# Worldmark abandoning their business model



## PA-

One of the fundamental principals on which ALL timeshares is based is that you are "locking in the price of tomorrow's vacations with today's dollars".  Yes, operating costs (maintenance fees) go up, but your acquisition costs are done.  If they add new units at a floating unit resort, you don't have to pay another acquisition cost.

Since Worldmark is a non-traditional timeshare, with never-ending development of a points based system, the ability to violate this fundamental principal exists, merely by increasing the number of points required to use their new resorts.  Over time, as the number of resorts requiring higher point values increases, there will be increased competition among owners for the lower value resorts, and more owners will also be unable to book the new resorts without another acquisition cost for more points.

Fortunately, the founders of Worldmark included a very important protection against this.  They put a clause in the declaration that required the developer to base point values on "relative use" as opposed to cost.  Relative use means a 2 bedroom during red season built one year will charge the same points in general as another resort built 10 years later.  Of course, the acquisition cost of those points will rise over time, but not the number of points needed.

This model worked exceedingly well for many years.  But about 3 years ago, the developer began disregarding this clause in the declaration.  Most new resorts now cost more credits.  The Worldmark Board of Directors is the only defense that the owners have; and they are mostly current or recently retired employees of the developer.  They claim they have no ability to enforce this clause.  Now, at the last board meeting, they stated publicly for the first time that they are no longer going to use relative use value as a basis due to "the economic realities of today".  The price of resorts has risen drastically over the last 20 years.  So why are the realities any different today than they were over the previous 20 years?  They aren't.  

This opens the doors to major abuse of current owners.  Worldmark owners will soon be faced with either selling their ownerships or buying more credits or seeing diminished benefits.  The developer justifies this by saying that the owners can still use the old resorts; but over time, as a greater percentage of resorts charge more, it's going to be increasingly difficult to book into the lower value resorts.  

I believe this is the beginning of a long, downhill slide for Worldmark.  The developer may disagree with that logic, but one thing is for sure.  They are violating the declarations, and our board is responsible to enforce them.  If you're an owner, I suggest you contact our board and tell them your feelings on this violation.


----------



## kapish

*Please contact the BOD to share your concerns*

Thanks Philip. 

One way Worldmark owners can communicate their frsutrations and  concerns about this violation is by writing on the "*message to President of the Board*" of your proxy-ballot. When you send in the ballot, ComputerShare coropration is supposed to get that information and forward to Gene. 

If you are inclined, you can also send email to the Worldmark Board of Directors: 

Here are the details, taken from http://www.worldmarktheclub.com/owners/board-of-directors.shtml
*Gene Hensley, President*
Lives in: Kenmore, Washington
WorldMark owner since: 1989
Current term expires: 2007
E-mail: Gene.Hensley@worldmarktheclub.com
*John Henley, Secretary*
Lives in: Gold Coast, Australia
WorldMark owner since: 1992 Current term expires: 2006 E-mail: john.henley@trendwest.com.au
*Jack (John) McConnell*
Lives in: Orlando, Florida
WorldMark owner since: 2002
Current term expires: 2006
E-mail: jw.mcconnell@yahoo.com
*Peggy Fry*
Lives in: Snohomish, WA
WorldMark owner since: 1996
Current term expires: 2007
E-mail: Peggy.Fry@trendwest.com
*John Walker*
Lives in: Kirkland, Washington
WorldMark owner since: 1991
Current term expires: 2007
E-mail: jwalker296@hotmail.com


----------



## timeos2

*Everything costs more than 20 years ago*

I can feel for both sides. On the one hand owners purchased under a set of rules and expect them to be honored. On the other the company wants to build in new areas and, without question, it costs more. To try to say they can build new resorts at the cost of 20 years ago is being unrealistic. 

So what can be done? Build cheap places in out of the mainstream areas that can still be offered for the original points value? Or violate (or change) the rules to meet the new reality that new areas/buildings will cost more both to purchase AND in points? Or freeze the original members with what they have now, keep it at the old point level, and only offer "WM II" to new owners with the understanding that new resorts might cost more?  

None are ideal answers. But if I owned WM I would prefer to get new resorts in the system in good locations, with a high quality construction even if it meant a higher point value. My guess is thats the way the Board members of WM also feel. If that isn't acceptable to the majority of owners I would expect that there will be no more new resorts in the WM system. They couldn't afford to build them and then offer them at the old point value OR charge the new owners more while their more expensive resorts get snapped up by the old owners who pay less.  It's a model that cannot work. 

To me the real question is are the current owners so happy with the staus quo that they want to freeze it forever as is or do they want new resorts?


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte

What this does is make Premier membership a bit more like a regular membership.  For regular members, point values are fixed, and they can only use their points at resorts that were part of WM at the time the membership was sold.  

Now premier members will generally have point values "frozen" at the time of their purchase, similar to regular memberships.  The difference will be that they will be able to access the new, higher value resorts, but they will need more points to do so.


----------



## roadsister

timeos2 wrote:
"To me the real question is are the current owners so happy with the staus quo that they want to freeze it forever as is or do they want new resorts?"

*timeos2,
A couple years ago Worldmark BOD DID poll the owners whether they would be willing to use a few more credits if they built a resort where they wanted or whether they should walk away and not build....overwhelmingly the owners said they would be willing to use a few more credits. 

Now, in the case of San Diego, owners have been asking for a resort there for years but it came in at a much higher rate than anticipated....we hope that this does not occur again.  many owners have written their BOD about it.*


----------



## timeos2

roadsister said:
			
		

> timeos2 wrote:
> "To me the real question is are the current owners so happy with the staus quo that they want to freeze it forever as is or do they want new resorts?"
> 
> timeos2,
> A couple years ago Worldmark BOD DID poll the owners whether they would be willing to use a few more credits if they built a resort where they wanted or whether they should walk away and not build....overwhelmingly the owners said they would be willing to use a few more credits.
> 
> Now, in the case of San Diego, owners have been asking for a resort there for years but it came in at a much higher rate than anticipated....we hope that this does not occur again.  many owners have written their BOD about it.



Thats actually good news.  It sounds like the Board is acting on the wishes of the owners. SF is a VERY expensive place to build and maintain. Most areas wouldn't be as high.  As much as I would like to see prices of 20 years ago (not for everything - think about computers, dvd's, digital cameras and other tech items - they have gone the other way for sure) I don't feel its realistic. Especially in real estate or building costs.  Costs have risen since that time.


----------



## roadsister

You are right about SF, hotel rooms there are very expensive if you want to stay in a decent area.....I have stayed at the resort there several times and it is in a great spot and worth every credit!


----------



## PA-

I think we're mixing metaphores here.

We Worldmark owners expect our board to force Trendwest to adhere to the governing documents in making new resorts cost the same number of CREDITS. Not the same number of dollars.

If a 2 bedroom costs 10,000 credits during RED season, of course the credits themslelves would go up in price over time.  That's a good thing for owners, who would see their initial investment go up.  If, on the other hand, Trendwest raises the number of credits over time for  a 2 bedroom red week, while keeping credit prices relatively static, that would be a horrible thing for existing owners, but a great thing for new purchasers and TW salespeople.


----------



## philemer

PA- said:
			
		

> If, on the other hand, Trendwest raises the number of credits over time for  a 2 bedroom red week, while keeping credit prices relatively static, that would be a horrible thing for existing owners, but a great thing for new purchasers and TW salespeople.



Don't they raise the price of a points package to new members just about every year? That new $$ flowing in should cover the higher costs of new resorts & they could keep the points needed to trade in the same.

Phil


----------



## cotraveller

Las Vegas is a good example to use since it has both an old resort and a new one.  The old resort has 44 units, a small pool and spa, and few other amenities.  A 2 br unit costs the typical 10k credits for a week.

The new resort has over 400 units, three swimming pools, several spas, a lazy river, concierge service, etc.  A 2 br unit costs 11k credits for a week.  Yet even with 10 times the number of units and 10 percent higher cost, the new resort fills first.  The owners clearly prefer the new resort and are voting that way with their credits.

In terms of the latest relative use talk, the new resort amenities make it worth more than the additional 10% credit cost.  We got a bargain.


----------



## SleepinIn

philemer said:
			
		

> Don't they raise the price of a points package to new members just about every year? That new $$ flowing in should cover the higher costs of new resorts & they could keep the points needed to trade in the same.
> 
> Phil


While credit prices have gone up, not nearly enough to keep up with the rising cost of real estate or building.  WorldMark owners don't have a deeded interest in a specific property but we own shares of the club based on the number of credits we own.  The club owns the real estate.  That's why it's regulated by the Department of Real Estate.

Credit allocations should not go up as when they do, they dilute the value of our credits.  For more information, read on the WMOwners.com site in the WorldMark BOD Election Discussions forum.

Credit requirements could go up slightly when the amenities of a resort are significantly superior to other resorts.  The newer Las Vegas resort has superior amenities than the older one on Spencer Street.


----------



## roadsister

Mixing metaphores here??? Nope

You just put a different "spin"  on what the documents say or don't say than others.

On that I guess we will have to agree to disagree.


----------



## PA-

roadsister said:
			
		

> Mixing metaphores here??? Nope
> 
> You just put a different "spin"  on what the documents say or don't say than others.
> 
> On that I guess we will have to agree to disagree.




I wouldn't want to mis-quote, or take anything out of context, so I'll post the entire section of the declaration dealing with this issue, and people can decide for themselves.  Over the last few years, the board has allowed Trendwest to disregard this clause.  At the last Board meeting, the Worldmark board actually conceded that they will no longer adhere to this clause.  I don't believe they can legally do this without a vote of the owners.  And I doubt that the majority of owners would ever agree to allow Worldmark to change this important protection.

_3.4 (a) Allocation. Prior to recording or filing this
Declaration as to a Phase of the Property, Declarant shall allocate
to each Unit in that Phase the number of Vacation Credits required
for occupancy during different seasons of the year and on different
days of the week. *Such allocation shall be based on the relative
use-value of the new Resort compared to existing Resorts, in
Declarant's reasonable discretion*. Declarant shall notify Club in
writing of the schedule of Credits allocated to a Unit no later
than when the Unit is conveyed or transferred to the Club. The
total Vacation Credits allocated to each Unit is shown on Exhibit
"A" attached hereto._

The way I think most reasonable people would interpret that bold face section is that Trendwest may NOT use COST of the resort as a factor in setting the credits.  If an old hotel conversion in San Francisco takes 12,000 credits for 1 week in a 1bedroom unit, then an old hotel conversion in San Diego (which most people would consider the same relative use-value to an owner) should also be 12,000, not 15000 credits.


----------



## PA-

philemer said:
			
		

> Don't they raise the price of a points package to new members just about every year? That new $$ flowing in should cover the higher costs of new resorts & they could keep the points needed to trade in the same.
> 
> Phil




In the last 5 years, credit prices have increased about 25%.  Any guesses on the increased value of our portfolio of resorts?  Would you think the value of our oceanfront resorts in Hawaii, Oregon, California and Washington have increased more than 25%?  What about our slopeside resorts in Whistler and Steamboat?


----------



## jimbosee

*Worldmark/Trendwest!!!*

I am not sure if I have my facts right,but I thought that W/T was now a part of the huge Cendant Group,if that is so,that's what they do,push the limits.


                                    jimbosee.


----------



## roadsister

Kapish,
I wanted to say that maybe it isn't a good idea to put people's emails out there on TUG - especially since some are personal email addresses.  The opportunity for spammers to pick them up is terrible. 

I believe on the worldmark forum you have to be an owner and logged in to see them...


----------



## roadsister

Unfortunately Phillip there were no Worldmark resorts existing in San Diego to compare to.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte

Well - the sales pitch that Trendwest was using in their sales presentations for years stated very explicitly that:


if you purchased a 10,000 point premier membership, your purchase would allow you to reserve a 2-bedroom unit in any Worldmark resort
by buying today, from the developer at the sales presentation, you would receive a Premier membership, which would carry that assurance of being able to reserve for 10,000 points forward to all future resorts added.
By adding resorts at 15,000 points, Trendwest is violating the promises that they have been making for years in their sales presentation.  

For information, I have sat through three Trendwest sales presentations, spanning from about 2001 through 2004.  The claim that I outline above was made at everyone, and was explicit - buy a 10,000 point Premier membeship and you will always be able to reserve a 2-bedroom unit at any WM resort, both existing resorts and resorts that will be added.  I know they said it, because in all three cases I grilled the sales person explicity and in detail about that issue.  And in every case it was directly attached to the Premier membership and offered as a reason why you should purchase today instead of going home to think about it.

We were close to purchasing a WM membership one time (resale, of course), but decided not to because it was shortly after Cendant had acquired TW and I didn't trust Cendant.  Had Jeld-Wen not sold TW, there's a good possibility we would today be WM owners.


----------



## roadsister

*As pointed out time and time again, you know what they say about believing salesmen......*

It's a catch 22 Steve -
If Jen-Weld HAD retained WM we wouldn't have near as many resorts but it was their choice to sell - they didn't want to be in the timeshare business anymore, it was not Worldmark's decision to make who we were sold to....


----------



## Dave M

I believe you Steve. However, I think there is a basic premise on TUG that if we are going to count on a benefit or other material aspect of a timeshare purchase, it needs to be in writing. Or as we have written so often, "If a promise it isn't in writing, it doesn't exist."

It sounds as though this one doesn't exist.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte

Granted, Dave.  But for an honorable company - and there are many of them out there - the words that are spoken do have meaning even if they are not in writing.

The contrast between TW and the Mariott presentation we sat through for our first TS presentation is notable.  I'm pretty sure the Mariott salesman we were with was one of those top producers - probably one of those $150k per year commissions people.  He was quite persuasive, but from what I have read about Mariott here, I can also say that everything he said was true, everything he promised was real, and Mariott has been faithful to what we heard in our presentation.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte

roadsister said:
			
		

> *As pointed out time and time again, you know what they say about believing salesmen......*
> 
> It's a catch 22 Steve -
> If Jen-Weld HAD retained WM we wouldn't have near as many resorts but it was their choice to sell - they didn't want to be in the timeshare business anymore, it was not Worldmark's decision to make who we were sold to....


Agreed - but that means it is incumbent on the WM Board to ensure that TW, under it's new ownership, maintains it's committments and promises.

The WM board represents the owners. Unfortunately, there is ample reason to question the Boards independence from TW.


----------



## mtngal

I find your experience at a TW sales meeting very interesting.  I attended one in 1996, and at that one they were quite explicit that the 10,000 per 2 br. red week applied to all existing resorts - that the points for resorts already in the system couldn't change.  Nothing was ever said about point values for future resorts (to be fair, I never asked either).  So it looks like the sales people changed their pitch sometime in the 4 years between our presentations, maybe along about the time Cendant took over?


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte

mtngal said:
			
		

> I find your experience at a TW sales meeting very interesting.  I attended one in 1996, and at that one they were quite explicit that the 10,000 per 2 br. red week applied to all existing resorts - that the points for resorts already in the system couldn't change.  Nothing was ever said about point values for future resorts (to be fair, I never asked either).  So it looks like the sales people changed their pitch sometime in the 4 years between our presentations, maybe along about the time Cendant took over?


The first two presentations we went to were before Cendant acquired Sunterra.


----------



## PA-

mtngal said:
			
		

> I find your experience at a TW sales meeting very interesting.  I attended one in 1996, and at that one they were quite explicit that the 10,000 per 2 br. red week applied to all existing resorts - that the points for resorts already in the system couldn't change.  Nothing was ever said about point values for future resorts (to be fair, I never asked either).  So it looks like the sales people changed their pitch sometime in the 4 years between our presentations, maybe along about the time Cendant took over?



We're getting a bit off track.  It doesn't matter what the salespeople promised.  The requirement that credit assignments be based on RELATIVE USE-VALUE, rather than cost, is explicite.  It's in the declarations.  The board of directors has the ability and the responsibility to enforce it.  IT's in Trendwest's financial interests to ignore it.  Those are the facts, and I don't see how a reasonable person can argue with any of them.  Our board went on record saying that they will no longer honor that clause in the declarations.


----------



## BocaBum99

PA- said:
			
		

> We're getting a bit off track.  It doesn't matter what the salespeople promised.  The requirement that credit assignments be based on RELATIVE USE-VALUE, rather than cost, is explicite.  It's in the declarations.  The board of directors has the ability and the responsibility to enforce it.  IT's in Trendwest's financial interests to ignore it.  Those are the facts, and I don't see how a reasonable person can argue with any of them.  Our board went on record saying that they will no longer honor that clause in the declarations.



If that it true, then a lawsuit against the board should be assured victory.


----------



## roadsister

Again, with regard to San Diego example:

*There were no Worldmark resorts existing in San Diego to compare to for the RELATIVE-USE VALUE.* 

The spin on the wording in the documents is what our difference of opinion is based on.

And Boca, don't hold yur breath on that one


----------



## PA-

BocaBum99 said:
			
		

> If that it true, then a lawsuit against the board should be assured victory.



That would be one very expensive lawsuit.  Cendant would line up an army of lawyers against you.  Everybody talks about lawsuits, because they've heard so much about frivolous lawsuits that get big judgements.  But those are usually personal injury situations.  I'm not familiar with our legal system, and am trying to work within the framework of the existing rules.  however, I wouldn't complain if someone else wanted to try a different route.


----------



## timeos2

*It can be done but is it really what you want*



			
				PA- said:
			
		

> We're getting a bit off track.  It doesn't matter what the salespeople promised.  The requirement that credit assignments be based on RELATIVE USE-VALUE, rather than cost, is explicite.  It's in the declarations.  The board of directors has the ability and the responsibility to enforce it.  IT's in Trendwest's financial interests to ignore it.  Those are the facts, and I don't see how a reasonable person can argue with any of them.  Our board went on record saying that they will no longer honor that clause in the declarations.



If you believe that is critical then let them enforce it and forget about any new resorts being added. There was never any guarantee of new resorts at XX locations.  Then you have what you want.  Things, and the choice of resorts, will be as they were when the promise/plan was made and it will never change. I doubt thats really what the majority of members want. It sounds like they already did the vote and decided they would rather have new resorts even if they cost more points to use. If so thats the OWNERS choice and the Board can and should go along.  It sounds like you want magic pulled from a hat to have new resorts built for 1990 prices and use rates. Cannot be done. If they can even hold the old rate as the older resorts age they are doing a great job.  Decide whats more important. New resorts or a frozen points rate. They cannot do both.


----------



## PA-

roadsister said:
			
		

> Again, with regard to San Diego example:
> 
> *There were no Worldmark resorts existing in San Diego to compare to for the RELATIVE-USE VALUE.*
> 
> The spin on the wording in the documents is what our difference of opinion is based on.
> 
> And Boca, don't hold yur breath on that one



1)  You don't think a reasonable person would agree that an 80 year old hotel in Seattle, San Fran and San Diego that was converted to timeshare would be considered the same relative use value as each other?  If anything, you could easily assume that the San Fran location, with more amenities, might be considered of GREATER relative use value.  But let's not quibble about a few amenities, call them equal if you wish. But San Diego is 25% more credits!!!

2)  The actual interpretation of Relative Use Value doesn't even matter.  The board isn't saying that they see San Diego as having more use value than San Fran.  What they have come out and said is that they will no longer use Relative Use Value as the basis for assigning credits, but will instead use cost as the basis.  So don't worry about the wording, or the spin or whatever.  They've come out and said they will no longer comply with that clause (though in fact, they have disregarded it for some time).  

How do you feel about that?  Does that make you grateful that we have a Trendwest dominated board?  Your posts make me believe that you're ok with this.


----------



## PA-

timeos2 said:
			
		

> If you believe that is critical then let them enforce it and forget about any new resorts being added. There was never any guarantee of new resorts at XX locations.  Then you have what you want.  Things, and the choice of resorts, will be as they were when the promise/plan was made and it will never change. I doubt thats really what the majority of members want. It sounds like they already did the vote and decided they would rather have new resorts even if they cost more points to use. If so thats the OWNERS choice and the Board can and should go along.  It sounds like you want magic pulled from a hat to have new resorts built for 1990 prices and use rates. Cannot be done. If they can even hold the old rate as the older resorts age they are doing a great job.  Decide whats more important. New resorts or a frozen points rate. They cannot do both.



They can raise the price of credits to match Real Estate inflation, and sell the exact same number of points per condo as they always have.  That formula worked for the first 20 years or whatever.   You think Real Estate prices stayed constant during those 20 years?  Why, all of a sudden, do they need to scrap the whole premise?


----------



## myip

PA- said:
			
		

> They can raise the price of credits to match Real Estate inflation, and sell the exact same number of points per condo as they always have.  That formula worked for the first 20 years or whatever.   You think Real Estate prices stayed constant during those 20 years?  Why, all of a sudden, do they need to scrap the whole premise?


I don't think raising the price of credit will work because you need to sell a lot of  higher price credits to new wm owners inorder to support new development.  There are more old wm owners than new wm owners.  It will take a lot of time to build new resort.  Noone wins.  Old owner don't get more resort.  New owner has a higher buy-in price.


----------



## roadsister

Phillip,

First you say in a post:
“The requirement that credit assignments be based on RELATIVE USE-VALUE, rather than cost, is explicite. It's in the declarations. The board of directors has the ability and the responsibility to enforce it.”

Then you say in another post:
“The actual interpretation of Relative Use Value doesn't even matter.”

The exact wording you posted from the documents states:
Such allocation shall be based on the relative
use-value of the new Resort compared to existing Resorts, in
Declarant's reasonable discretion.

[Comment deleted]

The board polled owners on what THEY wanted and the majority have spoken – they were ok with using a few more points in exchange for resorts in high travel places.  The fact that either you or someone else didn’t want that is a moot point.  *The majority of owners spoke up and the board agreed.* 

Now, San Diego – don’t know what they were thinking on the credit value there, I’ll give ya that so let’s not keep beating that one to death….I think it was a mistake to bring that resort in that high.  Time will tell…
BUT THERE WERE NO OTHER RESORTS IN SAN DIEGO THAT WORLDMARK OWNED TO BASE THE RELATIVE USE ON!!!!!


----------



## cruisin

It seems that this is the fatal flaw in this points system, that is not held to relative use. I am new to timeshare, but have been trying to catch up fast. I am familiar with DVC. Disney points have gone up about 60% resell! since the beginning of old key west. New owners have to pay 60% more resell. and about 100% more through the developer to own points for the same room in old key west that the original owner did. this makes sense, that room is worth a lot more today. Should new owners to worldmark also pay more for what the rooms are worth today. If the board held trendwest to 10,000 credits for a 2 bedroom, then obviously credit rates would have to jump a lot. If people will not pay $3 a credit to join in, maybe worldmark has run its course. I love worldmark!! I would like to ask those of you with a longer history and more knowledge a question. What do you honestly think the future will be like for worldmark if Trendwest continually raises credit values while keeping the credit price low? Honestly, would it be better to stop now with what we have, or face the results of the smoke and mirror game being played by trendwest. I would really liike to know. Thanks


----------



## mtngal

deleted - off topic.


----------



## mtngal

*How much is a glass of water worth?*



			
				myip said:
			
		

> I don't think raising the price of credit will work because you need to sell a lot of  higher price credits to new wm owners inorder to support new development.



What is a glass of water worth?

An interesting question.  To a person lost for several days in a desert, a glass of water would be worth a whole lot - the difference between life and death ("my kingdom for a horse").  To someone who's hard at work in the hot sun, a fair amount but not the proverbial kingdom.  To someone sitting in their living room who's not particularly thirsty, not that much.  To someone who lives on an island in the middle of a large potable, good tasting fresh water lake, nothing (why pay for something that I can get by walking out my front door?).

So the question for those advocating that prices of credits be raised to cover all future construction costs - 

Question:  What is the cost of a credit?
Answer: Whatever someone is willing to pay for it.

Will that someone be willing to pay enough for that credit to cover the cost of today's construction rates?  I doubt it, having seen what construction costs these days.


----------



## cotraveller

I like new resorts and do not want to see expansion slowed, much less stopped.  And I prefer the newer fancier resorts such as the newer Las Vegas resort.  We have stayed numerous times at both Las Vegas resorts.  We prefer the new resort, just as most owners do, which is evidenced by the booking pattern.

Relative use value and the relative value of using the resorts is best judged by the owners using them.  In the case of Las Vegas which gives us a baseline for direct comparison the owners have spoken.  They prefer to spend more credits for a new resort even when a less expensive alternate is available.  The older smaller resort is being voted off the island.


----------



## BocaBum99

PA- said:
			
		

> That would be one very expensive lawsuit.  Cendant would line up an army of lawyers against you.  Everybody talks about lawsuits, because they've heard so much about frivolous lawsuits that get big judgements.  But those are usually personal injury situations.  I'm not familiar with our legal system, and am trying to work within the framework of the existing rules.  however, I wouldn't complain if someone else wanted to try a different route.



I agree.  In general, I am not in favor of legal strategies for solving business problems.

However, I do believe there is a provable theory of damages that would be atractive to a class action law firm based on actions such as the one you describe.  And, one of the remedies could be an independent board.

Not promoting the idea, I just believe its possible.


----------



## PerryM

*I’d ask the CEO of WM why our Business Plan isn’t working*

Well, there are many things wrong with WM and the relationship with TW but why don’t we just ask the CEO or a couple of vice presidents of WM why this is happening?

*I did, and here is his reply:

“_________________________“* (That's not an error, there isn't a reply)

Oh, did I forget to tell you that WM, a timeshare organization with $1,5000,000,000 in assets, 60+ resorts around the world, 230,000 WM owners and roughly equivalent to Marriott (not in quality) has:

*•	No CEO
•	No CFO
•	No Vice President of operations
•	No VP of owner relationships
•	No VP of human resources
•	No legal department
•	No middle management
•	No telephone operator
•	No one to turn the lights on or off at WM's missing headquarters*

*WM has NO EMPLOYEES* – Zero, zilch, nada, null set; could this be the root of this problem of a business plan- there is *no one at WM to follow a business plan!*

As a little experiment, jump in the car and go to the nearest country club – one with golf courses, swimming pools, tennis courts, etc.  Count how many folks work at the county club.  NOW MULTIPLY THAT BY 60!  That’s what WM should be approaching.

*This, to me, is the real problem behind what ails WM – we have NO employees to look out for our clubs and to represent us* – we have a WM BOD that meets once in a while and the hardest decision they make, when the actually get together, is “Chicken or Beef” for lunch.

Good grief, we are trying to find band-aid solutions to a broken arm!  We can address this problem of the violation of the “Theory of Equals” by TW all day long; we should be addressing the problem of hiring a CEO with a management team to fix these problems – these problems are to be fixed by them with guidance from a WM BOD.

I’ve got 10 more horrible things wrong with WM – they all need to be addressed by our CEO of WM and NOT the CEO of TW – the hired construction company and management company.

*So to answer the question of this thread: There is NO ONE to address the problem of WM’s business plan – I could care less what TW’s business plan is.*


----------



## PA-

myip said:
			
		

> I don't think raising the price of credit will work because you need to sell a lot of  higher price credits to new wm owners inorder to support new development.  There are more old wm owners than new wm owners.  It will take a lot of time to build new resort.  Noone wins.  Old owner don't get more resort.  New owner has a higher buy-in price.



20,000 credits at $2 = 10,000 credits at $4.  Trendwest makes the same money.  The new customer pays the same money.  No difference, except to the existing owners, who can no longer afford to stay in any of the new resorts.


----------



## PA-

roadsister said:
			
		

> ...The board polled owners on what THEY wanted and the majority have spoken – they were ok with using a few more points in exchange for resorts in high travel places.  The fact that either you or someone else didn’t want that is a moot point.  *The majority of owners spoke up and the board agreed.*
> 
> Now, San Diego – don’t know what they were thinking on the credit value there, I’ll give ya that so let’s not keep beating that one to death….I think it was a mistake to bring that resort in that high.  Time will tell…
> BUT THERE WERE NO OTHER RESORTS IN SAN DIEGO THAT WORLDMARK OWNED TO BASE THE RELATIVE USE ON!!!!!



The poll asked if you would approve of higher credit values in specific situations to get resorts with great appeal.  It didn't ask if you would approve higher than traditional credit values on every new resort.  Further, I didn't see the results of the poll.  If the majority of owners want to scrap the traditional model, put that change in the declaration on the ballot and let the owner's vote.

As for no other resorts in San Diego, you don't have to have another resort in the same location to determine relative use value.  You could determine that urban locations have one use value, beachfront another, etc.  Any logical basis Trendwest comes up with could be debated.  However, that isn't the point here; the board has stated that Relative use value won't be used anymore.


----------



## PA-

cotraveller said:
			
		

> I like new resorts and do not want to see expansion slowed, much less stopped.  And I prefer the newer fancier resorts such as the newer Las Vegas resort.  We have stayed numerous times at both Las Vegas resorts.  We prefer the new resort, just as most owners do, which is evidenced by the booking pattern.
> 
> Relative use value and the relative value of using the resorts is best judged by the owners using them.  In the case of Las Vegas which gives us a baseline for direct comparison the owners have spoken.  They prefer to spend more credits for a new resort even when a less expensive alternate is available.  The older smaller resort is being voted off the island.



I love new resorts.  In the case of LV, perhaps it could be argued that the new resort has higher use value, because of better amenities or location.  However, there will be occassions where the older resorts, like Depoe Bay, Southshore or whatever, will have more demand than new resorts brought on line.  It's ridiculous to use today's costs to value credit assignments (rather than credit prices), especially if you don't compare them to the inflation adjusted prices of the previous resorts.

By doing that, you wind up with absurd anomolies. For example, a 1 bdroom in San DIego costs more than a 3 bedroom on Maui.  Where do you think the demand is greater.  You wind up with a 2bedroom at Depoe Bay costing less than a studio at San Diego.


----------



## PerryM

*Here's a pole///poll in your eye*

Polling the WM membership is like polling them for their thoughts on Quantum Mechanics  – its way over their heads.

I can cook up a poll to and get the answer I want:

Should WM keep adding new resorts for you to use?
A)	Yes
B)	No

Should WM build in very desirable locations around the world?
A)	Yes
B)	No

Should WM build 5-star resorts instead of Motel 6 quality resorts?
A)	Yes
B)	NO

Would you pay more credits to stay at a 5-star, new resort, in a very desirable location?
A)	Yes
B)	No

Who wouldn't answer A to the pole////poll.

Who couldn’t cook up a survey that was predisposed to getting the answer “Yes, TW sock it to me – charge me any number of credits you want”.


The poll should have read:

Is TW guilty of violating the “Theory of Equals” by not charging $3.00 per WM credit (to new owners) and building Marriott quality resorts like the numbers prove they should – thus allowing 10,000 WM credits bought back in 1990 should have the owner staying at Marriott quality resorts in the heart of the action at a super location now.

A)	Yes – TW cheated by not charging the $3.00 for Marriott quality resorts to new owners
B)	No – I believe everything TW says just like I believe everything their salesreps say at the 90-minute sales tour - what's the difference?

Gee, this is fun.

P.S.
How could I forget the population to sample?  I'm sure TW sent the pole///poll to WM owners who have bought retail and have the "Right mind" for TW.  I certainly would select a population that was very receptive to TW's way of doing business.

I wonder how the poll would do if TW ran it here on TUG?  How about it TW, have someone run the poll here and ask the same question.  Make my day.


----------



## cruisin

• No CEO
• No CFO
• No Vice President of operations
• No VP of owner relationships
• No VP of human resources
• No legal department
• No middle management
• No telephone operator
• No one to turn the lights on or off at WM's missing headquarters

 Wow Perry!! I really did not know what I was signing up for when I joined worldmark!!


----------



## PerryM

*Putt putt golf should be our shining example...*

Cruisin,

The relationship between TW (TrendWest) and WM (WorldMark) is someday going to be a case study at some MBA schools – “The Billion Dollar Hollow Company”.

WM has long ago outgrown the need to have the hired construction company (TW) do absolutely everything for them.  When TW/WM started TW was the construction company that built resorts and paid cash for them and then gave them to WM to operate.  Right now WM has all the deeds, paid in full, in a Master Trust that you buy a small fraction of when you buy WM credits.  TW gets to sell the WM credits for what ever it can get.

However, 10 years ago the need for WM to have employees should have been promoted by the WM BOD – unfortunately that’s run by TW flunkies who work for TW and have little interest in WM.

WM needs to grow up and acknowledge that the $1.5 B in real estate they own comes with responsibilities to the owners that can’t be pawned off to the hired construction company.

Sadly, this fact never occurs to the WM BOD and apparently 99.999% of the WM owners.  They think that the folks answering the phones and running the computers and managing the 60 WM resorts are WM employees – they are 100% wrong – they are the hired management company TW (Funny how TW builds and then maintains the same units)

The #1 priority of WM should be to take the maintenance fees we collect and pay for our own management team instead of making TW’s stockholders richer.  There are 2 Billion WM credits outstanding each paying about 4¢ in annual MFs or $80 M in MFs that ALL go to our hired management company TW.  We can afford to hire the best management team in the industry to look out for our interests - we just take the money for our own use.

Heck even my local Putt-Putt golf course has a manager and a “Greens keeper” – WM isn’t even in that league – that’s how crazy this has gotten!


----------



## cruisin

PERRY

Love the Putt-Putt example!! It rightly reflects how silly it is for the owner of $1.5B in real estate "using your #s"  to not have even 1 employee. UNBELIEVABLE!!!................but evidently true!


----------



## PA-

The Homeowner's association where I live also has no paid employees; just committees of owner's to advise, along with a competent management company.  This is how Worldmark was originally set up.  There are, however, a few very important differences.

1)  My HOA doesn't actually own all the houses in my subdivision, unlike Worldmark, which does.  So Worldmark may indeed warrant some paid employees, and definately paid consultants independent of Trendwest to advise them.  Will that raise the costs?  No, we're currently paying Trendwest for everything that's done.

2)  My HOA has absolute control over the managment company.  

3)  The Board of Directors of my HOA have no ties with the management company.  They are all homeowners, but none are employed by the management company.  That would NOT be allowed.

4)  None of the homeowners that I'm aware of have any reason to mistrust the management company.  I'm not aware of any improprieties that have ever been alleged.

When we finally boot out the Trendwest influenced board members on the Worldmark board, I cringe to think what we'll find when we start turning over all the rocks.  As hard as they try to hide their misdeeds, just think what we'll find when we have an opportunity to push for full disclosure.


----------



## ragtop

Phil, can you quote the board minutes on the point of saying the governing documents won't be honored?  The term relative use value seems so ambiguous to me that it could mean almost anything - such as San Diego has a higher relative use value because it costs more etc.  It would help to know exactly what the board said about this subject.


----------



## PA-

ragtop said:
			
		

> Phil, can you quote the board minutes on the point of saying the governing documents won't be honored?  The term relative use value seems so ambiguous to me that it could mean almost anything - such as San Diego has a higher relative use value because it costs more etc.  It would help to know exactly what the board said about this subject.



The minutes aren't published, and the minutes are always extremely incomplete, so you won't find this in the minutes.  If you want to hear it straight from the board, just email them.  I did.

As for relative use; yes, it can be interpreted differently by different people.  If the board feels that Trendwest is taking advantage of that ambiguity, they can refuse to sign a declaration for a given property.

At any rate, it doesn't matter how ambiguous it is, they've said they won't be bound by that clause of the declaration.  And no, I don't believe any reasonable person can contend that higher cost adds use-value to a stay.  That's like saying 2 completely identical units that different amounts have different use-value.


----------



## cotraveller

PA- said:
			
		

> I love new resorts.  In the case of LV, perhaps it could be argued that the new resort has higher use value, because of better amenities or location.  However, there will be occassions where the older resorts, like Depoe Bay, Southshore or whatever, will have more demand than new resorts brought on line.  It's ridiculous to use today's costs to value credit assignments (rather than credit prices), especially if you don't compare them to the inflation adjusted prices of the previous resorts.
> 
> By doing that, you wind up with absurd anomolies. For example, a 1 bdroom in San DIego costs more than a 3 bedroom on Maui.  Where do you think the demand is greater.  You wind up with a 2bedroom at Depoe Bay costing less than a studio at San Diego.



Ridiculous?  Absurd??  What is ridiculous and absurd is to try to talk about WorldMark as completely independent; as if Trendwest did not exist.  WorldMark is a developer driven system and the developer is Trendwest.  Worldmark and Trendwest are physically and legally intertwined.  The Vacation Program Agreement grants exclusive WordlMark development rights to Trendwest, including the right to place new resorts in the WorldMark system and the WorldMark Articles of Incorporation defines the primary purpose of WorldMark to be to operate those resorts.

To consider WorldMark without recognizing their relationship with Trendwest is as absurd and ridiculous as  considering Chevrolet without recognizing their relationship to General Motors.  Just as it is Chevrolet by General Motors or Horizons by Marriott or Miracle Whip by Kraft, it is WorldMark by Trendwest.  That was true in their beginnings and it is true today.  Some may not like the relationship but it is a relationship backed up by legal reality.


----------



## BocaBum99

cotraveller said:
			
		

> To consider WorldMark without recognizing their relationship with Trendwest is as absurd and ridiculous as  considering Chevrolet without recognizing their relationship to General Motors.  Just as it is Chevrolet by General Motors or Horizons by Marriott or Miracle Whip by Kraft, it is WorldMark by Trendwest.  That was true in their beginnings and it is true today.  Some may not like the relationship but it is a relationship backed up by legal reality.



So, you believe that WorldMark is a brand owned by Wyndham?  I don't think that is legally correct.


----------



## ragtop

PA- said:
			
		

> The minutes aren't published, and the minutes are always extremely incomplete, so you won't find this in the minutes.  If you want to hear it straight from the board, just email them.  I did.



Is there a place where you've posted the email you got back?

I'm not trying to argue with you; just to understand the written record of what you say the Board has actually decided.


----------



## cruisin

QUOTE

Originally Posted by cotraveller
To consider WorldMark without recognizing their relationship with Trendwest is as absurd and ridiculous as considering Chevrolet without recognizing their relationship to General Motors. Just as it is Chevrolet by General Motors or Horizons by Marriott or Miracle Whip by Kraft, it is WorldMark by Trendwest. That was true in their beginnings and it is true today. Some may not like the relationship but it is a relationship backed up by legal reality.                       _________________________________________________________________

It certainly is BOARD OF WORLDMARK by Trendwest!  I applaud all who are trying to make it better for the owners. Is there anyone associated with WorldMark the "club" that looks out for WorldMark owners? Obviously our millions of dollars in "club" dues each year cant even employ us 1 person! I looked up the word "club" in the dictionary:: a heavy stick, usually thicker at one end than at the other, suitable for use as a weapon; a cudgel: We pay trendwest millions, they can afford one whopper of a "club"!


----------



## PA-

ragtop said:
			
		

> Is there a place where you've posted the email you got back?
> 
> I'm not trying to argue with you; just to understand the written record of what you say the Board has actually decided.



I emailed the board members and received a reply via email.  I'll ask them for permission to post that reply, but I won't do so without permission.  Why don't you email the 5 board members and simply ask them if they've conceded that they will no longer use Relative Use Value as the criteria for assigning credit values?


----------



## PerryM

*TW; remember the Edsel?*

I love the analogy of the car dealership – take the Edsel for example: http://www.edsel.com/pages/edsel60.htm now here is a shining example of how the developer knew more than the car dealerships or consumers.

How about in the 1980’s when GM decided to just stamp all their brands like, Chevy, Oldsmobile (There’s a blast from the past), Pontiac, etc from the same molds – they were identical except for the name plate and hood ornament.  Once again a belligerent developer didn’t listen to their customers or dealerships.

*TW has it’s own Edsels  - the Midwest WM resorts* – they are ghost towns – no one from the east and west coast want to visit cornfield resorts and folks in the Midwest want to vacation on the east and west coast.

*When a relationship exists, mutual respect makes the relationship work* – *TW is a war with WM *– how else do you explain NO EMPLOYEES in WM and NO say so in the operations of WM resorts.

*The TW salesrep that tells Whoppers to Ma and Pa on a sales tour is the same TW organization that built the Midwest WM resorts and abandoned Florida as a place to expand and cover the eastern seaboard.*

*It’s time WM started wagging the dog* – we have absolute control over TW if we want to – they know it and perpetually keep WM owners “Dumbed down” – just visit the “Official” TW web site and try to post the truth over there – TW employees and TW lackeys censor the truth and substitute TW salesrep truth – we all know what that means, lies, distortions, misinformation – anything to sell more WM credits to anybody via that web site.

*Right now TW is a monopoly to WM and that needs to change – a management team who’s fiduciary responsibility is to WM owners needs to start that change*. 

Conclusion:
Just as the car manufactures didn’t listen to their customers and let the foreign car manufactures trample them so must TW heed the same stirrings of WM The Club - or face the same type of consequences.

P.S.
I don't know about you, but a 5 year moratorium in building new WM resorts feels good to me - the WM BOD would just reject every new resort for 5 years - then we can talk about hiring a WM management team.  I could live with the 60+ WM resorts for the next 5 years - after that maybe dumping the sole construction contractor to open bidding might make more sense.

Cruisin,

I love your definition of WM the “Club” – I’m going to adopt that definition from now on; “a heavy stick, usually thicker at one end than at the other, suitable for use as a weapon”  you made my day


----------



## PA-

cotraveller said:
			
		

> Ridiculous?  Absurd??  What is ridiculous and absurd is to try to talk about WorldMark as completely independent; as if Trendwest did not exist.  WorldMark is a developer driven system and the developer is Trendwest.  Worldmark and Trendwest are physically and legally intertwined.  The Vacation Program Agreement grants exclusive WordlMark development rights to Trendwest, including the right to place new resorts in the WorldMark system and the WorldMark Articles of Incorporation defines the primary purpose of WorldMark to be to operate those resorts.
> 
> To consider WorldMark without recognizing their relationship with Trendwest is as absurd and ridiculous as  considering Chevrolet without recognizing their relationship to General Motors.  Just as it is Chevrolet by General Motors or Horizons by Marriott or Miracle Whip by Kraft, it is WorldMark by Trendwest.  That was true in their beginnings and it is true today.  Some may not like the relationship but it is a relationship backed up by legal reality.



If GM goes bankrupt, and the assets seized by creditors, what would happen to Chevrolet?  It would be no more.

If Trendwest (aka Wyndhamvo) goes bankrupt and their assets siezed, what would happen to Worldmark?  It would hire a new management company and make other arrangements for building resorts and selling credits, and go on with business as usual.

You see Fred, Trendwest doesn't own Worldmark.  Did you know that we operate on a 1 year contract for Trendwest's management services and the club can get rid of them anytime they elect to not renew the contract?  That's specifically stated in the management agreement, as quoted below:

*4.3 Notice of Nonrenewal. The Club may prevent automatic renewal by the
vote or written assent of a majority of t h e Voting Power residing in Members
other than Declarant and providing written notice of nonrenewal to Manager at least sixty (60) days prior to expiration of the then current term.
4.4 Termination. This Agreement may be terminated for cause at any time
prior to expiration, provided that, if the cause constitutes a breach or default
of this Agreement which is capable of being cured, such breach or default shall not have been cured within 30 days following receipt by Manager of written notice of such breach or default. If Manager shall dispute a termination by the Club pursuant to this paragraph, the dispute may, at Manager's option, be submitted to arbitration i n accordance with the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association.*

Section 4.3 requires no cause.  In other words, we can fire them for no reason if the owners wish to.  As for 4.4, I believe that failure to adhere to the "relative use-value" clause would constitute cause.  I also believe that the TOT kickback scheme would constitute cause.  Those are my opinions, but section 4.3 is there in black and white.

As for developing resorts, there is nothing in the bylaws that would prohibit Worldmark from contracting with another developer.  Also, Worldmark isn't obligated to accept any property from Trendwest.  Here is a quote from the Declaration of Vacation Owner Program:

*8. ANNEXATION OF PROPERTY  The property may be enlarged to include an unlimited number of units, although neither Declarant nor Club is obligated to develop or annex any additional property.*

Fred, when dealing with people that work for Timeshare companies (which unfortunately includes the majority of our worldmark board), it's best to disregard what they say, and instead rely on what's in writing.


----------



## PerryM

*Made my day!!!*

Cruisin and PA - you just made my day - this will have me smiling and humming all day long :whoopie: 

Great points!


----------



## PA-

PA- said:
			
		

> ....If Trendwest (aka Wyndhamvo) goes bankrupt and their assets siezed, what would happen to Worldmark?  It would hire a new management company and make other arrangements for building resorts and selling credits, and go on with business as usual.
> .....



Actually, it gets worse.  My quote above is what SHOULD happen in the event Trendwest goes bankrupt.  Unfortunately, due to the sloppy manner in which Trendwest has conveyed property and mixed Worldmark assets with Trendwest assets, a savvy bankrupt attorney could quite possibly seize Worldmark property if Trendwest were to go bankrupt.  Worldmark may not legally hold title to some or most of the resorts we think we own.  I've warned the board about all the irregularities, but they seem completely unconcerned.

Think the odds of Trendwest or Cendant going bankrupt are remote?  Think PanAm, Enron, WorldCom, ....


----------



## mtngal

PerryM said:
			
		

> *When a relationship exists, mutual respect makes the relationship work* – *TW is a war with WM *



It sure seems to me that a few very loud owners are at war with Trendwest, not the other way around.

And all this concerns me very deeply.  I feel like I'm living in a scene from the movie Holiday Inn - guess which one.  If WorldMark is so screwed up for all of you - why don't you sell and buy somewhere else?


----------



## PerryM

*A simple solution awaits us...*

Mtngal,

Why should the WM owner, who disagrees with the hired construction contractor, have to bend over and take it?

Why should the WM owner, who disagrees with the hired management company, have to bend over and take it?

Seems like this is bass ackwards – the hired construction company and management company needs to have accountability to the WM owners – that is not the status quo today.  We need competition to solve these problems and NOT WM owners leaving.

When did the WM owners decide to turn over our Club to the hired help?

Why should we not have a fully staffed management team and take that responsibility from TW?

Why should we not do the planning for future resorts?

Why should we not establish the Credits calendar (Red, White, and Blue season)

Why should we not be the masters of our own Club?

Why not open the management contract to multiple vendors instead of just TW?

Of course, the answer is we should do all the above and as quickly as possible.

Why should I have to change when a simple “Readjustment” is all that is necessary to take back our Club from the hired help.

I am simply asking for market pressures to solve what is now monopolistic abuses.


----------



## cruisin

QUOTE 

originally posted by Mtngal

"It sure seems to me that a few very loud owners are at war with Trendwest, not the other way around.

And all this concerns me very deeply. I feel like I'm living in a scene from the movie Holiday Inn - guess which one. If WorldMark is so screwed up for all of you - why don't you sell and buy somewhere else? "                                     
_________________________________________________________________

At war with Trendwest/ If Worldmark is so screwed up?  Trendwest and Worldmark should not be used interchangeably. I love Worldmark, I hate what Trendwest is systematically doing to it. It may take many years for Trendwest to make Worldmark worth getting rid of, but until then, I am hoping that owners will fight to keep what everyone loves about Worldmark.  Are there any owners out there that really dislike Worldmark?


----------



## cotraveller

It seems that quoting the governing documents is the thing to do. Everyone quotes their favorites and ignores others.  Here are a couple of quotes from the Vacation Program Agreement. This is one of the very top level documents in the legal structure that governs WorldMark and Trendwest. In these quotes Declarant refers to Trendwest Resorts, Inc. and Club refers to WorldMark, the Club. 

Section 2.2 of the Vacation Owner Agreement reads as follows:
*2.2 Future Phases. Declarant and Club hereby agree that Declarant shall have the exclusive right to add an unlimited amount of additional Property to the Vacation Owner Program, subject to the provisions contained in Section 8 of the Declaration; provided, however, that nothing contained in this instrument or in any other instrument shall obligate Declarant to annex additional Property into the Vacation Owner Program. With each transfer of Property to Club, this Agreement shall be deemed amended to include such Property and the security for Club?s obligations under this Agreement shall be provided or amended as required by Section 4 below.*

Further, Section 3.1 reads:
*3.1 Declaration. Club, as the legal owner or ultimate lessee of the Property in the Program and subject to the provisions of Section 8 of the Declaration, hereby agrees to execute and join in a Declaration of Vacation Owner Program or a Declaration of Annexation imposing upon all of the property in the Club (including, but not limited to any additional Units purchased by Declarant and conveyed to Club) the mutual and beneficial restrictions, covenants and conditions of the Program.*

Those two statements are very clear. Section 2.2 says that Trendwest has the exclusive right to add additional units and resorts to the WorldMark. Not that they might be able to do that, not that they are required to do that, not that anyone else has to approve that addition, but that Trendwest and Trendwest alone shall have that right.

Section 3.1 says that WorldMark agrees to execute and join in a Declaration for those new units and resorts. It doesn't say that if WorldMark likes the new resort or if the owners approve of the new resort that they will sign the Declaration for the new resort. It states that WorldMark agrees to execute and join in a Declaration for the new resort.

If, as some have suggested, WorldMark were to refuse to sign the Declaration for a new resort they would be in legal violation of the terms contained in the Vacation Program Agreement.  Or if, also as some have suggested, WorldMark hired a different developer  to build a new resort they would again be in legal violation of the terms contained in the Vacation Program Agreement. 

The protections provided by the governing documents have been referred to from time to time.  That works both ways.  Those documents provide very significant protection for Trendwest in terms of the rights they have.

Trendwest at war with WorldMark?  Hardly.  It is in Trendwest's best interest to maintain WorldMark as a top rated timeshare organization.  That makes sales much easier.   What mtngal said is closer.  A few owners and even some who are not owners appear to be at war with Trendwest.  It's a symptom of the anti-developer attitude.  

As for the names WorldMark and Trendwest being used interchangeably, if you journey outside the world of the forums, outside the war zone, you will find that is very common.  Technically Worldmark is not "owned" by Trendwest but most owners do not recognize the difference.  Perhaps the relationship between WorldMark and Trendwest would be better defined as a marriage.  While it might be possible to divorce the two from each other, as is often the case it would be a bitter and ugly separation with no winner.  WorldMark would lose, Trendwest would lose, and most of all the owners would lose.


----------



## PerryM

*Reality check!*

I’ll let the lawyers decipher the small print.

To say that TW is looking out for the best interests of WM is to ignore reality.  TW makes blunder after blunder, violates state law and pays millions in damages/fines and WM should be happy TW hasn’t hurt us more?

*WM needs a management team to represent 230,000 WM owners* and NOT the slick salesreps who have trouble telling “Less than the honest truth”.  This is the basic underlying problem with the current relationship and the WM BOD has that authority to demand a CEO be hired to run and manage WM for the benefit of the WM owners.

TW has it’s own addenda and if anyone here thinks that their stockholders are going to play second fiddle to WM owners they just don’t understand how capitalism works.

That’s the fundamental flaw of the existing relationship of TW (or whatever it’s called tomorrow) to WM – WM is far down the list of considerations that matter to TW.


----------



## cotraveller

Deleted-duplicate post


----------



## cotraveller

Reality check - I agree.  Despite all the problems that some moan and moan about, the reality is that WorldMark, by Trendwest,   remains one of the top timeshare organizations.  WM moaners helping WM moaners?  That seems to be the theme.  The anti-developer syndrome in it's prime.

There is a management team.  There is a business plan.  It's the team and the plan that brougt WorldMark from nothing to the 60 plus resort system it is now.  A system with top rated resorts, low maintenance fees, top trading power, and except or a very small minority, highly satisfied owners. The sky is not falling, the world is not coming tumbling down.


----------



## PerryM

*TW and WM are competitors!*

*Taking the same kind of folks who staff the TW Sales Gallery and calling them a WM Management Team is NOT my idea of folks who have the best interests of WM at heart.*  It just leads to the same distorted view of the world as the developer has – one that does NOT result in decisions which benefit anyone but the TW stockholder.

A prime example of this attitude is the guilty verdict a California jury brought in against TW for violation of California and Federal law – the fines and penalties were in the millions –  this is the Management Team that should represent 230,000 WM owners?  This is the shining example of a owner oriented Management Company that will defend WM owner’s rights and privileges?  I think not.

I know I can't say we have an Ex-Con running WM, but just what do you call this guilty verdict?  If this does not give you pause for concern, then we deserve exactly what we are now getting.

*The MAIN problem is that WM and TW are competitors!*  TW sells a product (WM credits) for $1.80 each in the sales gallery and 230,000 WM owners can sell the same identical product for 70¢ a WM credit (Resale).  We should believe that TW has our best interests at heart?  I think not.

The reason the founding fathers of TW and WM made two separate organizations is to separate the sales side from the operational side.  Once TW purchases/develops a resort and then turns that new property over to WM 100% paid off, it then gets to sell those WM credits for any amount of money it can extort out of Ma and Pa in that sales office.

That’s where TW’s ownership ends – WM then takes over and manages the resorts.  *The problem is that we have NO EMPLOYEES to do this*.  We, instead, ask the slick salesreps to run our club for us – this is insanity.

Our existing WM BOD is comprised of TW employees – hello, anyone smell a competitor running our organization?

It is insanity for WM to have NO EMPLOYEES and for the WM BOD to be staffed by TW employees – this is a conflict of interests that needs to be addressed.

Conclusion:
*TW and WM are competitors*; TW has the best interests of their stockholders at heart and treat WM like they would any competitor who could sell the same exact product at 1/2 the price.  Anyone not realizing that this leads to horrific problems for WM just is looking at these problems from TW’s sales point of view – all is fine in TW land.

This is all very easy to prove - just set up an account on the "Official" TW (Not WM) web site at http://forums.trendwest.com/ubb-threads/ubbthreads.php and use the word *RESALE* and watch the TW lackeys redact your post - this is all the proof you need that TW and WM are indeed competitors.  We all know how one competitor treats another competitor - it's not in a fiduciary manner which a real WM Management Team would act.

That TW web site is just a sales extension of TW’s sales gallery – so is the “Management Team” they now pawn off on us.


----------



## RichM

cotraveller said:
			
		

> It seems that quoting the governing documents is the thing to do. Everyone quotes their favorites and ignores others.  Here are a couple of quotes from the Vacation Program Agreement. This is one of the very top level documents in the legal structure that governs WorldMark and Trendwest. In these quotes Declarant refers to Trendwest Resorts, Inc. and Club refers to WorldMark, the Club.



Yes, and you picked your favorite section, but ignored one key point within it.



			
				cotraveller said:
			
		

> Section 2.2 of the Vacation Owner Agreement reads as follows:
> *2.2 Future Phases. Declarant and Club hereby agree that Declarant shall have the exclusive right to add an unlimited amount of additional Property to the Vacation Owner Program, subject to the provisions contained in Section 8 of the Declaration; provided, however, that nothing contained in this instrument or in any other instrument shall obligate Declarant to annex additional Property into the Vacation Owner Program. With each transfer of Property to Club, this Agreement shall be deemed amended to include such Property and the security for Club?s obligations under this Agreement shall be provided or amended as required by Section 4 below.*
> 
> Further, Section 3.1 reads:
> *3.1 Declaration. Club, as the legal owner or ultimate lessee of the Property in the Program and subject to the provisions of Section 8 of the Declaration, hereby agrees to execute and join in a Declaration of Vacation Owner Program or a Declaration of Annexation imposing upon all of the property in the Club (including, but not limited to any additional Units purchased by Declarant and conveyed to Club) the mutual and beneficial restrictions, covenants and conditions of the Program.*
> 
> Those two statements are very clear. Section 2.2 says that Trendwest has the exclusive right to add additional units and resorts to the WorldMark. Not that they might be able to do that, not that they are required to do that, not that anyone else has to approve that addition, but that Trendwest and Trendwest alone shall have that right.



Yep, 2.2 says that TW has the exclusive right to add more units.. Nope, Mariott can't, Sunterra can't, Disney can't, etc.. However, you skipped the little part right after it: "subject to the provisions contained in Section 8 of the Declaration".  If you go back in this thread a bit, you'll find Section 8 quoted and it says, "The property may be enlarged to include an unlimited number of units, although *neither Declarant nor Club is obligated to develop or annex any additional property.*"

Basically 2.2 grants TW exclusivity as a developer, to offer up new properties to WM, but, subject to Section 8's non-obligation clause, WM is NOT obligated to simply accept anything they offer.




			
				cotraveller said:
			
		

> Section 3.1 says that WorldMark agrees to execute and join in a Declaration for those new units and resorts. It doesn't say that if WorldMark likes the new resort or if the owners approve of the new resort that they will sign the Declaration for the new resort. It states that WorldMark agrees to execute and join in a Declaration for the new resort.



Oops.. there's that pesky, "subject to the provisions of Section 8 of the Declaration" part again.   Basically all 3.1 means is that for any new properties that WorldMark decides to accept into the Club, they agree to execute another one of these Declarations.  Since it also references Section 8, that doesn't mean they are just blindly forced to sign any Declaration put in front of them.



			
				cotraveller said:
			
		

> If, as some have suggested, WorldMark were to refuse to sign the Declaration for a new resort they would be in legal violation of the terms contained in the Vacation Program Agreement.  Or if, also as some have suggested, WorldMark hired a different developer  to build a new resort they would again be in legal violation of the terms contained in the Vacation Program Agreement.



Nope, they'd simply be exercising their rights under Section 8.




			
				cotraveller said:
			
		

> The protections provided by the governing documents have been referred to from time to time.  That works both ways.  Those documents provide very significant protection for Trendwest in terms of the rights they have.



And, in the same manner, make it so that WorldMark doesn't simply have to accept whatever TW tries to dump on them.




___________________
WorldMark Owners' Community -      
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




      - www.wmowners.com


----------



## PerryM

*We need a moratorium on new acquisitions!*

RichM,

Thanks for the translation – I knew there was another side to the story but TW’s.

I think the first order of business for a WM owner controlled BOD is a 5 year moratorium on new acquisitions – 60+ are just fine now and until we hire a CEO and a management team we don’t need to add anymore cornfield resorts.

I'd venture to guess our resale price might actually go up instead of the past 3 years decline from 80¢ to 70¢ while TW's sale price increased from $1.55 to $1.80 - the resale market is shouting at us that all is not right in TW/WM land.


----------



## cruisin

Perry said, "

Taking the same kind of folks who staff the TW Sales Gallery and calling them a WM Management Team is NOT my idea of folks who have the best interests of WM at heart." 
_________________________________________________________________

Right on about MANAGEMENT TEAM! Its the other part that scares me. THEY HAVE A BUSINESS PLAN. TW has a plan! I am sure that they will not share their plan with us, so we can only go by how they execute it. By their actions, can anyone really believe that Trendwest thinks of our club as a part of that plan. Worldmark is certainly a tool "club" being used to execute the plan. I agree with cotraveller that owners are really pleased with Worldmark, but in regards to Trendwest, I think Stockholm syndrome has set in for many WM owners. 

:Stockholm syndrome is a psychological response sometimes seen in an abducted hostage, in which the hostage exhibits loyalty to the hostage-taker, in spite of the danger (or at least risk) in which the hostage has been placed.:

See the danger...........


----------



## PA-

cotraveller said:
			
		

> ....Everyone quotes their favorites and ignores others.  Here are a couple of quotes from the Vacation Program Agreement. .....



Sorry, Fred, I didn't feel it would add anything to quote the 2 sections you did, since BOTH of them specifically are limited by section 8, which I did quote.  Section 8, you might remember, says the club is not obliged to annex anything.  Go back and read the 2 sections you quoted, you'll find that they both are limited by section 8.


----------



## ragtop

PA- said:
			
		

> I emailed the board members and received a reply via email.  I'll ask them for permission to post that reply, but I won't do so without permission.  Why don't you email the 5 board members and simply ask them if they've conceded that they will no longer use Relative Use Value as the criteria for assigning credit values?



One might be skeptical that the WM BOD actually said it will disregard a key clause in the governing documents.  Since you say they said that, it would behoove you to post their actual words, Phil, so all TUG readers can judge for themselves.


----------



## PA-

ragtop said:
			
		

> One might be skeptical that the WM BOD actually said it will disregard a key clause in the governing documents.  Since you say they said that, it would behoove you to post their actual words, Phil, so all TUG readers can judge for themselves.




OK, I'm meeting with John Henley today, I'll ask him.  But even if not, you can ask them yourself or anyone who attended that board meeting (Jim Pappas, Gil Bellamy, Nena Gray).  It will be next week before I can post the email if I get permission, I'm in Seattle for the Worldmark board meeting.


----------



## mtngal

Thank you, Perry, for bringing everything in into focus.  I really appreciate your honesty in cutting through all the rhetoric in this and threads on other boards recently.  You’ve finally brought it all together and shown what this is *really* about.

Is it about better resorts?  No.  Is it about providing great vacations for owners?  No.

It’s all about *RESALES!*  This whole thing is about the price of resales and some body making more money.

It’s about several individuals being in competition with Trendwest, not with whether Trendwest has built good resorts for WorldMark, or whether WorldMark offers the vacationer good value.

On the one hand your post laments Trendwest raising their prices while the resale market has dropped, but on the other hand, there are others calling for Trendwest to raise their points even more to “cover the cost of new construction.”  That call isn’t about being fair or providing a better product, it’s about shutting down Trendwest so that the only ones selling credits are the resellers.  No wonder no one responded to my glass of water analogy – that’s exactly their point.  They want all of us to be that guy lost in the desert, so their profit margins increase.

I have no problem with someone buying and selling memberships.  I never have, never will.  I have no problem with someone wanting to increase their bottom line.  However, I DO have a problem when someone’s bottom line comes in conflict with MY bottom line.

What is MY bottom line?   To have a great vacation.  My highest priority is to have all kinds of places to go where I can have a good time and take lots of pretty pictures.  Calling for a building moratorium, trying to kick Trendwest out, and so on, seems to me to directly threatens MY bottom line.  So don’t be surprised if I take exception to what I see as a sure way to drive WorldMark, the Club, into the ground just to improve someone else’s bottom line.

My previous post mentioned that I felt like I was in a scene from the movie Holiday Inn.  It was a far better analogy than I had originally thought – the whole situation is parallel.  I just hope that the outcome for WorldMark has as happy an ending.


----------



## RichM

Personally, I don't care what the resale price is and it has no bearing on my disappointment with the possibility of all future resorts having higher credit values than what seemed to be the model for the Club since inception.

If you truly want "all kinds of places to go", then it would seem you might care about this issue, also, unless you plan to continually upgrade your account size to keep up with rising credit values, otherwise we'll be stuck with dwindling availability at the existing lower-cost resorts.


___________________
WorldMark Owners' Community -      
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




      - www.wmowners.com


----------



## cotraveller

The spin and moan continues.  Read that section 8 again that everyone here seems hard over about.

*neither Declarant nor Club is obligated to develop or annex any additional property.*

WorldMark has never developed any property nor have they annexed any property.  As stated in the Vacation Program Agreement those functions have been preformed by Trendwest.  Trendwest places those properies in the WorldMark system which is a right they are guaranteed by that agreement.   The founders knew what they were doing, that guarantee is solid.

You want to promote capitalism which is another theme that occurs here from time to time?  Capitalism does not allow for you to take control of something that others have built up into a successful venture just because you don't like the way they do things.  If you want to take control, raise the captial it takes to do that and buy them out.  That's the capitalistic way.


----------



## BocaBum99

My view on this subject is as follows.  Trendwest operates just like every other timeshare developer of a multi-site timesharing plan.  They build or acquire timeshare resorts and put them into a trust so that accommodations are available via a reservation system.

Their business model requires them to have 50% sales and marketing costs, so they need to find ways for consumers to buy from them without fully evaluating their alternatives.

As a result, there is a huge disconnect between developer prices and resale prices.  So, the resort developer needs to take actions that enable continued sales.  Part of it requires them to implement developer only features such as VIP programs along with propaganda campaigns meant to put fear, uncertainty and doubt as to the viability of a resale purchase.

So, WorldMark and Trendwest are just acting in a business as usual situation for timesharing.  This has worked for many years even though the industry is subsidized by the vast majority who originally bought from the developer.

One of the natural outcomes of this business model is that the resort developer attacks the existing owners and devalues those current timeshares in order to continue selling new units.  This further exacerbates the gap between resale and developer purchases until something like ROFR is instituted to articifially prop resale prices to make them appear stronger than they actually are.

What is different here is that a small group of highly motivated owners is trying to seize control of the board to flip that business model into something different.  Theoretically, it could be better for owners.  But, there are no large scale timeshare businesses around that have proven that a business other than the current one is viable for a resort developer.

So, achieving Board independence could actually hurt the club.

Only time will tell.

For me, I'd like to see WorldMark with an independent board.  The timeshare industry needs a new business model and this could be the start of it.


----------



## RichM

cotraveller said:
			
		

> The spin and moan continues.  Read that section 8 again that everyone here seems hard over about.
> 
> *neither Declarant nor Club is obligated to develop or annex any additional property.*
> 
> WorldMark has never developed any property nor have they annexed any property.  As stated in the Vacation Program Agreement those functions have been preformed by Trendwest.  Trendwest places those properies in the WorldMark system which is a right they are guaranteed by that agreement.   The founders knew what they were doing, that guarantee is solid.



The point of that section is that if Trendwest (Declarant) wants to develop new property, the Club is not obligated to accept it, nor is Trendwest obligated to do so.  The process of adding something smaller to a larger, whole is called "annexation" - WorldMark does this any time property is added to the Club.

However, if you understand the context in which all of this language actually takes place, you'll realize that each Declaration really applies only to the instant property to which it relates.  So, in effect, all Section 8 means is that even if there were plans to develop additional units or future phases of an existing resort on adjacent land at the time the original phase was turned over, Trendwest isn't obligated to complete and turn those phases over as a result of the original Declaration.  It's more clear in Recital E:



> E. Phases. The Property may include an unlimited number of
> Units and/or additional Property, whether fixed or mobile, to be
> added in additional Phases by a Declaration of Annexation or
> Additional Declaration *under Restriction 8 below*.



.. which once again references the same Section 8 regarding bilateral non-obligation.

Nevertheless, the part of this whole document that makes it obvious that WorldMark, in general, need not simply take anything Trendwest gives it is the fact that WorldMark must sign, as co-Declarant, any of these Declarations.  Plus, common sense would say that one corporation is not required to simply accept property from another corporation, including the property tax liabilities thereof, without any say-so.

___________________
WorldMark Owners' Community -      
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




      - www.wmowners.com


----------



## cotraveller

RichM said:
			
		

> Personally, I don't care what the resale price is and it has no bearing on my disappointment with the possibility of all future resorts having higher credit values than what seemed to be the model for the Club since inception.
> 
> If you truly want "all kinds of places to go", then it would seem you might care about this issue, also, unless you plan to continually upgrade your account size to keep up with rising credit values, otherwise we'll be stuck with dwindling availability at the existing lower-cost resorts.



A bigger concern for all shoud be that a few are hard over on following a course of action that could place WorldMark in violation of the governing documents.  A course of action that at times has advocated taking legal action against WorldMark, Trendwest, or both.  That is a sure lose-lose scenario for all owners.



> Nevertheless, the part of this whole document that makes it obvious that WorldMark, in general, need not simply take anything Trendwest gives it is the fact that WorldMark must sign, as co-Declarant, any of these Declarations.



The Vacation Program Agreement is very clear on that point.  You phrased it correctly, they must sign the Declaration.  There is no mention of WorldMark having the legal right to refuse to sign.


----------



## PerryM

*Termites!*

Mtngal,

I’m not sure I understand your post #73 – so I’ll recap my attitude as a WM owner.

WM is a great timeshare – I would have sold our credits long ago if it wasn't.  I recommend WM to many folks all the time.

WM has many problems that are eating away at it’s foundation – kind of like termites:

1)	One of them is the WM BOD – it’s infested with TW employees who have little interest in WM – they get their paycheck from TW.
2)	No CEO of the $1,500,000,000 real estate holdings we own – no employees to represent 230,000 WM owners
3)	TW has found guilty of violating California State laws and these same clowns are taking on fiduciary responsibilities for the 230,000 WM owners
4)	TW has violated the “Theory of Equals” and is degrading the value of our Club
5)	TW is in a struggle to depress our resale value of our WM credits – to make more profit for TW stockholders.  TW can introduce add-ons that will directly affect 230,000 WM owners holdings
6)	TW is the sole management company – we need to foster competition and allow our own employees to takeover many of those tasks on a permanent, in-house, way.  The remaining tasks need to be let out for competitive bidding.

To address these problems we need to:
1)	Control the WM BOD with non-TW paid owners
2)	Hire a CEO and management team that work for the 230,000 WM owners
3)	Immediately stop all new construction for a 5-year period while we rebuild our Club with our own employees.  If it should happen faster then acquisitions could continue in less than 5 years

Just as the TW salesreps force the new owner to bypass due diligence in the 90-minute sales tour, so has TW forced WM owners into not doing due diligence when it comes to the operation of WM the Club - there are NO WM EMPLOYEES to stand up for us.

WM is unique in the timeshare universe and new frontiers await WM owners as we break free from the TW strangle hold which is depressing our investment.  The simple fact that WM resale credits sank from 80¢ to 70¢ while TW increased their sales price from $1.55 to $1.80 is a testament that WM owners have lost confidence in the status quo.

This is a horrific loss of real estate value for the WM owners.  TW increased their price by 16% while our resale price decreased 13% for a net relative loss of 29% in just 3 years!  I don’t know how long we can keep this hemorrhaging going on.

What makes WM owners think that the arrogance TW showed towards California laws is not shown towards WM owners daily?


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte

cotraveller said:
			
		

> A bigger concern for all shoud be that a few are hard over on following a course of action that could place WorldMark in violation of the governing documents.  A course of action that at times has advocated taking legal action against WorldMark, Trendwest, or both.  That is a sure lose-lose scenario for all owners.
> 
> 
> 
> The Vacation Program Agreement is very clear on that point.  You phrased it correctly, they must sign the Declaration.  There is no mention of WorldMark having the legal right to refuse to sign.


So, if I'm following your logic, the statement in Setion 8 that *neither Declarant nor Club is obligated to develop or annex any additional property* is tantamount to * they must sign the Declaration*.


----------



## bogey21

I have read the entire 4 pages of this thread.  Why, I don't know but it kind of sucked me in.  Facinating!!  When I was finished, I said to myself "Now I know why I sold my four Marriotts and bought seven 'el-cheapos'".  If things start heading in a direction I don't like with one (or even all) of my Weeks, I just sell it  on Ebay or donate it to charity, buy another "el-cheapo" and move on!!  

GEORGE


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte

bogey21 said:
			
		

> I have read the entire 4 pages of this thread.  Why, I don't know but it kind of sucked me in.  Facinating!!  When I was finished, I said to myself "Now I know why I sold my four Marriotts and bought seven 'el-cheapos'".  If things start heading in a direction I don't like with one (or even all) of my Weeks, I just sell it  on Ebay or donate it to charity, buy another "el-cheapo" and move on!!
> 
> GEORGE


Yep - it makes me glad we rescinded before getting too involved.  It makes Vacation Internationale increasingly attractive.


----------



## RichM

T_R_Oglodyte said:
			
		

> So, if I'm following your logic, the statement in Setion 8 that *neither Declarant nor Club is obligated to develop or annex any additional property* is tantamount to * they must sign the Declaration*.



Thanks for pointing that out.. saves me the keystrokes.

Let me clarify since Fred's "spinning" my words.

Without a WorldMark representative's signature on the Declaration, the property cannot be accepted by WorldMark.  However, there's no evidence in any of the documents I've seen that states that every Declaration offered must be blindly accepted.


___________________
WorldMark Owners' Community -      
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




      - www.wmowners.com


----------



## Sydney

Yikes, I'm in the process of buying Worldmark. Maybe I should just forget about it.


----------



## ragtop

PA- said:
			
		

> OK, I'm meeting with John Henley today, I'll ask him.  But even if not, you can ask them yourself or anyone who attended that board meeting (Jim Pappas, Gil Bellamy, Nena Gray).  It will be next week before I can post the email if I get permission, I'm in Seattle for the Worldmark board meeting.



Thank you - by the way I don't know how anyone can disagree with the principle that the WM Board should be independent of TW/Cendant/Wyndham; I don't disagree!


----------



## cotraveller

RichM said:
			
		

> Thanks for pointing that out.. saves me the keystrokes.
> 
> Let me clarify since Fred's "spinning" my words.
> 
> Without a WorldMark representative's signature on the Declaration, the property cannot be accepted by WorldMark.  However, there's no evidence in any of the documents I've seen that states that every Declaration offered must be blindly accepted.



No spinning here, I'm just quoting the documents.  The section 8 that you have been refering to with the statement "neither Declarant nor Club is obligated to develop or annex any additional property" is in the declaration for an inividual resort. 

I am referring to the Vacation Program Agreement, a higher level document which defines the relationship between WorldMark and Trendwest.  As I previously posted, it states

"Club, as the legal owner or ultimate lessee of the Property in the Program and subject to the provisions of Section 8 of the Declaration, hereby *agrees* to execute and join in a Declaration of Vacation Owner Program or a Declaration of Annexation imposing upon all of the property in the Club (including, but not limited to any additional Units purchased by Declarant and conveyed to Club) the mutual and beneficial restrictions, covenants and conditions of the Program."

Seems pretty clear, club *agrees* to execute and join in a Declaration of Vacation Owner Program  . . .  There is nothing in that statement that provides for exceptions.  Failure of WorldMark to execute and join in the Declaration by not signing it would be a violation of the Vacation Program Agreement.


----------



## cabobill

*Comparing apples to oranges...*



			
				cotraveller said:
			
		

> No spinning here, I'm just quoting the documents.  The section 8 that you have been refering to with the statement "neither Declarant nor Club is obligated to develop or annex any additional property" is in the declaration for an inividual resort.
> 
> I am referring to the Vacation Program Agreement, a higher level document which defines the relationship between WorldMark and Trendwest.  As I previously posted, it states
> 
> "Club, as the legal owner or ultimate lessee of the Property in the Program and subject to the provisions of Section 8 of the Declaration, hereby *agrees* to execute and join in a Declaration of Vacation Owner Program or a Declaration of Annexation imposing upon all of the property in the Club (including, but not limited to any additional Units purchased by Declarant and conveyed to Club) the mutual and beneficial restrictions, covenants and conditions of the Program."
> 
> Seems pretty clear, club *agrees* to execute and join in a Declaration of Vacation Owner Program  . . .  There is nothing in that statement that provides for exceptions.  Failure of WorldMark to execute and join in the Declaration by not signing it would be a violation of the Vacation Program Agreement.



Thank you Fred for your clarification! It is easy to search out outdated governing documents to individual resorts or RC Programs to bolster a mis-leading argument. The ONLY document that is updated regularly and takes precedence over individual resort declarations is the Master Vacation Program Agreement you are quoting from.


----------



## RichM

We're still quoting the same document.  That "hereby agrees" is talking about that one document, which applies to that one property.  Just because that one document says that the Club "hereby agrees to execute a Declaration..." for the property mentioned in said Declaration doesn't mean the Club, therefore, agrees to execute a like Declaration for any and all future, unnamed properties.  

In fact, the Club doesn't even agree to execute that Declaration until such time as it is actually executed (i.e. signed).  And, as clearly stated in your quote, execution of that Declaration is again subject to Section 8 which does not obligate any further development or annexation either by Trendwest or WorldMark.

I guess I could just quote Gene Hensley from tonight's meeting:



> Can the Board refuse a resort on behalf of the Club? Yes.  Have we. Yes.



___________________
WorldMark Owners' Community -      
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




      - www.wmowners.com


----------



## PerryM

*Point…Point…*

In my official capacity as a Referee/Judge of Tae Kwon Do *I award RichM 1 Point each* against a tag team of 2 opponents – 2 Points total awarded for heavy body blows to your opponents – well done.

(I will be a Referee at the World Martial Arts competition in Milwaukee on 11/11/06 – this is a shameless plug for a sport I love)

Just how many other concepts/ideas float around with WM that are completely bogus in nature?  “Opponents to your respective corners” we shall see in more rounds to come…..


----------



## BocaBum99

cotraveller said:
			
		

> The Vacation Program Agreement is very clear on that point.  You phrased it correctly, they must sign the Declaration.  There is no mention of WorldMark having the legal right to refuse to sign.



Property rights cannot be transferred without the transferree and the tranferror agreeing on the transaction.   And, that must happen on a transaction by transaction basis.

The question is whether or not a pre-existing agreement that specifies that one party must take anything the other party wants to give it is enforceable.  I actually doubt that it is.

If tested in the courts, I'll bet that one clause would be struck down.


----------



## cotraveller

RichM said:
			
		

> We're still quoting the same document.  That "hereby agrees" is talking about that one document, which applies to that one property.



Nope, don't think so.  The "hereby agrees" statement is in Section 3.1 of the Vacation Program Agreement which applies to the relationship between WorldMark and Trendwest, not to any specific property.  The Section 8 that keeps coming up is in the Declaration, which does apply to a single resort. 

Yes properties have been rejected - before Trendwest developed or acquired them, including the cruise ship a few years back. But not after the fact.

Instant replay has overuled the referee, the score remains tied.  Who decared this a game with referees anyway?  I must say that is nicer than the previous declaration of war or suggestions of legal action.


----------



## BocaBum99

Sydney said:
			
		

> Yikes, I'm in the process of buying Worldmark. Maybe I should just forget about it.



Sydney,

The stuff we are talking about on this thread are esoteric arguments about a club that actually operates quite well as you have seen.

Nothing here is new.  All Points systems have the same types of issues.

It's just that WorldMark owners are more vocal about their club than others are.

If the WorldMark board continues to be dominated by Trendwest, it will operate just like most other point systems.  And, it will continue to operate much as it does today.  It's true that Trendwest is diluting our ownerships when they add new resorts.  But, that's par for the course for every point system.

If owners take control, all bets are off.  I doubt that WorldMark will expand much because I don't believe any developer would work under the conditions that an independent board would support.  It would be hard to generate new sales.


----------



## PA-

BocaBum99 said:
			
		

> ...If owners take control, all bets are off.  I doubt that WorldMark will expand much because I don't believe any developer would work under the conditions that an independent board would support.  It would be hard to generate new sales.



I disagree strongly with this statement.

Trendwest has threatened to walk away if the relationship changes.  They paid $900,000,000 for Trendwest, they'll not leave unless it's kicking and screaming all the way.

If they did, the owners could develop new resorts without Trendwest's 75 percent premium for cost of sales, marketing, admin and profit by pre-selling credits to owners.

Developers would line up to take over Trendwest's lucrative position.


----------



## ragtop

PA- said:
			
		

> Developers would line up to take over Trendwest's lucrative position.



This is undoubtedly true, but it begs the question:  would any of them do any better than TW?  Despite some slip-ups, it seems like TW delivers real value to WM when it brings new resorts in New Mexico, San Diego, Solvang, Indio and other nice places in a relatively short time.   Would any other developer do better without getting compensated in some fashion about as much as TW gets?


----------



## PA-

ragtop said:
			
		

> This is undoubtedly true, but it begs the question:  would any of them do any better than TW?  Despite some slip-ups, it seems like TW delivers real value to WM when it brings new resorts in New Mexico, San Diego, Solvang, Indio and other nice places in a relatively short time.   Would any other developer do better without getting compensated in some fashion about as much as TW gets?



Maybe, maybe not.   We've seen on this thread that a case could be made either way. But regardless of all else, the club is comprised of Worldmark, the management company and the developer.  It would definately be in the owners interest for at least the club to be represented by owners.  My point is that Trendwest isn't voluntarily going to leave, and that even if they did, there are other options that would be as good, if not better.


----------



## BocaBum99

PA- said:
			
		

> I disagree strongly with this statement.
> 
> Trendwest has threatened to walk away if the relationship changes.  They paid $900,000,000 for Trendwest, they'll not leave unless it's kicking and screaming all the way.
> 
> If they did, the owners could develop new resorts without Trendwest's 75 percent premium for cost of sales, marketing, admin and profit by pre-selling credits to owners.
> 
> Developers would line up to take over Trendwest's lucrative position.



Name one major point system that has an owner controlled board.  Why do you think that is?

It is more likely that Trendwest will fight until the bitter end to prevent an independent board.  When owners take control, that $900M investment probably becomes worth less than half.  That's why they are fighting so hard.

It is an untested theoretical exercise to believe that the market is ready for a large scale point system with an owner controlled board and even a larger leap of faith that pre-selling credits to current owners would be profitable enough to interest a resort developer.  It might be interesting to some builder that is NOT in the timeshare industry who is simply a general contractor of resort condos.  

If you do win that battle for an independent board and I were the CEO of Wyndham, I would seriously consider taking my loss, selling out to some other developer and building Wyndham Vacation Resorts with a developer controlled board.  And, I would eliminate the loop hole of potentially enabling an owner controlled board.  That may have a higher return than catering to an owner controlled board.

Wyndham won't want to take a balance sheet write down if that happens, so they will perfume the pig and try to "sell" it to someone else and cover up the loss.

I believe this has a higher probability than Wyndham taking orders from a group of non-industry timeshare owners.

Don't get me wrong.  I am in favor of an owner controlled board.  I just think that Wyndham will be more likely to sell their position in WorldMark resort development than catering to the needs of that owner controlled board.

You could be right, but I could be right, too.   For me to be right, Wyndham just needs to find a buyer of the asset.   For you to be right, you need to have a resort developer who only knows one way to sell timeshares agree to try an untested marketing strategy and take orders from a handful of owners who aren't on the Forbes 400.  I just don't see it.


----------



## roadsister

Ragtop,

*Let me give you the facts about the makeup of the Worldmark Board of Directors:

1. They are ALL owners.
2. Peggy Fry currently works for TW and gets a check from TW.
3. John Henley was a Worldmark Owner 2 years BEFORE he went to work for TW.  He currently gets a check from TW South Pacific and lives in AUS.
4. Jack McConnell is retired from Cendant and does NOT work nor get a check from TW, never has.
5. John Walker does not work for TW nor does he get a check from TW.
6. Gene Hensley is retired and does not get a check from TW as he stated publicly at the Owner's meeting.
None of the board members receive paychecks from Worldmark The Club. They are not compensated.*
These are the facts.

The perception by some is that these board members don't have brains; because they worked for a company they are incapable of making a decision on their own for the good of the club; they love screwing themselves and all Worldmark owners in the a_s by voting exactly the way TW would have wanted -- any reasonable person would know better.  But the 'spin' is put on it all the time....i.e. they are all TW, the board is infested with TW employees, they only look out for salespeople, etc.


----------



## PA-

BocaBum99 said:
			
		

> Name one major point system that has an owner controlled board.  Why do you think that is?
> 
> It is more likely that Trendwest will fight until the bitter end to prevent an independent board.  When owners take control, that $900M investment probably becomes worth less than half.  That's why they are fighting so hard.
> 
> It is an untested theoretical exercise to believe that the market is ready for a large scale point system with an owner controlled board and even a larger leap of faith that pre-selling credits to current owners would be profitable enough to interest a resort developer.  It might be interesting to some builder that is NOT in the timeshare industry who is simply a general contractor of resort condos.
> 
> If you do win that battle for an independent board and I were the CEO of Wyndham, I would seriously consider taking my loss, selling out to some other developer and building Wyndham Vacation Resorts with a developer controlled board.  And, I would eliminate the loop hole of potentially enabling an owner controlled board.  That may have a higher return than catering to an owner controlled board.
> 
> Wyndham won't want to take a balance sheet write down if that happens, so they will perfume the pig and try to "sell" it to someone else and cover up the loss.
> 
> I believe this has a higher probability than Wyndham taking orders from a group of non-industry timeshare owners.
> 
> Don't get me wrong.  I am in favor of an owner controlled board.  I just think that Wyndham will be more likely to sell their position in WorldMark resort development than catering to the needs of that owner controlled board.
> 
> You could be right, but I could be right, too.   For me to be right, Wyndham just needs to find a buyer of the asset.   For you to be right, you need to have a resort developer who only knows one way to sell timeshares agree to try an untested marketing strategy and take orders from a handful of owners who aren't on the Forbes 400.  I just don't see it.



Vacation Internationale was the first points based timeshare, a few years before Worldmark.  Not only did Trendwest copy their program, they even copied their locations (though VI built in high demand areas, TW built 15 miles from all the VI locations).  For example, VI built in Sun River, TW bought Eagle Crest.  VI built in Sun Valley, TW in McCall.  Building 1 at The Village at Steamboat is VI, building 2 is worldmark.  Some units at Valley Isle are VI, some are worldmark.  VI is in the whistler village.  Worldmark is in the whisler village, and also in a horrible building 1/2 mile away.  etc.

The development company that controlled VI sold out to Sunterra, which proceeded to implement the same strategy as Trendwest is now engaged in.  They absolutely ran VI into the ground.  When VI finally succeeded in booting Sunterra (after a protracted court battle), the independent board spent the next few years analyzing the carnage wreaked by Sunterra and doing all the deferred maintenance, etc.

VI is now finally on the road to recovery and adding new resorts, with VRI as their management company.  They absolutely have total control of their own affairs, and VRI is satisfied with the arrangement.  

VI, at this point, is smaller than Worldmark, but still one of the largest points based timeshares around.  And totally run by an independent board.  They had a superior product prior to Sunterra, and have a good product now, on their way to once again having a great product.  

You need to understand that the Trendwest of today is not close to the Trendwest that built Worldmark.


----------



## roadsister

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sydney:
Yikes, I'm in the process of buying Worldmark. Maybe I should just forget about it. 

Quote:
Posted by BocaBum:
Sydney,

The stuff we are talking about on this thread are esoteric arguments about a club that actually operates quite well as you have seen.

Nothing here is new. All Points systems have the same types of issues.

*Sydney,
Boca is correct in his post above, none of this is new...and most of the arguments/discussions have been around for years. As you have owners continually come on board, the same ideas surface again.

And PA is correct, the Trendwest of today is not close to the Trendwest that built Worldmark - the one thing that needs to be understood is in the old days it was very slow going in getting new resorts, units were part of another timeshare or complex, and the resorts were very small.  The previous developer sold out because they did not want to be in the timeshare business.  I was an owner at that time and remember it well...

Another thing that needs to be pointed out is that there are more resorts that AREN'T near VI resorts than are.  I'm not sure the model was exact in that our resorts are debt free....not sure VI units were.

Gee, I also remember hulahoops, the Ed Sullivan Show, and transformers for my kids....times change*.


----------



## PerryM

*3 things need to be done*

Ragtop other others,

WM has many problems which result from the simple fact that *WM has NO employees* – it’s a hollow $1.5 B organization.  We need to hire a CEO and a management team who can then decide how to expand the club.

With 60+ resorts, WM needs to grow up, assume the mantle of responsibility for those 60+ resorts, and not pawn those responsibilities off to the hired construction contractor.  The current BOD is deaf and blind to this fact.  And why the heck is the BOD involved in day-to-day operations of our Club?

Once a WM CEO is hired and a complete staff to handle the day-to-day operations of an organization equal to ANY timeshare developer out there we can start to address WM’s future.

*To ignore the fact that NOT ONE single WM employee exists is folly* – any decisions based on TW lackeys for our survival dooms us to the manhandling we currently are experiencing from TW.  TW exists solely for the benefit of their stockholders - WM is far down on the list of things to worry about.

To me there are but 3 important items to accomplish:

1)	Elect 100% WM owners, to the BOD, who have NO connection to TW – none, zip, zilch – who view TW as the hired help
2)	Hire a CEO and build a management team
3)	5 year moratorium on new construction while we rebuild our club – TW can find other things to do in those 5 years while we free ourselves from their deplorable practices and tactics that are currently killing our club

Should folks consider WM as a timeshare resource?  My opinion is yes, there are many areas that WM is superior to ANY timeshare out there.  These superior areas far outweigh the turmoil that we are currently going thru.

Of course, it goes without saying, that* buy your WM credits resale and save 60% for the SAME IDENTICAL timeshare*.  You don't need TW at this stage - why do we need them at ANY stage of ownership?


----------



## roadsister

Just an FYI to all those interested.  This was discussed at the Annual Owners Meeting by the board:
A handful of abusers are VERY upset because the board has found major abuse taking place against the club and it's owners, and is taking steps to correct it disrupting those abuser's profits. And it can't come fast enough for the majority of owners!  It should not affect 99.9 percent of owners at all...just the ones that are in the timeshare resale business dumping 40-60 crappy units into Worldmark exchange program to get hundreds of thousands of credits to sell and/or book prime week units to sell off....we will not the huge availability problem for school holidays we now see (and we won't see the weeks sold on Ebay all the time) when this abuse is stopped.
JMHO


----------



## cotraveller

*What is so difficultt to understand?*

What is so difficult to understand?  The Vacation Program Agreement is a contract that both WorldMark and Trendwest willingly entered into and signed.  Neither organization was forced into that agreement.  The two organizations wished to define a business relationship and that is what they did when they signed that document.

Part of the contract that they willingly signed states that Trendwest is given the exclusive right to develop WordlMark resorts.  Another part of that contract states that WorldMark will accept those resorts into the WorldMark system.  Neither organization is being forced to do anything.  WorldMark is not being forced to accept new resorts, they are simply following the terms of the contract they willingly entered.

Now we have a small group of people who are advocating that WorldMark ignore the terms of that contract.  People who would place WordlMark in legal violation of a valid signed contractual agreement.  Perhaps, as has been suggested in this thread, they have declared war.  As in most wars, differing viewpoints have little meaning.  They're right, anyone who disagrees  is wrong, and if things are destroyed in the process so be it.   Rally the troops, incite the masses, down with the evil empire!


----------



## cruisin

It would be great to carry this conversation on the worldmarktheclub website, but o yeah, we can't.  "different point of view from the evil empire",  post deleted! "anyone who disagrees with the evil empire", post deleted! "destroy" club members freedom so be it! Oh, I forgot, it's trendwests website to control the "masses". Down with the "evil" owners! 


Perry, Don't forget, no matter how many points Rich is awarded here, trendwest will take a "poll", and with certainty,  it will be announced once again that the "club" has spoken, and has of its own free will,  given the match to Trendwest.  sorry Rich, but nice effort..........


----------



## ragtop

cotraveller said:
			
		

> What is so difficult to understand?  The Vacation Program Agreement is a contract that both WorldMark and Trendwest willingly entered into and signed.  Neither organization was forced into that agreement.  The two organizations wished to define a business relationship and that is what they did when they signed that document.
> 
> Part of the contract that they willingly signed states that Trendwest is given the exclusive right to develop WordlMark resorts.  Another part of that contract states that WorldMark will accept those resorts into the WorldMark system.  Neither organization is being forced to do anything.  WorldMark is not being forced to accept new resorts, they are simply following the terms of the contract they willingly entered.



Unfortunately, it is a fantasy to think that the TW-WM agreements were done at arms length by independent bodies.  They were created by attorneys working for TW.  WM never even had independent counsel to review them prior to final signatures.  One ownership and one management team oversaw the execution of the agreements for both companies.


----------



## timeos2

*Thats the agreement*



			
				ragtop said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, it is a fantasy to think that the TW-WM agreements were done at arms length by independent bodies.  They were created by attorneys working for TW.  WM never even had independent counsel to review them prior to final signatures.  One ownership and one management team oversaw the execution of the agreements for both companies.



And so what if they were? The system has created a value for all involved and worked as it was meant to.  If you don't like it sell your time or, as you are, work to get enough owners to back a change.  If you don't succeed that means there aren't enough owners that feel the same way. You have every right to propose change and it's too bad WM chooses to censor the input on the owners website. But again, they are in control and until there are enough that don't like it thats the way it will stay.  Good luck in convincing a majprity of owners who appear to be happy with the status quo that they need to make major changes.


----------



## roadsister

*The facts about Censorship on the TW4M*

John,

*I wanted to give you some facts about the censoring that takes place on the WM4M as there is a lot of misinformation about why the editing takes place.  There are 7 rules posted for the Worldmark forum (and EVERY forum has rules).  They are:*
1. Inappropriate language, racial slurs and personal attacks; 
2. Offers to sell WorldMark credits or sell, trade or rent other timeshare weeks or rental properties (WorldMark credit rental discussions are permitted only in the WM4M Rental Board); 
3. Links to sites with content inappropriate for reading or viewing by the general population; 
4. Issues or complaints about company policies, rules, procedures, products, services or personal owner accounts (Email: Owner Services—North American or South Pacific—is the appropriate department for such concerns, and any posting containing issues or complaints will be removed and referred to Owner Services); 
5. Argumentative or abusive language; and 
6. Links to or advertising of any inappropriate products or services 
7. Inaccurate, negative and/or slanderous comments regarding WorldMark, the WorldMark Board of Directors, Trendwest, Trendwest Management, Wyndham, Fairfield, or other individuals representing these organizations. 

You wouldn't think it would be hard to remember them but -
1. Fact - People try to post links to other sites that sell Worldmark memberships resale - there IS a thread that allows for selling your one time credits if they are expiring or you need to for financial reasons, not a business.
2. Fact - People post argumentative posts that belittle other's opinions.
3. The old saying *it's not what you say but how you say it* results in edited or deleted posts. Fact - Rather than contact someone in the company that can help they drag it up over and over....
4. Fact - You can't call Board members stupid, liars, idiots, etc. No one can seem to figure out why their posts get censored....HELLO
5. Fact - You cannot post your opinions _as fact_ or _post erroneous information as fact_. Your spin doesn't make it fact. Your personal agenda isn't everyone elses.

I'm sure eveyone knows you have to have some rules that all must abide by to continue to have civil communications.

And just to set the record straight I have had a few posts deleted too but I didn't complain that the forum was heavily censored, I apologized for my actions that caused the problem.


----------



## roadsister

*Fact or Assumption*



			
				ragtop said:
			
		

> ... They were created by attorneys working for TW.  WM never even had independent counsel to review them prior to final signatures.  One ownership and one management team oversaw the execution of the agreements for both companies.



Is this fact - do you know this as an absolute?  Or is it assumption or opinion.


----------



## ragtop

roadsister said:
			
		

> Is this fact - do you know this as an absolute?  Or is it assumption.



Fact.  Check it by asking WM who its attorney was when the documents were signed.  Or just look at the signatures!


----------



## PerryM

*I prefer to use the WM chat room myself*

Roadsister,

Thanks for the TW rules, however just *where is the “Official” WM chat room*?  Why must we use the hired management company’s chat room and follow their rules?  I want a WM chat room where we can openly discuss WM related items and NOT TW's agenda - but that's just me.

I'm going to take a wild guess here and suppose that the reason there is no "Official" WM chat room is due to the fact that *WM has NO EMPLOYEES to man the chat room *like the hired construction contractor does.

I agree that if I spent big bucks to hire someone to extend the TW sales gallary into cyberspace that I would not want folks there talking about competitors, be they Disney resorts, Marriott resorts, or heck the 230,000 WM owners who can sell the same exact product they sell but at a 60% discount.

*Let's not make any mistakes here - the "Official" TW chat room is just an extension of the TW sales gallery but uses cyberspace to extend the sales pitch.*  Don't believe me?  Just mention "RESALES" and you will be shocked back into that cyberspace sales gallery.


----------



## cabobill

timeos2 said:
			
		

> And so what if they were? The system has created a value for all involved and worked as it was meant to.  If you don't like it sell your time or, as you are, work to get enough owners to back a change.  If you don't succeed that means there aren't enough owners that feel the same way. You have every right to propose change and it's too bad WM chooses to censor the input on the owners website. But again, they are in control and until there are enough that don't like it thats the way it will stay.  Good luck in convincing a majprity of owners who appear to be happy with the status quo that they need to make major changes.



I couldn't agree with you more....but for accuracy's sake, please allow me to make some clarifications.

Worldmark, the Club (WM) does not run, monitor, or censor the Worldmark Vacation Forum (WM4M).
The WM4M is owned and operated by Trendwest Resorts mainly as a sales tool and is accessed through the Trendwest  Main Webpage. Most owners know that Trendwest (TW) runs that board and use it as a source of information where owners such as myself pass on helpful information to other owners both new and old. There is a section called the "Coffee Shop" that is invisible to all but registered owners where anything other than resort-specific discussion is allowed with the exception of discussing resales, rentals or general bad-mouthing of the host, Trendwest. TW's building, TW's ball, TW's court....Tw controls the game, plain and simple.

Those owners that feel that they've been censored DO have an outlet in the wmowners.com site; a place created for owners, by owners to discuss whatever it is that TW won't allow on THIER forum!
It never ceases to amaze me the fact some people refuse to "play the game" and insist on going onto the TW WM4M, willfully break the rules, then cry "FOUL" when they are censored or booted off the WM4M. I don't understand that kind of mindset; ...It seems to me that it's not very smart for the prisoners to be poking sharp sticks at the GUARDS!


----------



## roadsister

Perry,

Thanks for asking for help in understanding Worldmark the club.

See *rule 2* regarding resales.

Worldmark, a non-profit, is akin to a homeowners association, not a business.

They don't have a chatroom.

It is a choice to log on to any forum and participate there.....If I felt the way you did I wouldn't bother myself with it. Don't need it, don't care to read it...your choice.  But remember, your agenda isn't someone elses and they may LIKE reading that forum...their choice.  For some reason their choice bothers you, THAT I can not understand. Going on and on about something that YOU don't like isn't going to change people's minds that DO like it.

MANY timeshares have websites for sales purposes...take a look at Marriotts.

*I suspect that you are upset because they will not allow you to advertise your new business venture and attempt to get clients.  Ya really can't blame them.*JMHO


----------



## cruisin

Cabobill,

 If we are prisoners, does not our board see that? and why will they not do anything to help us? I do not know the history of the different websites, or how the actually came to be the way they are, but why doesn't our board get us our own website? I am trying to learn as I go. This is certainly one issue that taints how I view our board. Although I have only owned for a short while, I have yet to meet an owner that does not love the worldmark side of things. I liked what Gil said at the owners meeting about the average  9K credit owner. Is anybody out their looking out for average Joe worldmark?


----------



## PA-

timeos2 said:
			
		

> And so what if they were? The system has created a value for all involved and worked as it was meant to.  If you don't like it sell your time or, as you are, work to get enough owners to back a change.  If you don't succeed that means there aren't enough owners that feel the same way. You have every right to propose change and it's too bad WM chooses to censor the input on the owners website. But again, they are in control and until there are enough that don't like it thats the way it will stay.  Good luck in convincing a majprity of owners who appear to be happy with the status quo that they need to make major changes.



The system worked well for a time in the past.  It's not working so well right now.  I don't believe you've ever been an owner, correct me if I'm wrong.  If you bought a house, and the management company for your HOA was sold to a company that populated the HOa board and changed the entire complexion of the arrangement, wouldn't it kind of hack you off if you were told to move if you don't like it?  There are many of us working to change it for the better.  We don't need to be told to love it or leave it.   

What you may not understand is that the multi-$billion corp is breaking laws, bylaws, and management contract to make sure that owners aren't educated on what's going on.  A handful of owners are spending our own time and money to fight them.  Thanks a lot for your support on an this issue, in which you have no stake.


----------



## PerryM

*I'd rather use the Lawn Mower guy's chat room, personally*

Roadsister,

*90%+ of WM owners think that the “Official” TW web site is the “Official” WM web site. *These same owners believe that the folks who answer the reservation phones, and the owner services lines are WM employees too. WRONG – they are employed by TW or are subcontractors for TW.  That IRIS system does NOT belong to WM - it's TW's and a clunky program like that needs to be scraped and a new one designed by WM employees since computers make WM run.

*TW has spent much time and money building the illusion that TW is WM – they are not;* they are the slick sales company, the hired construction company and the hired management company – *they do NOT represent the 230,000 WM owners who are TW’s biggest headache since we are direct sales competitors*. We can sell the same exact product that TW sells but for a 60% discount.

*Why don’t we use the Lawn Care subcontractor’s chat room* (The lawn mower guy) ? They would probably love to have 230,000 potential customers for their services too. I’m sure that on their chat room RESALES would be allowed – they care little who sells WM credits. However, I’d bet, the topic of switching lawn care providers would be instantly zapped by the same lackeys on that site too.

WM the Club can be whatever the 5 members of the WM BOD wants it to be. *They can hire a CEO of WM and hire a management team and support staff.* The folks who answer the reservation line and owner services line should be WM employees and not the lawn care subcontractor’s or the management company’s since both can be replaced by the WM BOD at the blink of an eye.

*It’s time WM grew up and assumed the mantle of responsibility that goes with owning 60+ world class resorts scattered around the globe in many countries, $1,500,000,000 (That’s a 10 digit number) of real estate, and 230,000 owners* – we need our WM employees to do what are permanent chores that a temporary management contractor is currently doing.

P.S.
If WM can’t afford it, I will donate the web site and chat room free of charge. That would cost me $8 a year for the name (I used to own WM4M.com but let it lapse – maybe it’s still available), $100 for the chat room program and $50 per year for the license. 

Better yet, I’d do the above and then have a PayPal donation box, on the chat room, which would allow the members of the chat room to kick in the operational costs and any money beyond that would be used to compensate the moderators and administrators for their valuable time. Gift certificates to Mickey Dees would be great (heck, Ruth's Chris is great too).

How about it WM – just send me a PM and I’ll have you up and running in 1 day.


----------



## timeos2

*Sort of stake*



			
				PA- said:
			
		

> The system worked well for a time in the past.  It's not working so well right now.  I don't believe you've ever been an owner, correct me if I'm wrong.  If you bought a house, and the management company for your HOA was sold to a company that populated the HOa board and changed the entire complexion of the arrangement, wouldn't it kind of hack you off if you were told to move if you don't like it?  There are many of us working to change it for the better.  We don't need to be told to love it or leave it.
> 
> What you may not understand is that the multi-$billion corp is breaking laws, bylaws, and management contract to make sure that owners aren't educated on what's going on.  A handful of owners are spending our own time and money to fight them.  Thanks a lot for your support on an this issue, in which you have no stake.



I do have a kind of stake as Wyndham & WM are all one group. We get cross use of many resorts. I do support your cause but its naive to think that the TW moderated bbs is going to allow what they view as negative posts. And saying the HOA "changed" after you bought isn't right. They haven't changed - for you that's a problem for most it doesn't seem to matter.

I always support the little guys in the fights with the big ones. But they aren't always 100 per cent right & the big boys 100 per cent wrong. There is usually middle ground where both can agree and neither gets everything their way. Far too many seem to lose sight of thst.

If you want the forum for change get an independent website/owners group formed. Rally enough owners to make an impression and work for change. Don't expect TW to help as they already know how they want things and hold the keys to the process. 

Again, good luck on your quest.


----------



## PA-

John, I don't want Trendwest's help.  All I expect from Trendwest is for them to follow the laws of the land and of the club.

This is about Worldmark.  I expect the Worldmark Board of Directors to represent the interests of the Worldmark owners.

And if you don't think the relationship of Trendwest and the Worldmark board has changed DRASTICALLY since Cendant came in and cleaned house, you've not been keeping up.  I've talked to the board members who have been around since before Cendant, and I can tell you that they very much believe it's changed drastically and are highly distressed about it.  They just keep wishing for the "good old days", rather than doing anything about it.


----------



## roadsister

PA- said:
			
		

> I've talked to the board members who have been around since before Cendant, and I can tell you that they very much believe it's changed drastically and are highly distressed about it.  They just keep wishing for the "good old days", rather than doing anything about it.



Now THAT IS interesting because I've been in contact with them and that's NOT what they are saying.....interesting.....


----------



## roadsister

Perry,

What a great way to get owner's addresses for your new business startup....as an owner I have learned from direct experience to be very protective of my email address.

Again, if you don't like the website, don't participate but stop the griping - people get tired of it adn it just makes it seem like you can't let go for your own sake....if you choose to develop your own website because you are discontent with the second website that was developed by other owners you can choose to do that also. *THE CHOICE IS IS NOT ANYONE ELSES BUT YOURS TO MAKE. NO ONE IS TAKING THAT AWAY FROM YOU.*

As for the rest of your post I think Sen. Obama said it best:

You are entitled to your opinions.  You're are NOT entitled to your facts.


----------



## GreenMum

roadsister said:
			
		

> 4. Issues or complaints about company policies, rules, procedures, products, services or personal owner accounts (Email: Owner Services—North American or South Pacific—is the appropriate department for such concerns, and any posting containing issues or complaints will be removed and referred to Owner Services);



roadsister, I admire your approach to things.  I have to admit, I was miffed when they deleted my post because I stated "I considered the drive from St George to Zions as longer than I wanted to make."  I guess it follows under the above category.


----------



## PerryM

*Which side of the sales table?*

Roadsister,

As long as the average WM owner is snookered into believing they are in a WM sponsored web site, I will be warning them that *they, instead, are in a cyberspace TW sales gallery* and *NOT the home of WM the Club*. 

I believe TW shut down the “Official” TW web site, for a while several years ago, when the heat (aka “The truth”) got too much for them.  One can only hope.

I just find it incredulous that fellow WM owners play along with the sales pitch.  Paid TW employees I can understand, but fellow WM owners participating in this charade just have me shaking my head in disbelief.

So I will continue my crusade to educate my fellow WM owner of their rights and privileges (Property rights) and how *they are being bamboozled on the “Official” TW site – it’s NOT the “Official” WM site *- it's just a cheap timeshare sales gallery in cyberspace.

Here’s a little test folks on the “Official” TW web site can do to see which side of the sales table they are sitting on:

1)	Mention the dreaded word “*Resale*”
2)	Ask all members on that site to *look at the internet address*, on the top line of their browser, and see if it says *TrendWest, the home of slick salesreps* or WorldMark the Club that represents all WM owners.  (Hint, it says TrendWest)

If you have done either one of the above you are NOT on the TW salesrep side of the sales table.  If you haven't done either just which side of the sales table do you want to sit on?  You are in a TW sales gallery - vote with your butt.

I’ve done both and am now permanently banned from the “Official” TW site – all posts, no matter how benign, are deleted within minutes.

So, I encourage folks to take the test and find out which side of the sales table they are sitting on - just incase there is any doubt.


----------



## Steamboat Bill

PerryM said:
			
		

> I’ve done both and am now permanently banned from the “Official” TW site – all posts, no matter how benign, are deleted within minutes.



Join the club...I was permanently banned from DISboards....sometimes the TRUTH hurts them too much.


----------



## roadsister

duplicate post...I WASN'T CENSORED...LOL


----------



## roadsister

PerryM said:
			
		

> Roadsister,
> 
> As long as the average WM owner is snookered into believing they are in a WM sponsored web site, I will be warning them that they, instead, are in a cyberspace TW sales gallery and NOT the home of WM the Club. *If you choose to be 'the savior', just remember, most owners go to the site just for information on the resorts from other owners so not an issue to them.*
> 
> I believe TW shut down the “Official” TW web site, for a while several years ago, when the heat (aka “The truth”) got too much for them.  One can only hope. *FACT: TW shut down the website due to the very thing you keep trying to post.....resales posting.*
> 
> I just find it incredulous that fellow WM owners play along with the sales pitch. * Your choice to feel that way, my choice to not see it in that light.  I will continue to help owners with resort questions and information, my choice.*
> 
> Here’s a little test folks on the “Official” TW web site can do to see which side of the sales table they are sitting on:
> 
> 1)	Mention the dreaded word “Resale”
> 2)	Ask all members on that site to ook at the internet address, on the top line of their browser, and see if it says TrendWest, the home of slick salesreps or WorldMark the Club that represents all WM owners.
> *AGAIN, see rule 2 above.*
> 
> I’ve done both and am now permanently banned from the “Official” TW site – all posts, no matter how benign, are deleted within minutes.
> * AGAIN, see rule 2 - And you want other owners to be banned after telling them you were for this??? That's what I call looking out for your fellow owners....I find myself shaking my head in disbelief on that one*



*Oh, and just for the record....My user log on was deleted off the wmowners.com forum by one moderator -not for a post on there -but because I called him on tracking my family on another forum and he got mad. There were no rules broken there, he manages the forum and decided he did not want me posting there.....at least TW let you know.*

Perry, You keep reposting and talk amongest yourself, I'm going to watch the Raider's game and get something to eat.


----------



## roadsister

GreenMum said:
			
		

> roadsister, I admire your approach to things.  I have to admit, I was miffed when they deleted my post because I stated "I considered the drive from St George to Zions as longer than I wanted to make."  I guess it follows under the above category.



GreenMum,
I didn't see your post so I can't comment on how it was worded to get it deleted. 
If it was something to the effect of "the stupid assho**s that printed the directions..." it would be a case for deletion.  Did you call owner services with your issue (rule 4)?


----------



## GreenMum

Roadsister, no, it wasn't anything more than dissatisfaction than the drive to Zions being about an hour & that's not really close.  (My langauge is not that colorful).  It was a couple of years ago, but I was surprised that they were annoyed over anything that may imply negativity towards locations, drive, etc.  

I haven't had much other experience on the site.  I had read regularly there before it became harder to navigate---everything is specific to resorts now it seems.

But I agree, they will run it as they want---keeping or losing people & others have the ability to move elsewhere.  Do they allow references to TUG?


----------



## cotraveller

roadsister said:
			
		

> Perry,
> 
> if you choose to develop your own website because you are discontent with the second website that was developed by other owners you can choose to do that also.



Worked for me.  The link to my site is in my signature.   I've been a little lax about posting there recently due to other commitments but it will get active again soon.


----------



## roadsister

GreenMum said:
			
		

> Roadsister, no, it wasn't anything more than dissatisfaction than the drive to Zions being about an hour & that's not really close.  (My langauge is not that colorful).  It was a couple of years ago, but I was surprised that they were annoyed over anything that may imply negativity towards locations, drive, etc.
> 
> I haven't had much other experience on the site.  I had read regularly there before it became harder to navigate---everything is specific to resorts now it seems.
> 
> But I agree, they will run it as they want---keeping or losing people & others have the ability to move elsewhere.  Do they allow references to TUG?



Did you ask the fourm host why it was deleted?  I have had a couple posts censored and have always PM'd and ask and received an answer.

I kind of agree with you....when the site came back up I found it hard to navigate for awhile also.  

I can't answer the TUG reference either.  Sorry - my guess would be you could reference it but not put a link.

The different forums are for different things for me...
the WM4M is for getting resort info, asking for info from owners that have been to that resort, and finding one time credits to rent/buy from owners, getting accurate information on what's happening with new resorts, and WM/TW announcements.  
The wmowners site is for political debate that isn't discussed on the WM4M, and resales.  
TUG has many different timeshare owners that contribute to an overall informed timeshare owner.....many that aren't WM owners can give you information about other resorts, their issues and how they were handled, resort reviews from around the world, and political debate.  I find the people posting here have so much knowledge that all owners should be aware of no matter what timeshare they own. 
Timeshareforums.com is an offshoot from this forum I believe, with much the same information....much like the wmowners site is from the WM4M....
I gleen information from 3 of the 4 that I am allowed to visit.  
They all have rules you must follow. 
If you have the time, read the other threads here and on the timeshareforum....many very knowledgeable timeshare owners with 20 plus years under their belts.  It gives you a clearer picture of what are issues and what is hype.


----------



## roadsister

duplicate post


----------



## roadsister

cotraveller said:
			
		

> Worked for me.  The link to my site is in my signature.   I've been a little lax about posting there recently due to other commitments but it will get active again soon.



Can't wait.....:whoopie:


----------



## roadsister

ragtop said:
			
		

> Fact.  Check it by asking WM who its attorney was when the documents were signed.  Or just look at the signatures!



I would love to check.....who did you talk to so I can call them and ask the question again? You surely got a name if you actually talked to someone to confirm this.
Looking at the signatures would be an _assumption_.


----------



## ragtop

roadsister said:
			
		

> I would love to check.....who did you talk to so I can call them and ask the question again?
> Looking at the signatures would be an _assumption_.



Ask the WM Board.  Satisfy yourself.  Don't take anyone else's word for it.


----------

