# HCC Breckenridge Lodge For Sale????



## Tedpilot (Nov 10, 2007)

I came across this:  http://www.zillow.com/HomeDetails.htm?zprop=2146914024

Also:  http://www.liquidsnow.com/235gk_web/

I wonder what is going on here???


----------



## Kagehitokiri (Nov 10, 2007)

good question. 

maybe theyre selling and buying something else? ER has done it a number of times. if they got a deal on the property originally, that could be an incentive to do so.

or they might be trading down if they did not get a deal?



> For more information, to arrange a private showing, or to request the full data sheet for this home please contact Jim Wilson
> Phone : 970-333-1612





> Days on Zillow: 11



were this property and OBX the only 2 worth ~$2MM, or was there a 3rd?


----------



## vineyarder (Nov 10, 2007)

Sure looks like the same house; does anyone know if the address is the same?


----------



## tombo (Nov 10, 2007)

Since HCC owns all the properties outright,  they can sell any or all locations for a profit and give the owners(themselves not the members) a big bonus. Or if they are in a financial bind they can sell the high dollar locations and replace them with lower priced alternatives. They can refinance existing locations  taking the equity out of the resorts and leaving the club with a bigger debt load. They can do whatever they want and you as a "member" get no vote and have no veto power. 

You have to "trust" HCC with your investment. So much for the proclaimed "transparency" of the books that the clubs are going to voluntarily exhibit to make members feel safe about their investment. Instead members find out that one of their highest dollar locations is for sale from an internet web site, not from a letter or even a courtesy e-mail from HCC to members. No poll or input from members offered even as an option before listing it for sale. HCC owns everything, and they will sell any location if and when they want, no matter what the members want. But just trust HCC to do what is right.

I know that my timeshare "deeds" might not guarantee me the world. I do know however that I will never be surprised to see my weeks listed for sale on the internet by the HOA without my consent( as long as I am paid up to date on my annual MF's). I know my resorts can't be sold without a vote of the owners(my deed makes me an owner). I know what I own and that I don't have to "trust" other people to decide how to invest my money or what vacation locations need to be sold or purchased for me.


----------



## Brian222golf (Nov 10, 2007)

I believe that the house is leased, so maybe the owners are selling it.  That does not mean the lease will be terminated.


----------



## Steamboat Bill (Nov 10, 2007)

This is indeed one of the FEW leased homes in the HCC collection. Yes, it is for sale and HCC will replace it with another home if it gets sold. Thus, HCC does not actually own this property.


----------



## tripTX (Nov 10, 2007)

*reservations*

I hope any sale wouldn't affect existing reservations.  Planning a large family trip to the lodge was a big incentive for us in joining HCC.  It was the first reservation we made -- a week there next summer.  The whole extended family is excited about it.


----------



## tombo (Nov 10, 2007)

I kept hearing about all of the million dollar homes the clubs are purchasing. Now it ends up that some homes are leased! A lease is a financial obligation that doesn't end until the lease does, and it will never become an asset. The club will never own these homes and the lease can be terminated at the end of the lease period, or at any time with any outs the owners placed in the lease contract.  

Tripx joined  HCC with this SPECIFIC location in mind for this summer, made his first reservations here for his family for this summer, and it won't be available this summer if it sells? I am sure they told Tripx when he made his reservations that this is a leased property that probably won't be available for HCC members next summer.  Don't worry Tripx, as the club cheerleaders here will tell you, just trust HCC. They will have a place for you even if it isn't where you reserved when you joined the club. Just trust them. They dangled this prime example of what HCC "buys" in front of you to get you to buy, now it is being taken away. On top of that HCC wasn't even buying it. Typical bait and switch tactics. However keep on trusting them to buy and lease things for the good of all members. 

This would be a good time to get in on the 3 in 1 out option before this pyramid house of cards collapses. Hopefully they haven't fudged on that too!


----------



## Steamboat Bill (Nov 10, 2007)

tombo: almost every DC leases a few properties (inclding Exclusive Resorts), but the majority of DC homes (90%) are owned by the DC.

HCC has always advised members and guests that this HCC property is leased. The sky is nto falling...give me a break.

Any post abot some conspiracy shows a complete ignorance about DCs.


----------



## tombo (Nov 10, 2007)

Tell Tripx how lucky he is that the Breckenridge location, that is one of the the main reasons he joined, won't ever be owned by HCC, and probably won't be leased by HCC for him to make his family trip there that he has reserved through HCC for this summer. Sure seems fair to you. 

You made reservations at the Hard Rock where you are staying tonight. How would you like it if they cancelled saying that they had only leased the hotel from Planet Hollywood, and the lease ran out after you had already made plans? But they could put you and your kids up somehwere near there hopefully. Just trust them.


----------



## tombo (Nov 10, 2007)

By the way, for a club so open and forthcoming with this being a leased property, the first 3 posts in this thread wanted to know why HCC is selling it.  HCC doesn't sell leased property, so they obviously didn'y know it was leased. Also Tripx didn't seem to know it wasn't an HCC owned property. 

I notice how you like to compare HCC to a country club. I have belonged to numerous country clubs in my life, and not one of them ever leased the golf course. In fact most gave me stock when I joined which made me an owner of the course and facilities.


----------



## Steamboat Bill (Nov 10, 2007)

tombo said:


> Tell Tripx how lucky he is that the Breckenridge location, that is one of the the main reasons he joined, won't ever be owned by HCC, and probably won't be leased by HCC for him to make his family trip there that he has reserved through HCC for this summer. Sure seems fair to you.



You are speculating (without knowing all the facts) that the home will not be available for tripTX this sumer, yet the truth is HCC still has a current lease contract for his reservation time.

I beleive there are only 2 HCC properties out of 30 that are leased. 

There are some locations that forbid DCs from buying a property and only allow leases (Brekenridge does not have a restriction). 

It continues ot AMAZE me to read the doom and gloom posts and negative speculation about DCs from "non-members" and contrast that with the 99.999% positive praise from DC members.


----------



## Brian222golf (Nov 10, 2007)

Hey tombo,

You are clearly showing your ingnorance of the real estate business.  In the secondary home market, people who are buying homes know they are obligated to the leases that are in place.  I am positive that any weeks that are reserved by HCC, will be honored by the new home owners.  That is how the secondary home market works.


----------



## tombo (Nov 10, 2007)

I am not sure about the lease for next summer, but neither are you. Almost all leases on homes have a clause allowing the owner to cancel the lease if he sells the property. Any owner knows the absence of that clause would prevent them from selling it to any buyer that wanted it to live in or use for personal use. Someone with a multi-million dollar home had a lawyer draw up the lease and I bet he can cancel the lease upon sale of the property.


----------



## NYP (Nov 10, 2007)

In defense of HCC, much of this misinformation can be clarified if one reads the CEO letter from High Country Club which is available here:

http://www.highcountryclub.com/about/CEO_Letter.asp

HCC currently has 33 properties which means that 7 are leased. (read the CEO statement. He says that less than 25% of 32 homes are leased)
If you call them, they will clearly indicate which ones are leased and which are not and will clearly tell you when the lease expires. I am pretty sure of six of the leased properties. I believe that one the indicated home in Breckenridge, the Village Hall home in Beaver Creek (unfortunately the two nicest homes) The two in Playa del Carmen, The two in Tuscany and one other are leased (you can call or email them to check, they will not hide these facts from you) From what I remember, the Breckenridge lease was for at least two or three years. I strongly disagree with tombo, and on the contrary, if a DC were to lease a property, THEY would make sure that any buyer of the property during a sale would honor the lease. If you have owned any rental property or rented any rental property, a leasee would be an idiot to allow the sale of a home or apartment to cancel the lease that is in effect. In fact a leased property is much more difficult to sell than one that is vacant. 
Many, but not all DC's lease some properties. They may do this to fill in acute demand or to test certain destinations before commiting to a purchase. Exclusive Resorts does this as does Quintess, Ultimate Resorts and others. As long as they keep it below 25% and the cost of a lease is less than what yearly dues multiplied by occupancy would generate. In the case of HCC, that number would be somewhere between $4000 and $6000 per month. The only problem is that Tanner and Haley went way above the 25% level and lease costs were above the yearly dues collected to cover them.


----------



## Kagehitokiri (Nov 10, 2007)

welcome to the forum NYP 

T&H leased 67% of their properties, and also rented short term on top of that to make their guaranteed availability policy work.


----------



## Tedpilot (Nov 11, 2007)

Tombo said: "the first 3 posts in this thread wanted to know why HCC is selling it"

Hm, I started this thread and didn't say that HCC was selling it.  I do know from my due diligence when I joined the club that this property had sold just before HCC started up.  I assumed, yes assumed, that HCC bought it but cannot confirm that from the info I have.  If I remember right the selling price was well below the current asking price.

The other leased properties mentioned by NYP check w/ what I know.  Though I'm not sure that the penthouse unit in Playa is leased, the beachfront certainly is.  I had heard that HCC bought the penthouse b/c the beachfront lease was only a year or two.  They leased that property because the beachfront house they had being built there was damaged by a hurricane and thus backed out of the deal...who wouldn't?

I checked HCC's reservations and didn't see where the lodge was taken off of the books for the future.  If you look at the BC Village Hall you'll see that the presumed owner has their weeks set aside well in advance, likely due to a lease clause....21 Feb-6 Mar 09 & 11-31 July 09.  This could be scheduled maintenance down time too.

In any case, I am not concerned.  If HCC owns the lodge they will sell w/ a lease contingency no doubt that will cover all current reservations.  If they are leasing, I couldn't imagine that they'd be foolish enough not to have their basis covered.  Lastly, if this property does go away I am sure they will replace it with a like-n-kind.


----------



## tombo (Nov 11, 2007)

Most if not all of the homes leased by DC's were built to sell, not to lease. In the current slow housing market leasing an empty property is preferable to letting it sit empty while paying the interest on the loan or even worse the whole note. However make no mistake, the goal of the owner is to sell and divest himself of the property. A smart owner will not lock himself into a lease that would cause him to miss a sale. People here act like HCC is in the driver's seat with regards to the lease. The owner decides to lease or not lease his property, and under what terms. The owner would be a poor businessman if they sign a long term, non -cancellable lease on a property they are trying to sell. Usually the lease will have an out that says within 30, 60, 90 days (etc) of the sale of the property, that the lease will be null and void. 

HCC might have done a great job and locked the owners of the leased properties into long term, non-cancellable leases even though I doubt it. What shocks me is the trust here for someone you don't even know(HCC). No one has asked to see copies of leases on properties that are currently in the club? How long are the leases for? What are you paying to lease these properties? Can these leases be cancelled by either party and for what reasons?  The answer is we knoww HCC is taking care of it. I am sure T&H owners would have felt the same way.

Everyone talks about how T and H leased a large amount of their properties and it was one of the leading factors in their demise. Why have none of the "members" have asked to have it stated in writing what percentage of properties can be leased by HCC? Bill said only 2 properties out of 30 are leased, and he is constantly stating facts. New "facts" are 7  leased out of   33. So now everyone is shooting for a percentage quoted below:
"As long as they keep it below 25% and the cost of a lease is less than what yearly dues multiplied by occupancy would generate. In the case of HCC, that number would be somewhere between $4000 and $6000 per month. The only problem is that Tanner and Haley went way above the 25% level and lease costs were above the yearly dues collected to cover them."

 What is in writing preventing HCC from exceeding 25%, 35%, or even 100% of the properties being leased? Everyone here is trusting HCC and the other DC's to do what is right. Nothing needs to be in writing regarding debt loads(how much per member), percent of properties allowed to be leased, what per cent of the owned properties appraised value is the max that can be financed (100%, 40% etc). How about a maximum management fee or salary that can be charged by the "owners" of the club? Just the salespeople's statements and the CEO's goals and objectives seems to be adequate for most here.

Statements like this are amazing to me as a businessman:
"In any case, I am not concerned. If HCC owns the lodge they will sell w/ a lease contingency no doubt that will cover all current reservations. If they are leasing, I couldn't imagine that they'd be foolish enough not to have their basis covered. Lastly, if this property does go away I am sure they will replace it with a like-n-kind."  It says I blindly trust them to do everything right for me and I require no accountability in writing or otherwise. How about if they replace Breckinridge with nothing in the area, or a much lesser property? But we trust them,they wouldn't do that. No business would ever get greedy and Bankrupt the business. A situation like that has never happened! Oops, we forgot T&H.

Another quote on why they lease:
"Many, but not all DC's lease some properties. They may do this to fill in acute demand or to test certain destinations before commiting to a purchase. " 
DC"s lease mainly because it is much cheaper than purchasing in the short run. It allows them to keep much more of your membership fees for themselves as profit and operating expenses since the lease doesn't require a down payment or large mtge notes like a mortgage does. They also lease to be able to show potential members at the sales presentation many more vacation destinations than they can afford to own. If a lot of leases run out without obtaining new leases, you will end up with a lot more members than available weeks to use.You also might no longer have availability in many areas you used to because the leases ran out and there were no comparable properties available to lease in the area. The worst thing is that the more of the DC's capital that is spent on leases, the less capital is available to actually purchase properties. You could end up in a few years as a member of a leasing company.

Of course all of the above is ridiculous because you "TRUST" DC"s, and their salespeople and their CEOs. You don't need anything in writing, you trust this smart business model. The CEO's are brilliant businessmen like Donald Trump. Well Donald Trump left many investors in his Atlantic City real estate venture broke after he filed bankruptcy a few years ago, and they had contracts in writing. Keep buying, keep blindly trusting, and if these DC"s go bankrupt you will have no one to blame but yourself.


----------



## pwrshift (Nov 11, 2007)

Why would you be so defensive of HCC on your first post, which I found quite informative btw? Are you in the DC business or just a member?



NYP said:


> In defense of HCC, much of this misinformation can be clarified if one reads the CEO letter from High Country Club which is available here:
> 
> http://www.highcountryclub.com/about/CEO_Letter.asp
> 
> ...


----------



## Bourne (Nov 11, 2007)

tombo said:


> Of course all of the above is ridiculous because you "TRUST" DC"s, and their salespeople and their CEOs. You don't need anything in writing, you trust this smart business model. The CEO's are brilliant businessmen like Donald Trump. Well Donald Trump left many investors in his Atlantic City real estate venture broke after he filed bankruptcy a few years ago, and they had contracts in writing. Keep buying, keep blindly trusting, and if these DC"s go bankrupt you will have no one to blame but yourself.



Here is another little peice of info. 

ER sold ALL properties at Rosemary Beach location. That option as a location does NOT EXIST anymore. 

ER's New York properties at Trump are LEASES.

1. Bill's info is dated but correct. At one time, HCC did have 2 leased properties. Him an I joined within weeks and saw the same info in documents during due diligence. Now they are higher than before as the number of properties have increased. Then again, remember that when HCC started, their average cost per property was 600K. They moved it up to 850K but are actually buying in the 1MM+ range now to compete with competition. 

2. HCC or any other DC will not allow a reservation to be made beyond it's lease period for a leased property. If, due to market conditions, it cannot honor the reservation, it would replace the property with a comparable one to honor those reservations. 
Before you start comparing this anology with T&H, remember that HCC is moving it's lease cost from one property to another. T&H promised everyone the moon i.e. Christmas week at Aspen. If it is BOOKED, we will put you up at a comparable property.Keyword *BOOKED*. 


I'll say it once and once only...

* A typical DC membership is an agreement to use a set of properties. The membership does not include OWNERSHIP. The owner/investors can choose to buy, sell or lease properties as they wish to do so. They are not obligated to ask permission, conduct polls etc. If you like the setup, buy into it. Don't like it, take your money and vacation usage elsewhere. 

Bought into it and don't like it. Walk away. Unlike timeshares, it is a market driven environment. The developers responsibility does not end after selling 52 weeks. A drop in quality or locations can mean that new members will not join and old one's would be waiting to get out resulting in the demise of the club. Bottomline is, unlike timeshares, DC's have an incentive to deviver a consistent quality product. Their business model depends on it. 
*


----------



## tombo (Nov 11, 2007)

Bourne you said:
"Bill's info is dated but correct. At one time, HCC did have 2 leased properties. Him an I joined within weeks and saw the same info in documents during due diligence." Using his information which was correct at the time his quote:"there are only 2 HCC properties out of 30 that are leased. " That means when you bought 28 were owned and 2 were leased.

Fast forward to today and Pwrshift's correct facts. Pwrshift's quote:"HCC currently has 32 properties which means that 7 are leased. (read the CEO statement. He says that less than 25% of 32 homes are leased)". Using this up to date information shows that HCC now owns 25 locations while it leases 7 locations for a total of 32.

This is bad news for "members". Using your own facts, HCC has grown from 30 locations when Bourne and Bill joined to 32 locations today. However the number of properties leased has more than tripled (from 2 leased when you joined to 7 leased today)  while the number of properties owned has decreased from 28 when you joined to only 25 owned today. If they continue this trend there should be 40 properties available soon with 18 being leased and 22 owned. However the above facts are irrelevant to some as everyone must trust blindly without actually delving into the facts and asking questions. 


I feel your quote is one the best reasons to not join that I have read. Your quote:  
"A typical DC membership is an agreement to use a set of properties. The membership does not include OWNERSHIP. The owner/investors can choose to buy, sell or lease properties as they wish to do so. They are not obligated to ask permission, conduct polls etc. If you like the setup, buy into it. Don't like it, take your money and vacation usage elsewhere." 

You the members supply 100% of the money the owner uses to buy property for himself, the owner. The owner can, with what used to be your money, buy, sell, or lease properties as he wishes.The owner now has no obligation to ask your permission, or conduct polls, or have a shareholders meeting on how to spend the money you invested because your investment has now turned into his money. You will never own anything, and no matter what direction the club takes you will have to pay high annual fees to rent the property from the owner that you bought for him.  He can charge anything he wants for a salary or management fees as he is totally in charge of his properties and his club. He can lease at much or as little as he wants, buy or sell when and where he wants. Best of all for the owner, all of this was funded by people that have no authority over anything he does in the future with what was their hard earned money. 

 I will take my money and vacation usage elsewhere where I can decide how my money is spent. I will  also try to warn people not to invest a lot of hard earned money in something that they have no input or ownership in. If you trust the DC's blindly and follow like a lamb to the slaughter, remember the words of Jim Jones in Guyana as you pay to join. Drink the Kool-aid children, drink the Kool-aid.


----------



## Kagehitokiri (Nov 11, 2007)

at what point do ad hominem attacks start violating TUG TOS?


----------



## vivalour (Nov 11, 2007)

Kagehitokiri said:


> at what point do ad hominem attacks start violating TUG TOS?



I guess this isn't the Oxford Debating Union.... Maybe vineyarder will provide TUG moderators with copies of Miss Manners' Guide to Etiquette (see the previous thread) to elevate the level of discourse.


----------



## Tedpilot (Nov 11, 2007)

This just in from HCC, directly quoted in an email to me regarding the inquiry:

"Yes, the owner of the house is trying to sell.  This is one of our original homes and we do not own it.  However, there is a provison on the purchase that our remaining 4 years on the least be fulfilled.  So this shouldn’t affect our Members at this time."

TripTX - You should be good to go.  It is a great place and you'll enjoy teh serenity there!

Tombo - I'm not sure what your constructive input is BTW?  What is it?  Debate?  Apparently we're from two different schools of thought on how to debate.  In any case, leased property for use is not an uncommon facet of travel entities.  If it is a sincere concern of yours vs poking at what you consider a fallacy, I sugegst you cancel most all of your hotel reservations and any flights that you have on a major airline...never know, leasors may want their hotels and aircraft back ASAP and leave you high and dry.  So to say, drive your car and pack a tent to be sure.

Ted

PS - It is not every day that I throw out a red herring analogy but today something smelled like fish.


----------



## Steamboat Bill (Nov 11, 2007)

Steamboat Bill said:


> I beleive there are only 2 HCC properties out of 30 that are leased.



Tombo:
If you looked at my above quoted post, it was made on Saturday night at 11:19pm after all day at Universal Studios and an evening pizza pool party (which I organized for 200 people) at the Hard Rock Hotel (and several strong rum drinks).

I was on a friend's laptop on the wireless Internet and I checked my e-mail and a few web sites including TUG. I was checking new posts as I just had an interesting conversation with a Quintess member and I told him about TUG and invited him to our forum.

When I joined HCC, there were only 2 leased properties. Quite honestly, I have not kept a detailed eye on which new properties are leased or owned. I just enjoy my trips!

I am even MORE amazed than ever at the tremendous MISINFORMATION posted on this forum by non-DC members. Why do so many non-DC members want to rain on our parade?


----------



## Steamboat Bill (Nov 11, 2007)

Tedpilot said:


> This just in from HCC, directly quoted in an email to me regarding the inquiry:
> 
> "Yes, the owner of the house is trying to sell.  This is one of our original homes and we do not own it.  However, there is a provison on the purchase that our remaining 4 years on the least be fulfilled.  So this shouldn’t affect our Members at this time."



4 years remaining on the lease is a long time. This is a HUGE property that would easily rent for 3-5x my daily HCC costs.


----------



## vineyarder (Nov 11, 2007)

tombo said:


> What is in writing preventing HCC from exceeding 100% of the properties being leased? Everyone here is trusting HCC and the other DC's to do what is right.



Hmmm... what could possibly prevent HCC (or any other DC for that matter) from exceeding 100% of the properties being leased?  Perhaps mathematics???  Lets see... if HCC has 32 properties, then L (leased) + O (owned) = 32.  in order to have > 100% leased, they would have to have a minimum of 33 properties leased... so if L = 33, O = -1, which could be correct under other fact circumstances, but cannot be true given the constraints of the stated problem.  Therefore, there is no mathematical solution that will allow HCC (or any  other DC) to exceed 100% of the properties being leased.  

Laws of mathematics notwithstanding, I'm sure PerryM will have some folksy platitude about Jack the Ripper that will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that using "felon math" it is actually possible for HCC to lease > 100% (maybe even 200 or 300%) of their properties...


----------



## Steamboat Bill (Nov 11, 2007)

vineyarder said:


> Lets see... if HCC has 32 properties, then L (leased) + O (owned) = 32.  in order to have > 100% leased, they would have to have a minimum of 33 properties leased... so if L = 33, O = -1, which could be correct under other fact circumstances, but cannot be true given the constraints of the stated problem.  Therefore, there is no mathematical solution that will allow HCC (or any  other DC) to exceed 100% of the properties being leased.
> .



Wow...that could actually be an FCAT (Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test) mathematics question.


----------



## Bourne (Nov 12, 2007)

Steamboat Bill said:


> I am even MORE amazed than ever at the tremendous MISINFORMATION posted on this forum by non-DC members. Why do so many non-DC members want to rain on our parade?



Spot on. 

In the past few months, there have been more negative posts on this forum than positive. 

I understand that a DC membership plan is unique and different from timeshares. It is like other club memberships and does not come with a deed. Again, someone may have a negative opinion about it. Feel free to post about it. 

_But this level of negativity is bordering on saying that all DC memberships are doomed for failure. Even if it is, move one after making your point. It's not your money that is on the line._


----------



## Bourne (Nov 12, 2007)

Deleted...


----------



## PerryM (Nov 12, 2007)

*Texas hold'em anyone?*

One question that alludes me with DC’s is the relationship to the founders – if a founder get’s divorced, for instance, can the court order the sale of the founder’s stake in the DC?  Or a tax court or other courts.  Since I’ve never signed a NDA with a DC just what firewalls exist to prevent this?

Is there insurance or bonds or something to insulate DC members from the follies of the DC owners?

Could the DC be lost in a card game one night and liquidated the next day by the new owner or the rules completely rewritten by the new owner and the only recourse is for members to start to exercise their exit clause?


----------



## Bourne (Nov 12, 2007)

Almost all DC ownership is with a corporation. DHH may be an exception to my knowledge but that too may be a corp. 

I would never buy one owned by a family for the reason stated above. It may be run by a family but the entity that I would deal with has to be a corporation. 

IMHO, any one in the DC business would create a corp. Without it, the owner stands to lose a lot more as his/her estate would be included as part of litigation proceeds. 

Same reason I have a corp for my rental properties.


----------



## pwrshift (Nov 12, 2007)

This looks pretty close to a family type of 'corporation' to me.

http://www.highcountryclub.com/about/Management_Team.asp





Bourne said:


> ...I would never buy one owned by a family for the reason stated above. It may be run by a family but the entity that I would deal with has to be a corporation.
> 
> .


----------



## vivalour (Nov 12, 2007)

PerryM said:


> One question that alludes me with DC’s is the relationship to the founders – if a founder get’s divorced, for instance, can the court order the sale of the founder’s stake in the DC?  Or a tax court or other courts.  Since I’ve never signed a NDA with a DC just what firewalls exist to prevent this?
> 
> Is there insurance or bonds or something to insulate DC members from the follies of the DC owners?
> 
> Could the DC be lost in a card game one night and liquidated the next day by the new owner or the rules completely rewritten by the new owner and the only recourse is for members to start to exercise their exit clause?



Hey PerryM: did you ever consider writing  for film or TV? If you are non-union, Hollywood would probably welcome you with open arms. Lots of $$$ and opportunity for such an amazing imagination.


----------



## TarheelTraveler (Nov 12, 2007)

I can't comment on Perry's remarks with respect to all DCs, but I can say that with Crescendo, for example, they have very good legal counsel which put in a legal limited liability structure to minimize the potential losses in the event something went awry at one of the homes.  This is aside from substantial insurance and the DC rules applicable to members.  Nonetheless, are there any less risks with a timeshare development?  In my view, owning an interest in a DC is a lot less risky than owning an interest in a rental house.


----------



## Bourne (Nov 12, 2007)

pwrshift said:


> This looks pretty close to a family type of 'corporation' to me.
> 
> http://www.highcountryclub.com/about/Management_Team.asp



Now you are questioning *my* intelligence. 


*It may be run by a family but the entity that I would deal with has to be a corporation. *


----------



## tripTX (Nov 12, 2007)

*good news about this summer*

I was thrilled to hear that the current reservations will still be honored under HCC's lease agreement.  We're all really looking forward to our time at the lodge.  Thanks to those of you that took the time to help figure out what was going on here and putting some fears to rest.

Still a fairly new HCC member.  I've just used a couple of my weeks so far.  They were both great experiences, so I'm looking forward to many more trips to come.

Thanks again for your help guys.  This forum has been a great source of info (when I was researching destination clubs and now as a new member).


----------



## tombo (Nov 12, 2007)

Vineyard, out of all of the facts in my posts you misquote me and somehow that makes you feel good about your DC?
My quote:
"What is in writing preventing HCC from exceeding 25%, 35%, or even 100% of the properties being leased?"
This means exceeding 25%, exceeding 35%, or even 100% of the properties could be leased as I stated.  I said or even 100% of the properties being leased, I never said exceeding 100%. If you need it clarified that is what I said. Read into it whatever but everyone knows 100% is the max, we don't need a math lesson.

How about the facts. How about the fact that there was only 2 total leased units with HCC when 2 members joined years ago, but over 3 times that many leased now with the total of leased units equalling 7? My question remains the same: What is to prevent them from leasing any amount they want? There is no safeguard in place. If current actions reflect future trends, you will have more leased properties and less owned properties in the not too near future. 

You had 28 owned properties with 2 leased for a total of 30  properties when Bill joined. Today with the great growth of  HCC there is a total of 32 properties ( a growth of 2 locations), but only 25 of the 32 properties are owned now. This is less owned units than there were years ago. The growth of locations from 30 to 32 is by way of leasing. Simple math like you like. 7 leased now and 25 owned. 

Good rebuttal making my statement sound like I advocated a possibility of over 100% being possible in your paraphrase. I don't believe even 80% leased would ever happen. I simply stated that there is nothing any member or the law could do to stop the family (oops CEO's) if they did decide to lease 100% of the locations. You gave them your money and they now can do anything they want with it because it is now their money. However you sidestep the facts that the number of units leased, and the percentage of total properties which are leased instead of owned is increasing. The total number of units owned and the percentage of units owned is dropping. These are simple mathematics and the facts are relevant, not the "goals" and promises of your DC. 

You smugly state obvious mathematics while misquoting me and sidestepping every point I made. For your response to my post to be to prove that the total percentage of anything can't be over 100% (which I never said), followed up by complaining that Perry will use false facts to prove you wrong is kind of like the pot calling the kettle black. You have had 2 days to disect everything I said and the best response you can come up with is twisting my words around and proving that 100% is the maximum percentage possible. 

That will help you greatly if the trend to lease more and purchase less continues because you can be confident that they will never lease more than 100% of the properties. There is one percentage you forgot. You as a member own 0% of HCC, you own 0% of any properties they buy, and you own 0% of the money you paid to join.


----------



## NYP (Nov 12, 2007)

tombo said:


> _How about the facts._ ........How about the fact that there was only 2 total leased units with HCC when 2 members joined years ago, but over 3 times that many leased now with the total of leased units equalling 7?
> You had 28 owned properties with 2 leased for a total of 30  properties when Bill joined. Today with the great growth of  HCC there is a total of 32 properties ( a growth of 2 locations), but only 25 of the 32 properties are owned now. This is less owned units than there were years ago. The growth of locations from 30 to 32 is by way of leasing. Simple math like you like. 7 leased now and 25 owned.
> 
> .



Tombo,

Before you quote something as fact, get your facts straight.

Breckenridge and Beaver Creek were two of the first four or five HCC properties(I think, but will not state this as a definate fact). So the lease rate in the early stages of the club was probably 40-50%. At that point they were practically giving away memberships. They started adding more owned homes after that point and subsequently added a few more leased homes. 
The last five homes added to HCC have been: Costa Rica, Punta Mita, Puerto Vallarta, Outer Banks and Lake Tahoe. According to HCC, these are owned homes(>50% certainty, so homes 28-33 are 100% owned) . No one ever said that only 2 of the first 30 homes were leased. When Bill joined there were probably 20 or less homes (I am guessing and will not state this as fact), not 30. So please don't say "How about the facts" when you don't have them. Rather than admit you are wrong about the "fact" that HCC has a long term lease on the Breckenridge home, which does not have a cancellation clause (which you stated as probable if not factual) you continue to argue about useless points. 
I apologize if I am attacking your reasoning, which is not what these forums are supposed to be about. But please, one should only state as fact what can be proven but you are free to state an opinion as such. Personal attacks are not productive.


----------



## Steamboat Bill (Nov 12, 2007)

Is anyone else besides me getting tired of this thread?

I think we have beat this issue into the ground as we have received the official HCC answer regarding the facts of HCC leases.


----------



## Tedpilot (Nov 12, 2007)

Tombo, actually, the math of percentage properties leased has significantly dropped over time!  When I joined, there were five properties, two of which were leased...that's 40%.  Those two were Breck & BC.  Given the properties that have been acquired over a two-years time, concerning leased vs purchased, the percentage has steadily decreased.  Does that not indicate that the club's financials are in fact weaning away from your great catstrophy of a predominantly leased club?  

For you historians...the original properties were BC Vil Hall, Breck Lodge, Keystone West, Steamboat, and I believe a different Copper Mountain unit than what is currently on the books.

I suspect that HCC will only lease when that makes financial sense for the club....good or bad as you may see it.  Thus far I would think that they have made some wise decisions, being mostly family run or not.  I gather their intentions of keeping the company in good financial order is as important to them as it is to us and they will strive to make it flourish.  

In the end whether or not I own any percentage of the properties is as relevant to me as if I own a hotel room that I previously used.  The company stands behind the product.


----------



## Tedpilot (Nov 12, 2007)

Bill - CONCUR, can the thread be locked for viewing only?

Ted


----------



## pwrshift (Nov 12, 2007)

Personally, I think the thread is off track, but I don't believe it should be closed only because HCC members are defensive about any form of criticism by non-HCC members.  JMHO


----------



## PerryM (Nov 12, 2007)

*Is that a Moooo I hear?*

I like to keep up with DC’s since I really believe in them – theoretically. 

I will wait until my “Throw away” price of about $35k for a full membership in a new DC or until Trump starts one.  Anyone who can steer folks to his personal line of steaks will take on the DC industry and dominate it some weekend.  It's just a matter of time.

Then many DC owners will find out just how hard the exit clause is to execute.

Until then get ready to moooooooove over folks and let The Donald take on and dominate the DC industry.  Heck, he could make it a reality show and start a DC up in real time and have the contestants taking over the DC industry. 

Imagine 2 teams taking on some hapless DC and out advertise, out spend, and out maneuver the stumbling DC - what a show that would be.

That’s my New Year's wish this year – a Trump DC that we will buy into.


----------



## Kagehitokiri (Nov 13, 2007)

perry, if its so easy and desirable, why havent they done it? ER has been around since 2003 IIRC, and has 3000 members. since they havent, that seems to pretty clearly imply to me that it might not be so easy or desirable.

a number of trump's condos/condohotels have sold out in hours. i just dont see how there is ANY logic to support your assertion here. why would he want to "fix" his RE strat if its not "broke"?


----------



## vivalour (Nov 13, 2007)

PerryM said:


> I will wait until my “Throw away” price of about $35k for a full membership in a new DC or until Trump starts one.  Anyone who can steer folks to his personal line of steaks will take on the DC industry and dominate it some weekend.  It's just a matter of time.
> 
> Then many DC owners will find out just how hard the exit clause is to execute.
> 
> ...




IMO Trump is all about sizzle; he's a great marketer but I sure wouln't trust his steaks -- or his foray into DCs -- if it ever came to pass.


----------



## Kagehitokiri (Nov 13, 2007)

if trump or anyone else did a DC featuring large beachfront villas and unlimited use, id probably be onboard.

the "free" model created by WPR is also appealing.


----------



## PerryM (Nov 13, 2007)

Kagehitokiri said:


> perry, if its so easy (and desirable), why havent they done it? ER has been around since 2003 IIRC, and has 3000 members.
> 
> trump's condos/condohotels sell out instantly. i just dont see how there is ANY logic to support this particular assertion.



I'm sure Trump knows of this niche and has assigned folks to analyze the market for future actions.  He hasn't attempted the timeshare world since I think that he views them as black sheep of real estate.  DC's are another thing - they appeal to the high rollers - the ones that lose millions in his casinos and $400k to them is just pocket change.



vivalour said:


> IMO Trump is all about sizzle; he's a great marketer but I sure wouln't trust his steaks -- or his foray into DCs -- if it ever came to pass.



It might not be Trump, it could be Westin or Marriott or a hotel chain - it's just too easy to start a DC for them to ignore.

If I were a DC member I'd feel like I was in H. G. Wells' War of the Worlds - you know, the cold eyes of the Martian's looking at a the earth and wanting to take it over - waiting for the optimum time....


----------



## Kagehitokiri (Nov 13, 2007)

perry, youre not answering my question.

if his condos/real estate/whatever keeps selling out, and are priced at millions of dollars each, and have considerable condo fees, why would he ever even consider doing anything else? luxury real estate margins can be _very_ good.


----------



## tombo (Nov 13, 2007)

Why would one want a thread closed? If you don't like the direction it is headed or the facts that are brought to light, then you simply quit reading the thread. To close it would be censorship and allow TUG to become a place where only popular views are welcomed.

 If my facts are wrong, they were supplied by owners and they are all available to read on this thread by scrolling back. Please feel free to scroll back and read them.

Quote from Bill: 
I believe only 2 out of 30 HCC propeties are leased.

Quote from Bourne:
Bill's info is dated but correct. At one time, HCC did have 2 leased properties. Him an I joined within weeks and saw the same info in documents during due diligence. Now they are higher than before as the number of properties have increased. 

I have Bourne's statement that he did due diligence when he purchased and these are correct figures. If you want to say my facts are wrong then you need to tell Bourne and Bill that they are wrong because they supplied the facts. I would assume they told the truth and did due diligence to make sure the facts were correct as stated, but if you want to accuse them of throwing false facts on this thread that is your option. 

What shocks me most is that half of the facts I used came from you NYP. You then tell me and I quote:
 "Before you quote something as fact, get your facts straight."

Let me quote you again NYP:
"HCC currently has 33 properties which means that 7 are leased. (read the CEO statement. He says that less than 25% of 32 homes are leased)".

I didn't actually get specific and expect you to be perfect in your numbers like many here (including you) want me to do.  AS you see in your "facts"  you posted which I quote above, you said 33 properties at first and followed it up with 32 properties in the next sentence. I used 32 because that is the number the CEO used. I didn't accuse you of giving false facts as you have done to me. I chalked it up to a simple mistake. I guess only dissenting opinions need to be perfect in their facts. Owners can state any fact and it is acceptable unless quoted and used exactly by a non owner to prove a point that the owners don't like.

NYP another quote from you:
"Rather than admit you are wrong about the "fact" that HCC has a long term lease on the Breckenridge home, which does not have a cancellation clause (which you stated as probable if not factual) you continue to argue about useless points."
You use 33 properties and 32 properties in the same sentence and that is fine. I state that I am not sure if the home has a cancellation clause, but I would be surprised if it didn't. The next statement is that even if HCC does have a lease with no cancellation clause... What is wrong with that. Did I state flat out that there is one? NO! So if there isn't a cancellation clause I said originally that there might not be. A true statement unlike your 33 oops 32 properties. 

Tedpilot Quote:
?This just in from HCC, directly quoted in an email to me regarding the inquiry:

"Yes, the owner of the house is trying to sell. This is one of our original homes and we do not own it. However, there is a provison on the purchase that our remaining 4 years on the least be fulfilled. So this shouldn’t affect our Members at this time."

You state as fact that they don't have a cancellation clause from the above statement. Read the above. HCC said THIS SHOULDN'T AFFECT OUR MEMBERS AT THIS TIME. They didn't say we have an ironclad lease for the next 4 years. It might be, but they aren't as strong in their statements as you are. However to you shouldn't affect our members at this time equals  ironclad 4 year contract with no cancellation possible. HCC didn't say that at all. How about not affecting our members at this time meaning it hasn't sold yet, and if it sells the new buyer might honor it. But to you it is fact. For me to point out the possibility that the lease could be broken by quoting their response is wrong.

If you want to scold people here for using wrong facts, simply look in the mirror. Many of the facts I used were yours.


----------



## PerryM (Nov 13, 2007)

Kagehitokiri said:


> perry, youre not answering my question.
> 
> if his condos/real estate/whatever keeps selling out, and are priced at millions of dollars each, and have considerable condo fees, why would he ever even consider doing anything else? luxury real estate margins can be _very_ good.




Good grief, I don't know the man but if he wants to take over the high end steak market it isn't much of a leap to eye the DC market with all the high roller folks there.


----------



## PerryM (Nov 13, 2007)

*6 of one, half-dozen of the other??*

What’s the difference between leased units and mortgaged units?  In both cases the DC does NOT own the unit, someone else does and rent or mortgage is paid to use them.  It’s my understanding that many units in many DC’s have a mortgage and monthly MF’s are used to pay the mortgage.

I understand that some/most? units in the DC world are owned outright by the DC’s and this is fine.  It’s those monthly mortgage payments that scare the hell out of me and something I’d not want in a DC – even a Trump DC.

Is there a global stat of percentage of DC units owned, leased, and rented?


----------



## Steamboat Bill (Nov 13, 2007)

PerryM said:


> I like to keep up with DC’s since I really believe in them – theoretically.
> 
> I will wait until my “Throw away” price of about $35k for a full membership in a new DC or until Trump starts one.  Anyone who can steer folks to his personal line of steaks will take on the DC industry and dominate it some weekend.  It's just a matter of time.



Considering that EVERYTHING Donald Trump sells is way OVERPRICED.....there is a snowballs chance is you know where that Donald would offer a DC for $35k....it would be more like $350k!

FYI - the OP of this thread is about the Breckenridge property for sale....look how it morphed into a totally different topic. If people want to keep posting...fine with me, but the question by the OP has been answered.

Speaking of steak...has anyone ever tried Kobe beef?

I have tried it three times and hated it all three times and it costs about $75-100 per steak. I would rather go to Morton's any day!


----------



## Bourne (Nov 13, 2007)

Tombo, 

Bill and I joined around the same time i.e. around Christmas of '06.

When I saw something incorrect posted by Bill, I immediately corrected the info as it was dated. Within hours, Bill posted that the info was indeed dated and agreed with the new info. Take whatever you want out of the chain of events. 

Regarding your other question for number of properties, there were about 16 properties when I joined. They were looking at Playa at that time but it had not been signed yet. That's two leases out of 16. 

IMHO, I am okay with leases at this point as DC's are in the real estate business. No one wants to catch a falling knife in this downturn.


----------



## LTTravel (Nov 13, 2007)

removed as incorrect


----------



## Brian222golf (Nov 13, 2007)

I really think that we need to stop giving tombo the time of day.  If someone has a real problem with HCC, then I can understand listening to their concerns.  

Tombo is only trying to stir the pot.  I say that we let him go buy a time share on ebay and then he can enjoy week 38 in the Poconos.


----------



## vineyarder (Nov 13, 2007)

tombo said:


> Vineyard, out of all of the facts in my posts you misquote me and somehow that makes you feel good about your DC?
> My quote:
> "What is in writing preventing HCC from exceeding 25%, 35%, or even 100% of the properties being leased?"
> This means exceeding 25%, exceeding 35%, or even 100% of the properties could be leased as I stated.  I said or even 100% of the properties being leased, I never said exceeding 100%. If you need it clarified that is what I said. Read into it whatever but everyone knows 100% is the max, we don't need a math lesson.
> ...



Jeez - lighten up!  Haven't you ever heard of satire?  If I really passionately cared about the topic of this thread, I would have posted a much more meaningful post, but since the amount of money 'at risk' is so small, it isn't worth seriously debating... so I jumped on a humorous gramatical error ('exceeding' does indeed modify '100%' in your sentence), though you can rest assured that most of would give you the benefit of the doubt and accept that you were aware that they couldn't exceed 100%.   Anyway, it was just a joke and I'm sorry if it hurt your feelings.


----------



## vineyarder (Nov 13, 2007)

Brian222golf said:


> I say that we let him go buy a time share on ebay and then he can enjoy week 38 in the Poconos.



Or maybe Cashiersville, NC, at the 'Paper or Plastic Resort'?


----------



## PerryM (Nov 13, 2007)

*Tsunami DCs....*

A Trump DC would be expensive but the units would be world class and hopefully Trump would do a DC right – even allowing members to participate in real estate appreciation.  It would be an excellent way to take advantage of all his other holdings – even to the point of the DC owing units at his casinos and to allow access to his golf courses and heck a fleet of limos, jets, and helicopters.

I have no doubt many current DC owners would instantly dump their current DC for his – hence the run on the market.  We all know that the Mom and Pop DCs out there would fold like casino cards and one and maybe two current DCs would survive.

No one here actually believes that Trump couldn’t own the DC market overnight do they?  He’d probably let one of his kids run the thing.  No doubt there would be folks lining up 24 hours in advance to just get a lottery ticket to become a member.

This is why we are not DC members yet – the above scenario has me looking at a Throw Away type of membership until a tsunami DC comes along and the only thing left is that DC and a few battered remnants of other DCs.

Time will tell.

P.S.
Trump makes his own rules - expect something so unique that DC stands for Donald's Conquest.


----------



## vineyarder (Nov 13, 2007)

Steamboat Bill said:


> Speaking of steak...has anyone ever tried Kobe beef?
> 
> I have tried it three times and hated it all three times and it costs about $75-100 per steak. I would rather go to Morton's any day!



I have had it several times, both here and in Japan, and I agree - way too mushy... Of course, I don't like filet mignon either; give me a NY Strip, a ribeye, or even a flank steak with chimichurra sauce - I like a steak that bites back!


----------



## Steamboat Bill (Nov 13, 2007)

tombo said:


> What is in writing preventing HCC from *exceeding 25%, 35%, or even 100%* of the properties being leased?





tombo said:


> I said or even 100% of the properties being leased, I never said exceeding 100%. If you need it clarified that is what I said. Read into it whatever but everyone knows 100% is the max, we don't need a math lesson.
> 
> You smugly state obvious mathematics while misquoting me and sidestepping every point I made. For your response to my post to be to prove that the total percentage of anything can't be over 100% (which I never said), followed up by complaining that Perry will use false facts to prove you wrong is kind of like the pot calling the kettle black. You have had 2 days to disect everything I said and the best response you can come up with is twisting my words around and proving that 100% is the maximum percentage possible.



I hate to dig this up again, but High School English Grammar 101 students would view your above quote in RED as part of the same sentence, thus you IMPLY that the number CAN exceed 100%. This may not be what you meant, but it is what you wrote. 

I would refer to this as a perfect case of "_*Res ipsa loquitur*_"...a legal term from the Latin meaning literally, "the thing itself speaks" but is more often translated "the thing speaks for itself". It signifies that further details are unnecessary; the proof of the case is self-evident.


----------



## Steamboat Bill (Nov 13, 2007)

PerryM said:


> A Trump DC would be expensive but the units would be world class and hopefully Trump would do a DC right – even allowing members to participate in real estate appreciation.  It would be an excellent way to take advantage of all his other holdings – even to the point of the DC owing units at his casinos and to allow access to his golf courses and heck a fleet of limos, jets, and helicopters.
> 
> I have no doubt many current DC owners would instantly dump their current DC for his – hence the run on the market.  We all know that the Mom and Pop DCs out there would fold like casino cards and one and maybe two current DCs would survive.
> 
> ...



I would LOVE to see a Trump DC and I would probably join as a charter member as I know the prices will rise fast. However, I probably would NOT dump HCC as it represents such great value.

Remember that Donald has filed bankruptcy before, thus a Trump DC would not be a guaranteed as "money ion the bank"

By 1990, the effects of recession left Trump unable to meet loan payments. Trump financed the construction of his third casino, the $1 billion Taj Mahal, primarily with high-interest junk bonds. That put him at a disadvantage with competitors who used more of their own money to finance their projects. Although he shored up his businesses with additional loans and postponed interest payments, by 1991 increasing debt brought Trump to business bankruptcy and the brink of personal bankruptcy. Banks and bond holders had lost hundreds of millions of dollars, but opted to restructure his debt to avoid the risk of losing more money in court. The Taj Mahal re-emerged from bankruptcy on October 5, 1991, with Trump ceding 50% ownership in the casino to the original bondholders in exchange for lowered interest rates on the debt and more time to pay it off.

On November 2, 1992, the Trump Plaza Hotel was forced to file a prepackaged Chapter 11 Bankruptcy protection plan after being unable to make its debt payments. Under the plan, Trump agreed to give up a 49% stake in the luxury hotel to Citibank and five other lenders. In return Trump would receive more favorable terms on the remaining $550+ million owed to the lenders and retain his position as chief executive, though he would not be paid and would not have a role in day-to-day operations.

By 1994, Trump had eliminated a large portion of his $900 million personal debt and reduced significantly his nearly $3.5 billion in business debt. While he was forced to relinquish the Trump Shuttle (which he had bought in 1989), he managed to retain Trump Tower in New York City and control of his three casinos in Atlantic City. Chase Manhattan Bank, which lent Trump the money to buy the West Side yards, his biggest Manhattan parcel, forced the sale of a parcel to Asian developers. According to former members of the Trump Organization, Trump did not retain any ownership of the site's real estate - the owners merely promised to give him about 30 percent of the profits once the site was completely developed or sold. Until that time, the owners wanted to keep Trump on to do what he did best: build things. They gave him a modest construction fee and a management fee to oversee the development. The new owners also allowed him to put his name on the buildings that eventually rose on the yards because his well-known moniker allowed them to charge a premium for their condos.

In 1995, he combined his casino holdings into the publicly held Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts. Wall Street drove its stock above $35 in 1996, but by 1998 it had fallen into single digits as the company remained profitless and struggled to pay just the interest on its nearly $2 billion in debt. Under such financial pressure, the properties were unable to make the improvements necessary for keeping up with their flashier competitors.

Problems loomed for Trump's casino resorts. In a May 28, 2004, Wall Street Journal article, Trump said the specter of bankruptcy bothered him "from a psychological standpoint," but added, "it really wouldn't matter that much." A number of his bondholders disagreed. In the same article, Meyer Marvald, a Florida retiree who said he owned about $44,000 of the bonds, claimed "[Trump] has the Sword of Damocles hanging over our heads." On October 21, 2004, Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts announced a restructuring of its debt. The plan called for Trump's individual ownership to be reduced from 56 percent to 27 percent, with bondholders receiving stock in exchange for surrendering part of the debt. Since then, Trump Hotels has been forced to seek voluntary bankruptcy protection to stay afloat. After the company applied for Chapter 11 Protection in November 2004, Trump relinquished his CEO position but retained a role as Chairman of the Board. In May 2005the company re-emerged from bankruptcy as Trump Entertainment Resorts Holdings.


----------



## vivalour (Nov 13, 2007)

*Only in the USA...*

Hmm --- I may be missing something here, but why would anyone put their money in a "deedless" vehicle like a DC run by a chronic bankrupt like Trump???? As you say, his skills are in building, and of course, in self-promotion. 

Based on brand name, I have checked out the Trump Tower as possible accommodation when we travel to NYC, but some reports on Tripadvisor say service stinks. Imagine a DC with poor service.


----------



## Kagehitokiri (Nov 13, 2007)

for info on luxury properties, i highly recommend > http://flyertalk.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=220 
as opposed to tripadvisor.



Brian222golf said:


> I really think that we need to stop giving tombo the time of day... Tombo is only trying to stir the pot.



all tombo does is troll. hes successful if there is any response. i dont even read his posts anymore.


----------



## vivalour (Nov 13, 2007)

Kagehitokiri said:


> for info on luxury properties, i highly recommend > http://flyertalk.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=220
> as opposed to tripadvisor.
> .



Thanks Kage... we will check it out.


----------



## Bourne (Nov 13, 2007)

Before TUG Bourne, there was Flyertalk Bourne.  
AA 1MM


----------



## Kagehitokiri (Nov 13, 2007)

joined Apr 2001 - almost an original member 
last post Feb 4 2007

personally, im pretty much only active in the forum i linked. i joined FT in Jun 2006, and have been active since then, whereas ive only been active in this forum since i noticed it in July 2007.

youre welcome vivalour, hope its useful.


----------



## RLG (Nov 13, 2007)

Kagehitokiri said:


> true back and forth discussion is great. everyone benefits from it. ad hominem attacks, not so much.






Kagehitokiri said:


> all tombo does is troll. hes successful if there is any response. i dont even read his posts anymore.



It sure didn't take you very long to change your tune.


----------



## Kagehitokiri (Nov 13, 2007)

RLG,



> troll
> 
> One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument


(NSFW source can be found via google)

perhaps you were not aware of that usage. i used the verb form. clearly not an ad hominem (personal) attack.

i was only voicing my support of Brian222golf's comments. i am in complete agreement with the comments of his that i quoted.


----------



## Steamboat Bill (Nov 13, 2007)

Kage

Great defination of a troll.


----------



## Kagehitokiri (Nov 13, 2007)

before internet usage >

troll(v) / trolling(v)


> 1. To fish for by trailing a *baited* line from behind a slowly moving boat
> 2. _Slang_ To patrol (an area) in search for someone or something


(American Heritage Dictionary, dictionary.com)

"*baited*"(adj), hence the synonymous to "troll," "*bait*" (v)


----------



## RLG (Nov 13, 2007)

Yes, I understood what you meant by a "troll".  I've been participating in message boards since they were on usenet rather than web forums.  I also understand that it's derogatory.

I'm not sure, however, whether you know what "ad hominem" actually means.  

Here's an explanation from Wikipedia:



> An ad hominem argument...consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim...
> 
> It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive...  which consists of criticizing or personally attacking an argument's proponent in an attempt to discredit that argument.



I think accusing someone of being a "troll" simply because they disagree with your point of view fits that definition pretty well.

(BTW, I searched for all of Tombo's posts, since I was curious whether it was true that he is a troll.  The only posts that I saw that were particularly argumentative were on the subject of destination clubs.)


----------



## PerryM (Nov 13, 2007)

*Is that an asteroid I see?  And is that a gnome?*

Trump is a high roller who is riding high now – I suspect the folks who are currently in the DC business have similar backgrounds – high rollers who occasionally go for broke, go bust, and somehow end up on top again.

Me, I’d go with Trump in a second – I’d be one of those guys standing in line at 4 AM waiting to get a lottery ticket for the limited memberships.

The more important image is current DC owners sending in those exit letters and trying to get some money out of the current DC they are in and get in on Trump.  I don't know how sensitive the DC industry is to an event like this - my guess is that it would be an asteroid impact event and wipe out the industry with the new tycoon taking all the marbles - just my guess.

Doesn't that sound like The Donald?

But, Trump is just one out of many folks who could instantly capture the publics attention and cause all kinds of problems for a tiny cottage industry like the DC industry.


A word on treating other Tuggers – why must we insult them?  If you don’t like them or are tired of a thread just zone out or stop subscribing to a thread and not impose your particular definition of fellow timeshare owners upon the rest of us.

One man's troll is another man's lawn gnome - harmless, like Travelocity's one on TV.


----------



## Kagehitokiri (Nov 13, 2007)

i think im with LTTravel, and i wont bother posting anymore.


----------



## RLG (Nov 14, 2007)

PerryM said:


> Me, I’d go with Trump in a second – I’d be one of those guys standing in line at 4 AM waiting to get a lottery ticket for the limited memberships.



Are you kidding me?

The idea that anyone would give money to Trump in a total "trust me" situation is almost laughable.  

I don't really understand why the DC cheerleaders have such trust in the management of their DC's.  However, at least the existing managers don't a long track record of losing investors' money like Trump does.  (Althoug he's come out just fine during the repeated trips to bankruptcy for his companies.)

What priority do think safety of members' deposits would have in a Trump DC?


----------



## PerryM (Nov 14, 2007)

RLG said:


> Are you kidding me?
> 
> The idea that anyone would give money to Trump in a total "trust me" situation is almost laughable.
> 
> ...




Yes I'm kidding you - I am really a gnome that lives in my front yard...


----------



## Steamboat Bill (Nov 14, 2007)

PerryM said:


> One man's troll is another man's lawn gnome - harmless, like Travelocity's one on TV.



Another great Perryism!!!


----------



## vineyarder (Nov 14, 2007)

Kagehitokiri said:


> i think im with LTTravel, and i wont bother posting anymore.



Kags - Don't let RLG, PerryM and Tomboy run you off; your posts are highly informative and a major benefit of this forum... Just ignore them and keep posting!


----------



## PerryM (Nov 14, 2007)

*114º F.................113º F.................112º F turning down the temperature*



vineyarder said:


> Kags - Don't let RLG, PerryM and Tomboy run you off; your posts are highly informative and a major benefit of this forum... Just ignore them and keep posting!



I've not run anyone off - I encourage polite dialogue take place so we may learn from each other.

However, if the temperature is too high I'll turn the temperature of the kitchen down:

114º F.................113º F.................112º F


There, hopefully we can now continue a civil discussion about something I believe needs to be discussed - DCs.  Some of you guys are taking this way too personal - it's not a contest of who is the stronger arm wrestler but of presenting your positions and a dialogue.


----------



## LTTravel (Nov 14, 2007)

Kagehitokiri said:


> i think im with LTTravel, and i wont bother posting anymore.



DC club information news, discussion about risks of DC's, possible DC club failures, New DC club information is all good discussion. But I got tired of hearing about non existent Trump DC clubs (When I have friends with personal experience with his insanity and dishonesty), Fairy tale DC's with $35,000 membership fees, two holidays per year and practically free yearly dues, completely false statements about leases, ownership etc. 
Instead of concentrating on factual information about DC's. In fact. There is another DC buyout pending and if this was being discussed instead of nonsense, I might post information on it. But I am out. And I did break a promise, I am posting one more time.
There is a new DC discussion forum which just went up about 5 days ago. There are no new posts on it yet. I don't know who started it but it is available here:
http://destinationclubforums.com/


----------



## vivalour (Nov 14, 2007)

LT: Thank you for the tip on the new forum and truly sorry to see you go off-line. The new site looks like a scrapbook of media clips on DCs and a replica of this forum in its format. However, IMO competition is always great in keeping everyone on their toes. The more the merrier....


----------



## PerryM (Nov 14, 2007)

*Fresh Meat!*

Thanks, just signed up at DestinationClubForums.com – maybe they can answer some of my questions and can appreciate my creative imagination  

C U there…


----------



## vivalour (Nov 14, 2007)

PerryM said:


> Thanks, just signed up at DestinationClubForums.com – maybe they can answer some of my questions and can appreciate my creative imagination
> 
> C U there…



Uh oh... just when we found a new site free of lawn gnomes/trolls, the little buggers strike again!


----------



## pwrshift (Nov 14, 2007)

Congrats Kage ... I didn't know you joined TUG.  There is a way you can change from 'guest' to 'Tug Member' on one of the stickies.  Last time this came up, I thought you said you didn't feel you felt it was worth the $15 or something to that effect, so I'm glad you now feel otherwise.  Welcome aboard.



Kagehitokiri said:


> joined Apr 2001 - almost an original member
> last post Feb 4 2007
> 
> personally, im pretty much only active in the forum i linked. i joined FT in Jun 2006, and have been active since then, whereas ive only been active in this forum since i noticed it in July 2007.
> ...


----------



## TUGBrian (Nov 14, 2007)

all of you need to cool off and take a break from this thread.


----------



## Steamboat Bill (Nov 14, 2007)

TUG Improvements! said:


> all of you need to cool off and take a break from this thread.



I agree...and I will close it as the answer to the HCC Breckenridge Lodge for sale question was answered and some of the other discussions are getting too personal.


----------

