind the scenes they'll take the issues presented in the Aruba thread, etc., to heart and something good will come out of al the controversy on the thread, as well as other issues that are brought up.


----------



## puckmanfl (Jan 29, 2014)

good morning....

FT... you are not allowed to leave this forum... unless you bring a note from your physician and Lebron et al... complete the Three-peat *  copyright from Pat Riley)  

Maybe PAT Will ask that I remove post because he copyrighted Three-Peat !!!!

Having fun at the residence inn at 38th street (just next to the alleged new MVC resort)  going to outdoor hockey tonight in 5 degree cold!!!  Playing indoor hockey at Chelsea Piers over looking Hudson River.. Face off today at 12 noon...


----------



## Beaglemom3 (Jan 29, 2014)

puckmanfl said:


> good morning....
> 
> FT... you are not allowed to leave this forum... unless you bring a note from your physician and Lebron et al... complete the Three-peat *  copyright from Pat Riley)
> 
> ...



  Puckman,
        I agree, FT cannot leave. Please reconsider.....
    If you can find out any info from where you are about the MVC next door, please let us know if you have time and don't mind "sniffing" around.
   What position do you play ?
   Personal note: Bobby Orr was my backyard neighbor for many years here. Great guy, nice family and wonderful Golden ("Scout"- my late Beagle's buddy).
    Thanks !


----------



## billymach4 (Jan 29, 2014)

puckmanfl said:


> good morning....
> 
> FT... you are not allowed to leave this forum... unless you bring a note from your physician and Lebron et al... complete the Three-peat *  copyright from Pat Riley)
> 
> ...



Puck,

Hope you are enjoying your stay in my home town!

I will and get out at lunch to see the Super Bowl festivities on Broadway!


----------



## puckmanfl (Jan 29, 2014)

billy...

its my home town too... left in 1990 after 30 years for job opportunity in Tampa...  adopted the Lightning but for this week I am a Ranger fan!!!!

off to Chelsea Piers now for hockey!!!! going to play....


----------



## dansimms (Jan 29, 2014)

*If Marriott Execs are reading*

Marriott should provide a NYC vacation club that is an extraordinary value...somewhat of a carrot.  In my opinion, there are many people like me that would love a quality crash pad in the city...........but we don't want to spend the $400, 000 or more...plus monthly maintenance fees and hassle to have one, full time, that we would only use a handful of nights per year.  If there is a scarcity of room availability, make it available to Premier and Premier Plus only.  You would be creating a motivation for those that see this as I do, who will use this as further incentive to increase their membership to have access to NYC.  I am sure there are thousands of Marriott Vacation Club members that are just a short drive or train ride away that would see this as further justification to have either 6500 or 13000 or more destination points per year.  These will be largely 1 to 3 night stays that don't require the extra expense of air travel for Northeastern and Mid Atlantic members.  If I could use it for three to four 2 night stays per year at a rate of no more than 600 Destination Points, per night,with a King Bed (At lower demand periods)........my prayer will have been answered.  I would happily spend about 5000 (7-8 nights) of my 13300 Destination Points per year at this one property and treat it like a pied-a-terre.  If this happened, my Friend Share activity would go from nothing to somethin' somethin' ! Getting the under 60 day discount would be very feasible, as so many of us wouldn't need air to get here.


----------



## Werner Weiss (Jan 29, 2014)

dansimms said:


> Marriott should provide a NYC vacation club that is an extraordinary value...somewhat of a carrot.


Ultimately, the pricing and value of any point-based Marriott Vacation Club property is based on the same factors as a traditional timeshare.

In the classic timeshare model, the same room or apartment is sold to multiple owners (typically one week intervals in the traditional model), at purchase prices that reflect their fraction of ownership, with marketing costs, carrying costs, and profit built in for the developer. Then, those owners pay an annual fee that covers all operating costs, taxes (unless paid directly to a taxing agency), reserves, and a management fee (profit).

If the developer has done a good job, the developer makes a profit on both the upfront purchase and the ongoing fees. And the timeshare owner benefits from only paying an annual fee based on actual costs each year instead of a hotel rate based on what the market will bear. The timeshare owner's effective cost per night should be quite a bit lower than a market-driven hotel rate for comparable lodging. (Otherwise, why should the developer or the buyer/owner bother?)

I realize that the paragraphs above are Basic Timeshare 1. (I don't mean to insult anyone.)

What's less obvious is that ownership through a Trust portfolio, reservations based on a point chart, and annual fees calculated on points all still correspond to the Basic Timeshare 1 model. It's all indirect now, and the relationships seem abstract. But, under the covers, it's still Basic Timeshare 1. It still has to make business sense to the developer and there still has to be a value proposition for the buyer.

Would it work in New York City? A few timeshare developers have properties in New York, but most, including Marriott Vacation Club, have stayed away — so far, at least. However, as portfolios, not individual properties, become increasingly important, developers are likely to take another look at New York.

The trick would be for Marriott Vacations Worldwide Corp (VAC) to come up with a good business plan — the right location, the right build-out, and an operating structure that's not overly labor-intensive.

Would it be an "extraordinary value" for Trust owners and enrolled owners? I guess it depends on how you define _extraordinary_. Nobody should expect VAC to approve a business case with red ink gushing from it. But the cost per night should be substantially lower than the cash rate for comparable lodging or for the Explorer Collection, just based how the points per night will correspond to actual operating/tax/reserve/management costs.


----------



## dansimms (Jan 29, 2014)

*San Francisco Ritz comparison*

I am just looking for some windows of opportunity that fit my preconceived price range, like the San Francisco Ritz.  I think Marriott could make this work profitably.  I understand that perhaps 75% or more of the nights of the year, this will be priced above my comfort level and that is fine.  With my flexibility, living just 45 miles outside of town I will gladly gobble up some of the more bargain nights.  Perhaps the average nightly rate is 900 Destination Points, over the course of the entire year......that translates to well over $160,000 in simulated revenue being generated from a 250 sq ft room.  Even more would be generated from the 1 BR sized rooms.  Sounds like enough revenue for my untrained eye. Maybe Marriott could figure out a way to drive $200,000 a year in revenue from this unit.........just leave us a large enough window to say I can get a place in the city for under $300 a night! This is a way to have these rooms something the typical Marriott Vacation Club Owner can consider for use.  There are many weeks during the NYC year where Marriott can price these rooms according to market demand........NYC Marathon, Sporting Events, Thanksgiving, New Years Eve, etc. These would all be nights I would avoid on my budget. For me, this would be an excellent value......due to the way I would like to use it.


----------



## WBP (Jan 29, 2014)

The Presidential Sales Executive in Orlando who forwarded an internal memo to one of her owners, on a volatile subject, no less, with the cell phone number of the Vice President of sales operations, was an absolute idiot, and should be fired for violating company policy about proprietary information and internal communication.


----------



## WBP (Jan 29, 2014)

FractionalTraveler said:


> *So I think everyone that uses this site would now like to know if Marriott Vacations Worldwide run this TUG board and can manipulate its free flow of discussion at will?*
> 
> Also, I would still like to know for my personal education what the apparent violation of TUG rules were that prompted this.
> 
> ...



But you sure do know Marriott Vacation Club and Marriott International's confidentiality and Associate policies, You forgot to mention that.


----------



## davidvel (Jan 29, 2014)

TUGBrian said:


> Geez, just noticed this thread...some of you need to remove the tin-foil hats =)
> 
> If you recieve a private email from a corporation as an official response, if that email has a disclaimer that it is only intended for that recipient privately...reposting it publicly is most certainly a nono.  (besides being in violation of copyright laws for publishing someones private content without permission, to implied license theory that applies to internet context, to a variety of other nonsensical legalese you are welcome to google yourself as im not much in the mood for a lengthy educational post here...but needless to say...its fairly obvious that marriott did NOT give permission for the private email to be posted publicly in its original content...and since Someone from marriott contacted us and asked the copy of the private email be removed, we complied with that request)
> 
> If you want to repost the reply in your own words as a summary, feel free to do so.  There is nothing Marriott can do to censor you in that regard, especially if you have the original email as reference to your summary if questioned or challenged.





WJS said:


> But you sure do know Marriott Vacation Club and Marriott International's confidentiality and Associate policies, You forgot to mention that.



While this is such a small deal, I strongly disagree _legally_ that Marriott can restrict a customer from publishing an e-mail sent to them, unless the customer agreed in advance not to redistribute it. Sending an e-mail and including a disclaimer has no effect unless the recipient agrees to it. Although, I am sure there are lawyers that would disagree (if not, I'd be broke.)

That being said, I don't expect TUG to spend money on a lawyer for each instance, and removing what someone claims is personal information with the solution proposed by Brian is a reasonable.


----------



## Fairwinds (Jan 29, 2014)

Might be wishfully thinking on my part but what if: As a points based system can they spread the cost over the trust system thereby have some locations with a lower return but beneficial to their sales/advertising. Is their profit margin the same at every property? Another way they might benefit besides sales is that if they kept it reasonable it might encourage legacy owners to trade for points due to it being trust or points only destination and that helps provide inventory for trust owners at other places. Wishful thinking or no? I guess I just want to be able to afford it.


----------



## TUGBrian (Jan 29, 2014)

davidvel said:


> While this is such a small deal, I strongly disagree _legally_ that Marriott can restrict a customer from publishing an e-mail sent to them, unless the customer agreed in advance not to redistribute it. Sending an e-mail and including a disclaimer has no effect unless the recipient agrees to it. Although, I am sure there are lawyers that would disagree (if not, I'd be broke.)



this is incorrect.


----------



## windje2000 (Jan 29, 2014)

TUGBrian said:


> this is incorrect.



Please read:

http://www.economist.com/node/18529895

http://lifehacker.com/5790930/discl...are-not-just-annoying-but-legally-meaningless


----------



## answeeney (Jan 29, 2014)

windje2000 said:


> Please read:
> 
> http://www.economist.com/node/18529895
> 
> http://lifehacker.com/5790930/discl...are-not-just-annoying-but-legally-meaningless


I am not qualified to attempt a definitive view on this subject but, having perused the two links and particularly the comments below the article in lifehacker, my opinion is that TUGBrian is currently winning on points.


----------



## TUGBrian (Jan 29, 2014)

you are welcome to believe what you wish, start your own discussion forums, and post all the confidential emails you want to!  =)

I however dont have the luxury of using "but this random internet site said so" as a valid defense.

plus, when it comes down to it...as stated earlier...it is very clear that marriott did not intend the contents of that private email be reproduced on a public forum, nor did they give permission for it...as such a request to have the exact copy removed is a perfectly valid request.  Arguing that disclaimers and such dont apply would be similar to claiming that the copyright warnings at the end of movies is invalid...or that someone can reproduce material exactly from books/newspapers/magazines at their leisure merely because the content was sent to them.

I also have already said that the individual is welcome to post the "cliff notes" of the email content, something they have no basis to demand removal of.


----------



## dioxide45 (Jan 29, 2014)

TUGBrian said:


> you are welcome to believe what you wish, start your own discussion forums, and post all the confidential emails you want to!  =)
> 
> I however dont have the luxury of using "but this random internet site said so" as a valid defense.
> 
> ...



I am not sure the copyright warnings at the end of a movie is a good analogy. Movies are protected by copyright law, thus the need for those warnings. It is very doubtful that most e-mail communication, especially the one dansimms posted, would be construed as copyrighted material. I was able to read it before it was deleted.

That said, I do think FT is perhaps being a little dramatic here. Not sure if something like this would drive me away from TUG. What else would I do with my time. I can only read TUG so much, need to respond also. Though FT does bring up a very good point, where in the TUG posting guidelines does it indicate that dansimms violated them? Here is the closest I could find:



> *4) Avoid posting copyrighted material*
> Under modern copyright laws, anything you find on the internet is copyrighted, even when there is no posted copyright notice. Do not post copyrighted material without the express consent of the copyright owner. Short excerpts are permissible under the Fair Use provisions of copyright law. Rather than post an entire article, just post a short statement of what the article is about and give a link to the address where the complete article may be found.



Do note, that what dansimms posted was not copyrighted material. It was an e-mail response to a valid custom service question.

It also seems that this is not the first time this has occurred. As Ron98GT mentioned in post #76 before he deleted it, this has happened before. Sue also indicates that it has happened before where MVW requested a different post to be deleted. If posts are going to be deleted for this, it should be clearly spelled out in the TUG posting guidelines.

The issue that I had that I took issue with in post #75 was with how this was handled by MVW. Their action in contacting a TUG moderator to delete the post cause me to lose any respect that I had for them as a corporation.

The problem here is that their issue with the post was with dansimms not TUG ownership. Contacting TUG moderators to delete the post was low class. They should have contacted dansimms to warn him of his violation of the "disclaimer" on the e-mail. Had dansimms refused to remove or update his post, they could then perhaps take the issue up with a moderator who could also contact dansimms requesting the post to be edited. Had dansimms still failed, then perhaps the moderators could delete the post since it seems that this is apparently against TUG posting rules even though it is not in the posting guidelines. Though MVW really would have to take legal action against dansimms since he is the one violation the "terms" of the disclaimer. Though as others have pointed out, these disclaimers really have very little clout.

*1) Here is what happened:*

dansimms posted the e-mail verbatim.
MVW representative contacts TUG moderator to delete the post.
TUG Moderator deletes the post without warning, thus all content is lost, not "cliff notes". Though dansimms could come back and provide them.

*2) What should have happened if the e-mail was posted:*

dansimms posts the e-mail verbatim.
MVW contacts dansimms through the BBS. They can seem to do this, they contacted Sue.
dansimms, if he agrees, edits the post. If he doesn't MVW can take action against dansimms. They may have to get TUG involved to find out who dansimms really is. We see this now a lot with people posting negative reviews and Yelp and others reluctantly turning over names.

*3) What really should have happened:*

dansimms posts a cliff notes version of the e-mail. Though we often get caught up in the moment and have juicy tidbit of information we want to share.

I use the cliff notes version a lot when using the II TUG Members mailbox. They too have a similar disclaimer at the end of their e-mails.

Though I can understand TUGBrian's position on this. Along with what davidvel pointed out. It probably isn't worth the headache. Defending the fact that TUG ownership isn't responsible for what TUG users post is an expensive proposition. So it is likely easier and cheaper to delete and move on. Though if that is going to happen, add it to the TUG posting guidelines. Easy as that, and not a single word or complaint would be said.

If the posting guidelines are not update, I would really still have a lot more respect for the whole process if what I outlined in section 2) is what was followed instead of section 1) above in the event someone posts this type of information.


----------



## GregT (Jan 29, 2014)

I am confident FT will be back.  We traded emails and I think he was in a really bad mood yesterday.  I know Marriott can put me in a really bad mood too (see: June 20, 2010).     Or perhaps he got sniped by Ride on a good deal.  That would bum me out too.

In any event, I think the Aruba thread will start to die down, we will find out if we are going to get a timeshare in NYC (and if the DC points are close to rational), and one of these days I need to call a Rabbi. 

Best,

Greg


----------



## TUGBrian (Jan 29, 2014)

definately making a mountain out of a molehill...

if the OP wants to post the gist of the content, he/she is free to do so without fear of it being deleted.


----------



## BocaBoy (Jan 30, 2014)

TUGBrian said:


> this is incorrect.



A pretty strong statement to make when you are wrong.  I really have no problem deleting it, but please don't do it on some bogus basis of legal requirement.


----------



## TUGBrian (Jan 30, 2014)

BocaBoy said:


> A pretty strong statement to make when you are wrong.  I really have no problem deleting it, but please don't do it on some bogus basis of legal requirement.



internet legal experts are a dime a dozen.


----------



## ocdb8r (Jan 30, 2014)

TUGBrian said:


> definately making a mountain out of a molehill...
> 
> if the OP wants to post the gist of the content, he/she is free to do so without fear of it being deleted.



Seriously...I spent 15 minutes to find it on Google cache...what a let down.  I expected something juicy for all this hooplah.


----------



## jimf41 (Jan 30, 2014)

TUGBrian said:


> definately making a mountain out of a molehill...



I couldn't agree more. Also consider that this board belongs to Brian, he owns it and we pay for the privilege of using it. His board , his rules, his management decisions and he picks the moderators. We don't get a vote in any of that. Don't like the rules then start your own board. 

It's been tried before. Remember TUGMAR? Great idea but I think the folks that started it just became overwhelmed with how difficult and costly it is to run a board this popular.

Getting back to the original subject of a TS in NYC I think that some of us don't realize how expensive a proposition that would be. Take a look at the Manhattan Club and you can see what I mean. They were sold for upwards of 20k originally. I don't know what the developer is asking now but there is one on Redweek for $99.00. Unfortunately the MF are $2600. For that you get a 1bdm with one King and a pullout sofa. What do you think MVCI would charge for that in VAC points?

I would venture a guess of 5000 for the low season and 7000 for the high season. That's pretty pricey when you consider a 1bdrm suite at the Algonquin runs about $500 in the high season. Rooms at the Residence Inns are even less. I just don't see the profitability there for MVCI to do anything but "look" for properties.


----------



## chris5 (Jan 30, 2014)

BocaBoy said:


> A pretty strong statement to make when you are wrong.  I really have no problem deleting it, but please don't do it on some *bogus basis *of legal requirement.



Bogus basis!  As a lawyer with some fleeting familiarity with intellectual property law, I would hardly say that TUG's actions are based on a bogus basis.  Not going to debate you about the legal caution TUG is taking after being told by the author or owner of intellectual property (copyright and  trademarks if the marks were in the email) to cease potentially worldwide distribution of its material over the internet, but I got to say this is TUG's website house, its rules (whether set forth explicitly in writing or made on the fly by a post in this thread), its potential liability exposure, and its call to honor a request by the author of correspondence that does not want further electronic distribution beyond the original recipient.

There's plenty of information over the internet to research whether this is a bogus basis.  The Copyright Clearance Center has educational and training videos online about copyright law.  And if one googles  "are letters subject to copyright protection" or "are emails subject to copyright protection," you can research this issue and turn over a lot of stones.


----------



## WBP (Jan 30, 2014)

There's another side to this. New York City has a significant population base of financially qualified candidates for Marriott Vacation Club ownership. An MVC resort in Manhattan would give MVC a center-stage to do "on-site" sales and marketing of their Vacation Club product, and to bring potential Owners in from the tri-state area all day and night. In the case of the Custom House, a very significant number of owners who purchased there lived within a 60 mile radius of the Custom House, and had no intentions of ever staying there; they purchased Custom House as their entry-point into the MVC, Marriott Rewards and I.I. networks. Marriott used, in part, the Custom House as a store-front, and an entry point to recruit new MVC Owners for a "system sell purchase." Now more than ever, with Destination Club points, and non-resort specific ownership, that system sell is even easier off-site, but greatly benefits from having a MVC resort on site, that prospective Owners can touch, see and smell, on the notion that it's the real thing. Marriott Vacation Club did something similar many years ago, when they operated an off-site sales gallery, if my memory is right, in the area of Route 46/Willowbrook Mall. That was about 20 years ago.


----------



## BocaBoy (Jan 30, 2014)

TUGBrian said:


> internet legal experts are a dime a dozen.



How about an unqualified legal opinion from one of the top intellectual property lawyers in Chicago?  Why would you even begin to think that my comments are based on a flimsy source?  I don't do things that way.  And I repeat, I have no problem with deleting this post, but NOT because of legal concerns.


----------



## BocaBoy (Jan 30, 2014)

chris5 said:


> Bogus basis!  As a lawyer with some fleeting familiarity with intellectual property law, I would hardly say that TUG's actions are based on a bogus basis.  Not going to debate you about the legal caution TUG is taking after being told by the author or owner of intellectual property (copyright and  trademarks if the marks were in the email) to cease potentially worldwide distribution of its material over the internet, but I got to say this is TUG's website house, its rules (whether set forth explicitly in writing or made on the fly by a post in this thread), its potential liability exposure, and its call to honor a request by the author of correspondence that does not want further electronic distribution beyond the original recipient.
> 
> There's plenty of information over the internet to research whether this is a bogus basis.  The Copyright Clearance Center has educational and training videos online about copyright law.  And if one googles  "are letters subject to copyright protection" or "are emails subject to copyright protection," you can research this issue and turn over a lot of stones.



I repeat....I never even suggested TUG should not delete the post based on TUG policy.  If you had read (instead of assuming) what I posted you would see that.


----------



## chris5 (Jan 30, 2014)

BocaBoy said:


> I repeat....I never even suggested TUG should not delete the post based on TUG policy.  If you had read (instead of assuming) what I posted you would see that.



I read and did not assume anything.  Where do you see an assumption on my part? I'm challenging the "bogus basis" part of your comment and making no assumptions about where you might have derived that conclusion.

BTW, I didn't even know reputable legal risk managers (in house or external malpractice insurance carriers) would permit the "unqualified legal opinion"  you received from a lawyer in Chicago. Is this written legal advice the lawyer gave you as a client or just talk?


----------



## Fasttr (Jan 30, 2014)

BocaBoy said:


> How about an unqualified legal opinion from one of the top intellectual property lawyers in Chicago?



Did you obtain this opinion via email....perhaps you could post it here for all to see.  

Just kidding....couldn't resist....there has certainly been some interesting reading on TUG over the past few days


----------



## m61376 (Jan 30, 2014)

WJS said:


> There's another side to this. New York City has a significant population base of financially qualified candidates for Marriott Vacation Club ownership. An MVC resort in Manhattan would give MVC a center-stage to do "on-site" sales and marketing of their Vacation Club product, and to bring potential Owners in from the tri-state area all day and night. In the case of the Custom House, a very significant number of owners who purchased there lived within a 60 mile radius of the Custom House, and had no intentions of ever staying there; they purchased Custom House as their entry-point into the MVC, Marriott Rewards and I.I. networks. Marriott used, in part, the Custom House as a store-front, and an entry point to recruit new MVC Owners for a "system sell purchase." Now more than ever, with Destination Club points, and non-resort specific ownership, that system sell is even easier off-site, but greatly benefits from having a MVC resort on site, that prospective Owners can touch, see and smell, on the notion that it's the real thing. Marriott Vacation Club did something similar many years ago, when they operated an off-site sales gallery, if my memory is right, in the area of Route 46/Willowbrook Mall. That was about 20 years ago.



You bring up a very good point!

We live about 3/4's of an hour from the City, and I know many people who have at least considered a pied a terre; while the costs to buy and maintain an apt. in NYC are prohibitive to most and the thoughts are just a pipe-dream, IF Marriott offered more than hotel rooms- villas with the comforts of home- it could be very attractive to many. 

Then there is the whole yuppie subset, the late twenties, thirty and forty year olds who ran to the City- the new central mecca- after graduating college, and now are having kids of their own. Faced with marginal and overcrowded schools, smaller living quarters and the prospect of 40k per child for a private school, many have moved to either the Island or Westchester area, but would be attracted to being able to also "have a place in the City."

But it would have to be more attractive than a hotel room and Residence Inn and the like offerings.


----------



## TUGBrian (Jan 30, 2014)

BocaBoy said:


> How about an unqualified legal opinion from one of the top intellectual property lawyers in Chicago?  Why would you even begin to think that my comments are based on a flimsy source?  I don't do things that way.  And I repeat, I have no problem with deleting this post, but NOT because of legal concerns.



then he/she of all people would most certainly know better than to argue it =)


----------



## davidvel (Jan 30, 2014)

davidvel said:


> While this is such a small deal, I strongly disagree _legally_ that Marriott can restrict a customer from publishing an e-mail sent to them, unless the customer agreed in advance not to redistribute it. Sending an e-mail and including a disclaimer has no effect unless the recipient agrees to it. Although, I am sure there are lawyers that would disagree (if not, I'd be broke.)





TUGBrian said:


> this is incorrect.


As the recipient of the above, I respectfully disagree. (This is certainly an interesting topic, if you want to move it to the Lounge.)

Under copyright law, facts themselves are not protected, only creative ways of expressing them. As an attorney practicing in copyright law, I sincerely doubt that the e-mail from Marriott to a customer about a proposed or rumored development (I have not seen the e-mail) would constitute a creative work under the Copyright Act.

Further, fair use allows the reproduction and display of emails, for educational, research, critical, commentary and news reporting purposes. (*nearly all of which are present here*) vs. commercial use. Whether a use is acceptable depends on four criteria: (1)the purpose and character of the use; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market.

That being said, I understand the policy and that's what matters here. 

A good opinion on this topic for the overly adventerous (beware, lawyers and judges don't think or write like normal people).


----------



## Fasttr (Jan 30, 2014)

davidvel said:


> As the recipient of the above, I respectfully disagree. (This is certainly an interesting topic, if you want to move it to the Lounge.)
> 
> Under copyright law, facts themselves are not protected, only creative ways of expressing them. As an attorney practicing in copyright law, I sincerely doubt that the e-mail from Marriott to a customer about a proposed or rumored development (I have not seen the e-mail) would constitute a creative work under the Copyright Act.
> 
> ...



Aren't most of these disclaimers at the bottom of emails discussing confidentiality, not copyright issues?


----------



## SMHarman (Jan 30, 2014)

m61376 said:


> You bring up a very good point!
> 
> Then there is the whole yuppie subset, the late twenties, thirty and forty year olds who ran to the City- the new central mecca- after graduating college, and now are having kids of their own. Faced with marginal and overcrowded schools, smaller living quarters and the prospect of 40k per child for a private school, many have moved to either the Island or Westchester area, but would be attracted to being able to also "have a place in the City."
> 
> But it would have to be more attractive than a hotel room and Residence Inn and the like offerings.


Many are staying put.  NYC schools are certainly not marginal and property taxes in Westchester good school districts run to a 2 for the price of one equivilant to the private school fee you quote.
The economics of moving out of the city to Westchester when you start adding the costs of buying a couple of cars and insuring, maintining and fueling them, along with the commuting costs and increased property taxes make the decision far more marginal.


----------



## dioxide45 (Jan 30, 2014)

jimf41 said:


> I couldn't agree more. Also consider that this board belongs to Brian, he owns it and we pay for the privilege of using it. His board , his rules, his management decisions and he picks the moderators. We don't get a vote in any of that. Don't like the rules then start your own board.



I don't disagree. Though I see it more like a business/customer relationship than paying for the privilege. I suppose we could also say that people pay Apple for the privilege of using their products but that would be an interesting analogy. BTW, using the forums is actually free and doesn't require TUG Membership. If we pay for a product, we should be able to question if there is something that we don't like about it without ridicule.



jimf41 said:


> It's been tried before. Remember TUGMAR? Great idea but I think the folks that started it just became overwhelmed with how difficult and costly it is to run a board this popular.



I find it funny how people always use this argument. It doesn't always have to be about starting another forum. I understand that it is Brian's website, Brian's rules. I get it. We can move on, do other things with our time or take our wallet elsewhere.



TUGBrian said:


> definately making a mountain out of a molehill...



I find it interesting that you always trivialize any comments, suggestions or criticism in the forums that are directed toward TUG. I am not referring to just this single incident. I see it all the time. Like we are just a bunch of crazed lunatics behind a keyboard out to get TUG when we make such a suggestion or question anything. Most business like receiving comments, suggestions, or criticism and use that to grow and improve upon themselves. I never see that here.

I find this to be rather insulting to have something that I felt important to point out trivialized in such a manner. Sure it may not be important to you, but it may just be to someone else.

My point in bringing the topic up and which FT also pointed out is that there was no apparent TUG Posting Guideline that was breached. To avoid these issues in the future, it would be rather simple, update the TUG Posting Guidelines if posts are going to be deleted for such offenses. It seems this happens more often that I originally though when I brought up the topic. Apparently it even happens when the developer doesn't even contact TUG moderators. Make it clear, and you won't hear a peep out of me.

Apparently my opinions expressed here don't matter though and will likely be further trivialized. I really don't care any more though. I'm moving on. More important things to worry about, like planning my next vacation.


----------



## BocaBoy (Jan 30, 2014)

dioxide45 said:


> I find it interesting that you always trivialize any comments, suggestions or criticism in the forums that are directed toward TUG. I am not referring to just this single incident. I see it all the time. Like we are just a bunch of crazed lunatics behind a keyboard out to get TUG when we make such a suggestion or question anything. Most business like receiving comments, suggestions, or criticism and use that to grow and improve upon themselves. I never see that here.
> 
> I find this to be rather insulting to have something that I felt important to point out trivialized in such a manner. Sure it may not be important to you, but it may just be to someone else.
> 
> ...



Well said.


----------



## TUGBrian (Jan 30, 2014)

opinions vary, always have...always will.

Those who agree with my opinion think its great.

those that dont, think im evil, a jerk, dont care, am clueless, am an idiot, dont know what im doing, and that they can or would do it better.  (heck ive even been called a jew hater in recent days over a separate post)

Heard it all, got the tshirt.

such is life when dealing with a community of tens of thousands of owners....no decision will ever make everyone happy.

I manage the site as best as possible to try to placate the myriad of diversity that exists here.  If you feel that my best isnt good enough, thats most certainly your right.  The goal here is to provide a site where all can come and share information and learn more about Timeshares and Timesharing.  This particular scenario does not detract from that in any way.

As far as I am concerned to be perfectly blunt, yes the fact that so many of you are up in arms over such a ridiculously trivial issue  (that has a perfectly acceptable solution to) I find ridiculous.

You said your peace, made your point, the decision was made, and I provided you a solid and acceptable workaround...yet you still continue to push the issue.

That is not constructive, its bickering.


You seem to be stuck on wanting the posting guidelines "revised"...when they clearly already cover this in item 4:



> Avoid posting copyrighted material
> Under modern copyright laws, anything you find on the internet is copyrighted, even when there is no posted copyright notice. Do not post copyrighted material without the express consent of the copyright owner. Short excerpts are permissible under the Fair Use provisions of copyright law. Rather than post an entire article, just post a short statement of what the article is about and give a link to the address where the complete article may be found.


----------



## m61376 (Jan 30, 2014)

SMHarman said:


> Many are staying put.  NYC schools are certainly not marginal and property taxes in Westchester good school districts run to a 2 for the price of one equivilant to the private school fee you quote.
> The economics of moving out of the city to Westchester when you start adding the costs of buying a couple of cars and insuring, maintining and fueling them, along with the commuting costs and increased property taxes make the decision far more marginal.



Value is in the eye of the beholder I guess. While many are staying put, migration to the suburbs, whether to Westchester or to the Island, continues. I personally know many thirty-somethings who relished City life, but once they had children they wanted bigger spaces and better schools, without having to worry about private school tuitions. While many people, as you point out, are content with the City schools, others shudder at the large class sizes and either can't afford or have trouble justifying the high private school tuitions. 

Whatever the reason, although as you said many stay put (including my own kids, at least for the time being), many homes on LI and Westchester are turning over. IMHO, this generation seems to have a higher affinity for City life though, and I think WJS is correct in his suggestion that a well poised NYC property could be a huge sales tool,to entice this next generation of buyers.


----------



## TUGBrian (Jan 30, 2014)

davidvel said:


> As the recipient of the above, I respectfully disagree. (This is certainly an interesting topic, if you want to move it to the Lounge.)
> 
> Under copyright law, facts themselves are not protected, only creative ways of expressing them. As an attorney practicing in copyright law, I sincerely doubt that the e-mail from Marriott to a customer about a proposed or rumored development (I have not seen the e-mail) would constitute a creative work under the Copyright Act.
> 
> ...




and I am sure that with unlimited time, and an unlimited budget...any lawyer would be happy to argue this to their hearts content in court. (neither of which any of us have)

We protect folks right to express their opinions and discuss issues here under fair use all the time...in fact it costs us many thousands of dollars a year in legal fees to do so.

We very rarely if at all delete content that is not in violation of the TUG posting guidelines, despite regularly (if not sometimes daily) demands to have comments or entire threads deleted (many times under the threat of legal action).

This was nothing of the sort, and is simply not an issue in the least despite attempts over and over to claim otherwise.

Marriott did not want the content of the email removed for fear it held some super secret trademark/patent/idea for curing cancer.  Instead they wanted a private internal email sent to a private customer that had no intention of being posted publicly (nor did it have permission to do so, with even a disclaimer not to do so in the email itself) removed.

Had the situation been different, and the OP just posted their summary of what the email had said..and marriott wanted that removed...totally different story.


----------



## ricki999 (Jan 30, 2014)

dioxide45 said:


> I don't disagree. Though I see it more like a business/customer relationship than paying for the privilege. I suppose we could also say that people pay Apple for the privilege of using their products but that would be an interesting analogy. BTW, using the forums is actually free and doesn't require TUG Membership. If we pay for a product, we should be able to question if there is something that we don't like about it without ridicule.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Your opinions do matter to some of us!  I do value the logical reasoning to get to the same conclusion and find it disheartening that the logic is being ignored.


----------



## davidvel (Jan 31, 2014)

TUGBrian said:


> Marriott did not want the content of the email removed for fear it held some super secret trademark/patent/idea for curing cancer.  Instead they wanted a private internal email sent to a private customer that had no intention of being posted publicly (nor did it have permission to do so, with even a disclaimer not to do so in the email itself) removed.


No worries Brian, you chose to remove the email. You run a great site. However, I doubt you could find a copyright attorney to argue to any federal judge that the following statement is true: 


> Under modern copyright laws, *anything* you find on the internet is copyrighted, even when there is no posted copyright notice.


But copyrights aside, I have consistently agreed with your philosophy and policies:


davidvel said:


> That being said, I don't expect TUG to spend money on a lawyer for each instance, and removing what someone claims is personal information with the solution proposed by Brian is reasonable.





davidvel said:


> That being said, I understand the policy and that's what matters here.





> The great thing about TUG is that is unlike any other "board" out there, the general philosophy, the specific rules, and the moderators make it so. Most of us really want to speak our mind, or give our personal feelings on issues, but when they even remotely infringe on issues of religion/politics/social issues/sensitivities, there is no going back.


This is however, a great lesson to those who think that email, posts, or letters are "private." If you send someone an email or a letter you should not expect that you have a right to restrict that email or letter from further publication. If you send your friend a risqué postcard or email, they can publish it and show it your neighbors. Good luck suing under copyright laws, anymore than your gas company, hotel chain, or lender could sue you for publishing a bill or letter they send you.


----------



## TUGBrian (Jan 31, 2014)

I have no doubt marriott has a team of lawyers on speed dial who would be more than happy to argue the latter!

That said, given your area of expertise...if you want to reword that section id be happy to read what you would consider a more accurate warning/description!

welcome to pm it to me etc if you like.


----------



## WBP (Jan 31, 2014)

davidvel said:


> This is however, a great lesson to those who think that email, posts, or letters are "private." If you send someone an email or a letter you should not expect that you have a right to restrict that email or letter from further publication. If you send your friend a risqué postcard or email, they can publish it and show it your neighbors. Good luck suing under copyright laws, anymore than your gas company, hotel chain, or lender could sue you for publishing a bill or letter they send you.



For the very reason you site above, I append the following to my email:

MY CONFIDENTIALITY POLICY:

I do not tweet, twit, text, or participate in Facebook or LinkedIn. If you want to communicate with me, call me. I do, however, communicate by email, but not with my iPhone, as I find that keypad incompatible with the girth of my fingers. 

With regard to my privacy, I understand that I have no control over where this email may land, and I acknowledge understanding that my email may be forwarded to parties other than those to whom my email is addressed, and that my email may be altered or taken out of context, for which I assume no responsibility.


----------



## Fairwinds (Jan 31, 2014)

WJS said:


> For the very reason you site above, I append the following to my email:
> 
> MY CONFIDENTIALITY POLICY:
> 
> ...



Good one WJS! I think it would hold up in court. And I should know I once went to court, but that's another story.


----------



## OutAndAbout (Jan 31, 2014)

dioxide45 said:


> dansimms said:
> 
> 
> > [Deleted.]
> ...


If the concern was over Personal Information, why remove the entire post and not just the personal information? (once the email was sent outside of Marriott it was no longer confidential).


----------



## BocaBoy (Jan 31, 2014)

TUGBrian said:


> such is life when dealing with a community of tens of thousands of owners....no decision will ever make everyone happy.
> 
> As far as I am concerned to be perfectly blunt, yes the fact that so many of you are up in arms over such a ridiculously trivial issue  (that has a perfectly acceptable solution to) I find ridiculous.
> 
> That is not constructive, its bickering.



At least for me, the issue was not the decision to delete the post.  Rather, it was the insistence that it was required to comply with the law.  And when that was challenged, you belittled the posters.  Not cool at all.


----------



## TUGBrian (Feb 1, 2014)

BocaBoy said:


> At least for me, the issue was not the decision to delete the post.  Rather, it was the insistence that it was required to comply with the law.  And when that was challenged, you belittled the posters.  Not cool at all.



Just because you think they are right, does not make them right.

I am sorry you or others feel belittled over being incorrect, I made no attempt to do this(nor do I feel I have done so)...I merely gave you a number of reasons it was deleted....you folks disagreed...it happens.

This thread is also no longer remotely on topic....if the OP wishes to alter their original post to add their summary of the note please let me know and ill help you do so.


----------

